Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) have cited Shinki and Ed Paik’s witness accounts to support their claims that the plane said to have hit the Pentagon on 9/11 (American Airlines Flight 77), actually flew on a different flight path (‘north of Citgo’) and flew over the Pentagon. Ed Paik’s account appears in their films ‘The Pentacon’, and most recently ‘National Security Alert’ (NSA). In addition, Ed’s account has been cited repeatedly in their articles and online discussions. However, my January 2010 interviews of Ed and Shinki, as well as a 2006 interview of Ed recorded by Dylan Avery, Ed Paik’s drawings and gestures for CIT, and other related material, show that certain facts have been omitted or distorted by CIT in their attempt to make their case for the ‘north of Citgo path’.

I. Summary of Erik Larson 2010 Shinki and Ed Paik Video

II. Ed Paik says he was inside the A-One office when the plane flew past; Shinki says he was outside

III. From inside the office, Ed Paik saw the right wing- and perhaps the fuselage

IV. Shinki Paik said the VDOT tower antenna was “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees”

V. Ed Paik’s drawings and gestures for CIT have been misrepresented

VI. Conclusion

I. Summary of Erik Larson 2010 Shinki and Ed Paik Video

The video is mainly footage from my January 2010 interviews with Shinki and Ed Paik, but also includes 2006 video footage of Ed being interviewed by Russell Pickering, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, which was recorded by Dylan Avery. Ed’s 2006 testimony largely confirms what he told me in 2010. In my interviews, Shinki and Ed Paik said that on September 11, 2001, they were in their shop’s office watching and discussing the news coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Center, when they heard the increasingly loud noise of a large jet approaching their location, very low. Shinki was behind the counter, and Ed was in front of it, and the noise was so loud, they both instinctively ducked. At this point, Shinki and Ed’s accounts diverge. Shinki said Ed “went out” and he saw Ed outside, ducking, when the plane passed by. There is a large window in front of the counter, and a large window in the door, which give a view of their parking lot, Columbia Pike, and the other side of the road. Shinki saw the outside get dark briefly, but did not see any part of the plane. According to Ed, he was inside when the plane flew past, and while ducking in front of the counter, he looked up and out the window, and saw the “big”, “black” “right wing” of a plane for “1 or 2 seconds”. In two places on the August 2006 Avery footage, Ed indicates he was in the office. In my interview, Ed says his “feeling” was the body of the plane was very low and directly over their shop, with the right wing extending over their parking lot and Columbia Pike. In 2010 he said he did not see the body of the plane, but in the 2006 footage he described the body as “gray.” Shinki said that after the plane passed, he saw the VDOT antenna “bent over” towards the Pentagon “about 60, 70 degrees”, and that it was not like this before the plane went past. He recalls noticing that on September 11, but Ed didn’t remember seeing the bent antenna. Both remember it being worked on; Shinki thought it was the following day or soon after, and Ed seemed sure it was the next day that people were working on it. Ed also recalled talking to others in the area regarding the work being done on the tower, and that they were also under the impression that the plane had hit the antenna.

II. Ed Paik says he was inside the A-One office when the plane flew past; Shinki says he was outside

As of this writing, if they have it, CIT has not released footage from their 11/4/06 interview (used in NSA) in which Ed Paik states his own location when the plane flew past; they have only released footage that shows him describing and pointing out the plane’s location and heading. However, 1/24/10, CIT released August 2006 footage of Shinki Paik, in which he says Ed first went outside, and then the plane flew over:

Shinki Paik: “… And at the last moment my brother jumped out the office and as soon as he went out he was just scooping down and I was sitting here, and then standing, and then I think at that moment a big airplane just flew over. … As soon as he went out, jumped out he was scooping down on the ground and then I think he thought something hitting him and then I see here inside … the kinda black cloud a little bit.”

Craig Ranke: “A shadow?”

Shinki: “[inaudible] shadow, yeah.”

Shinki Paik reported the same sequence of events to me, 1/5/10:

Shinki Paik: “We heard some- enormous- almost incomprehensible noise- is that something is dropping here. So we kinda scootin’ down here [demonstrates ducking]. But my brother- in a way he felt more ‘dangerous’ and insecure- insecurity or something- he went out [points to door] and jumped out. And as soon as he went out, I saw he was he was doing like this, right? [demonstrates ducking and covering his head] And something flip a second [makes fast motion with hands] and a little bit dark in the sky- and about less than a second or something, boom! And we ran out [makes running motion with fists]. Across the street is a … State of Virginia Traffic [inaudible] Center. We look to the Pentagon side, there’s a plume of smoke coming up.” (0:10)

However, in my interview of Ed Paik 1/9/10, he says he saw the plane through the office front window, and that he went outside after it passed by:

Ed Paik: [Ed is standing in front of the counter] “Shinki sitting over there, I’m standing up here. We’d been talking about the Twin Towers. And then we heard about- the big sound. And then I just look out like this [bends over, ducking and turning head to look out the front window] and then aircraft- I can hear- black, big wing as it goes- heading to that way [motions with arm, sweeping from West to East, roughly parallel to Columbia Pike]

Erik Larson: “So- were you outside when it happened?”

Ed: “After that- I saw it, and after that I go out.”

Erik: “So, you were inside when the plane flew over.”

Ed: “Yeah- flew this way.” [indicates path with his hand, West to East, parallel to Columbia Pike, again]

Erik: “OK. But you were looking outside the window.”

Ed: [bends head down, and points outside] “Looking outside here.” (1:10)

I was surprised to hear Ed say he had been in the office and had only seen the right wing of the plane through the window, as Shinki had indicated he was outside, and CIT have always represented Ed as being in A-One’s parking lot. For instance, on the Loose Change forum 8/25/06, Aldo Marquis (Merc) said, “Edward actually went outside when they heard the jet approacing [sic] and actually saw the plane.” On the CIT forum 12/6/07, Craig Ranke referred a graphic of the parking lot as “Edward’s POV”. And CIT’s films ‘Pentacon’ and ‘National Security Alert’ feature Ed in the A-One parking lot gesturing and describing the flight path and location of the plane’s body and wings (Ed Paik’s account starts at 16:45 in NSA, but the footage can be seen in this youtube short, starting at 2:53).

When I reviewed the August 2006 interview of Ed Paik by the Loose Change/CIT/Russ Pickering crew, I noticed that Ed had, at that time, indicated he was in the office when he saw the plane, though it is a bit unclear due to his English being rough:

Ed Paik: “I heard about the- a very big jet sound- looks like just up to here [puts hand above head, close] I just look at outside [turns head]- big black wing coming- that way [motions with hand] and then I just running out- then 2, 3 seconds- boom! (Avery 0:01, Larson 3:37)——

Aldo Marquis: “You didn’t see it come over you, then.”

Ed Paik: “I cannot see that, because at the time- I- facing through the- in the office. So the airplane coming this way- [points]- to the- my right hand side- it goes- [sweeps arm fast]- to the Pentagon.” (Avery 1:30, Larson 3:59)

If an eyewitness account is going to be used in reference an event, it needs to be acknowledged where they said they were when they witnessed it. And if an eyewitness says that person was somewhere else, that needs to be taken into account as well. Even when eyewitness are in close proximity, their accounts sometimes differ on significant details, and Ed and Shinki’s accounts are a prime example. Both of them are consistent in regarding their own accounts from 2006 to 2010; so who’s right about Ed’s location when the plane flew past? Ed is adamant that he was inside, and physically demonstrates where he was and how he reacted. What he described seeing on 9/11, in both 2006 and 2010, is from the vantage point of his being in the office. My interview of Ed was in front of Shinki; he didn’t say anything to correct Ed, and I confirmed Ed’s location with him twice. It seems to me the most likely explanation is that Shinki’s recollection of the sequence of events got confused, as everything happened so fast; according to Ed, he ran outside immediately after seeing the plane pass. In any case, it’s not logical to use Ed’s account of where the plane was, but discount or omit where he says he was when he saw it.

CIT may or may not have footage of Ed Paik from their 11/4/06 interview in which he describes his location. Certainly, they should have been aware of his statements from August 2006 which place him in the office- and Aldo Marquis is the one who said, “You didn’t see it come over you, then.” If Aldo and Craig felt it was unclear, they should have clarified his location in their November 2006 interview of him; not doing so is sloppy research. If they were aware that Ed says he saw the plane from the office, and they did not disclose this- in order to create the impression that Ed was in the parking lot- this is manipulative and dishonest journalism. Ironically, Craig Ranke said on the CIT forum 8/9/09, “Witnesses are data points. You can only rely on them for the general placement of the plane in relation to the ground they are standing. You can’t use a witness to extrapolate what you want regarding the placement of the plane in an area that they would not even be able to witness from their location! That is spin and is deceptive.”

In this photo Ed demonstrates how he ducked:

In this photo Ed points out the window, indicating where he saw the plane:

III. From inside the office, Ed Paik saw the right wing- and perhaps the fuselage

Ed Paik’s testimony is consistent from 2006 and 2010 regarding his being in the office when the plane passed by. It’s also consistent in that, in addition to the loud jet sound and his impression that the plane was very low, he clearly recalls seeing a big, black wing (Ed saw the wing from underneath, shadowed from the sun). The only significant difference is that in the 2006 LC/CIT/Pickering interview, he said he saw the body of the plane (perhaps an engine?), which he described as “gray” (similar to an American Airlines plane). Also in the 2006 interview, he said he believed the right wing tip was extending over Columbia Pike- far enough to hit the VDOT tower:

Russell Pickering: “Did you see anything about the airplane, how many engines, what color, anything about the plane?”

Ed Paik: “Uh, no, I just only- feeling’s it looks like a- black wing- very huge, black wing. That’s what I saw then.”

Aldo Marquis and another person: “Black wings?”

Ed: “Yeah.”

Aldo: “Do you remember what color the plane, the body was?”

Ed: “Body’s look like gray- kind of gray. And the wing- underneath wing is looked like, uh, black, because I saw it like (turns head, then turns back, motioning with hands, fast). Soon as the uh- passed, away. (Avery 0:56, Larson 5:41)

——

Russell Pickering: “In relation to your street, would you say like here’s one wing tip, here’s another wing tip- right in the middle of the airplane, where would you put that in relation to the street?”

Ed Paik: “Right wing; right wing is at the end of the street. Left wing, I cannot see the (inaudible). Right wing is at end of street.”

Russell: “The right wing was as far out as the tower, so the center of the airplane was near the road.”

Ed: “Yeah, on the road, yeah. That’s why it hit the antenna.” (Avery 2:44, Larson 6:20)

Also in the 2006 interview, Ed also says the plane almost hit the last building of the Navy Annex (2:31), but even from the vantage point of the parking lot, Ed would not have been able to see this, which is clear from CIT’s footage used in Pentacon and NSA. It seems he was either speculating, or perhaps incorporating into his account what another witness had described. CIT ignored or neglected to note Ed’s statements regarding his location, but made special note of this by adding text to the youtube video which transcribed that part of his statement. Again, ironic, considering Craig Ranke’s 8/9/09 statement; “You can’t use a witness to extrapolate what you want regarding the placement of the plane in an area that they would not even be able to witness from their location! That is spin and is deceptive.”

In my interview of him, Ed says that he did not see the body, but he describes the wing as a “triangle”. Considering Ed’s 2010 statement describing the wing as a “triangle” in conjunction with his 2006 statement in which he describes the body as gray, it may be that he saw the wing close to the base, and that he got a glimpse of the fuselage in 2001- enough to recall its color, in 2006.

2010 Erik Larson interview:

Erik Larson: “To be clear, when you looked outside, how much of the plane could you see- just the wing part, or could you see any of the body?”

Ed Paik: “No. Just the- body side- [points to his roof] my roof side [places hand above his head]

Erik: “OK, so all you saw was the wing.”

Ed: “Right hand side, the wing. That is my feeling … because- if I see the one that is left-hand side, then I can see the body, and [inaudible]. But I don’t see anything, only kind of a triangle side [makes shape with hands]- kind of an- a wing [motions with right hand, West to East]. One second or two.”

Erik: “What do you mean, ‘triangle side’?”

Ed: “Looks like [traces out triangle shape with hands]- right-hand side…”

Erik: “It was like the right wing, that you saw?”

Ed: “Right wing, that’s right.” (4:51 – segment starts at 4:19)

I took the below two photos while down on one knee in front of the counter, to approximate Ed’s position.

This photo shows the view directly out the front window, about where Ed says he was:

This photo out the front window shows the VDOT tower on the left:

There are at least a couple possibilities for the plane’s location that account for Ed’s seeing the right wing (and possibly the fuselage) from this vantage point:

1) If the plane was close to the tops of the telephone poles and crossing Columbia Pike, left wing tip close to the Sheraton Hotel, fuselage almost directly over his shop, heading NE over the Navy Annex (aka FOB #2), as CIT claims, then all Ed might have seen was the right wing, and perhaps the fuselage. However, this path would mean the plane was below the line of sight of Dawn Vignola and Tim Timmerman at the Sheraton, and they both said they could see it at that point, which was shortly before it disappeared behind some buildings closer to them. In my interview with Dawn Vignola, she also said she had seen the plane cross in front of the Sheraton. A plane on this ‘north path’ would also mean that Madelyn Zakhem (who was outside on the south side of Columbia Pike) would have seen it over the Navy Annex- not directly above her, as she reported in 2001, and confirmed to Russ Pickering/CIT in 2006. This ‘north path’ also conflicts with the 2001 account of CIT witness Terry Morin, who reported seeing the plane for several seconds until a row of trees blocked his view, that it had “red and blue stripes down the fuselage”, and he “believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines”. If Morin had seen it directly over top of him from between wings of the Annex, he would have seen the plane for less than a second (at his minimum estimated speed of 350 kts/402 mph/590 fps), and could not have seen any markings on it. There are no markings visible in the simulation in NSA, which can be seen starting at 3:28 in CIT’s 1/24/10 youtube video. In 2006, Morin states the plane would have hit the Air Force memorial now at the north east end of the Annex. (3:34) However, in 2001 Morin said, “The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB.” “Essentially” implies the plane was not ‘exactly’ or ‘directly’ overhead.

2) Another possibility is that the plane was traveling approximately on the ‘official’ flight path (based on FDR and radar data, allowing for margin of error). From Ed’s vantage point ducking inside the shop and looking up out the front window, the right wing (and perhaps the fuselage) may have been all he could see for the “one or two seconds” that he saw the plane- and his “feeling” like the fuselage was over his shop may have been due to a common perspective error known as ‘forced perspective’. This flight path would also match the accounts of Vignola/Timmerman, Zakhem and Morin (2001). In addition, there’s some evidence the plane clipped (see section IV) the antenna on the VDOT tower (on the left in the 2nd photo; 169’ above ground at antenna tip). However, even if it did not- if it was slightly above or north of the antenna tower- the flight path would still match the accounts of Ed Paik, Madelyn Zakhem and Terry Morin (in 2001), as well as being within a margin of error for the FDR and radar data.

IV. Shinki Paik said the VDOT tower antenna was “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees”

Less than 200 yards from the Paik’s shop, on the south side of the street, is an antenna tower on VDOT property. Shinki Paik told me the antenna on top of the tower was “bent over, not right angle, 90 degrees, but I would say about 60, 70 degrees.” When I asked when he noticed this, he said, “I believe it was the same day [9/11].” (8:44) Ed had not noticed the antenna was damaged (7:02), but both Ed and Shinki said that there was a crew working on the tower soon after 9/11. They both attributed this to the antenna having been hit by the plane, though they acknowledged they didn’t see the antenna get hit. (Erik Larson 2010 video)

According to Craig Ranke on the Loose Change forum 8/31/06,  CIT “confirmed with the VDOT employees that the antenna was not clipped.” When Arabesque, Adam Larson and John Farmer raised questions about possible damage to the VDOT tower, Craig Ranke elaborated 3/17/08 on the CIT forum, “That same day we spoke with many people at the VDOT and all of them told us that the antenna WAS NOT damaged and that the feds used the VDOT building as emergency headquarters on 9/11 and were probably adding extra communication or something of that nature.” No names are cited, and there are no direct quotes, but the use of the words “probably” and “or something” implies the “many people at the VDOT” weren’t sure what was being done on the tower.

Craig also said in the 3/17/08 post, “We first spoke with Edward’s brother Shinki Paik the day before we spoke with Edward Paik. Shinki did not see the plane but he told us that they saw workers on the antenna the next day and figured they were repairing it because the plane hit it.” However, when I interviewed Shinki, he offered on his own that he had seen the antenna, “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees.” If Shinki mentioned this to CIT, they’ve never acknowledged it. As of this writing, CIT’s full video footage from their interviews with Shinki and Ed Paik have not been made public.

Craig, again from the 3/17/08 post: “If the plane was over the antenna it would support the official flight path but this is not where Edward or ANY of the witnesses (including VDOT employee Madlene Zackhem) claim they saw the plane.” Craig is correct in saying, “If the plane was over the antenna it would support the official flight path”, but as I showed and documented in the previous section, the accounts of Columbia Pike witnesses Madelyn Zakhem and Terry Morin (2001) support the official flight path, and Ed Paik’s account makes the most sense if that’s where the plane was. This photo taken by Steve Riskus and enlarged by John Farmer may show a bent antenna, but the image quality is poor, so it’s hard to say for sure:

In any case, while proof the antenna was hit by the plane would prove the plane was on the official flight path, the plane could have cleared the top of the antenna or to the north side of it, and would still be within a margin of error for the official flight path, and it would still match the eyewitness accounts. As Adam Larson (no relation) demonstrates in this article: OBSTACLE? IMPOSSIBLE. WHY THIS ANTENNA THING IS A NON-ISSUE.

V. Ed Paik’s drawings, statements and gestures for CIT have been misrepresented

CIT has represented their video footage of Ed Paik in the A-One parking lot (a vantage point Ed says he was not at) pointing to his roof and gesturing while describing his impression of the flight path, as evidence of the plane’s flight path. In addition to featuring it this way in Pentacon and NSA, CIT created a gif from their footage of Ed and put text on it that says, “Ed Paik pointing out heading of plane: ‘Body this way’”:

However, from the footage, it’s clear that at this point Ed says, “Body here”, not “Body this way.” In the footage of Ed used in Pentacon and NSA (see this youtube short, at 2:53), Ed does not say “Body this way” at any point. It’s also clear from the footage, that in the first clip in the gif, Ed is pointing to where he believed the body of the plane was over their shop, while indicating the path by moving his hand parallel to Columbia Pike. And in the 2nd clip, Ed is pointing to the location where he believed the body of the plane was when it flew past; he’s not “pointing out heading of plane”, as the gif’s text claims. This is also evident in that none of his drawings match the ‘heading’ allegedly being pointed out in the gif. Also worth noting from this segment is that Ed points perpendicular across Columbia Pike, and says, “Right wing is this way”, indicating that he perceived the right wing to be over Columbia Pike.

CIT has also represented Ed Paik’s 3 drawings of the flight path as evidence of the plane’s flight path. However, these were drawn on photos that don’t match Ed’s actual perspective from his vantage point in the office (according to his own account), and are based on his impression of what he saw for “one or two seconds”, and his “feeling” where the plane’s body was. And, considering the plane was traveling about the length of 2 football fields per second, he probably saw the right wing (and possibly the body) for less than a second. These 3 drawings, while contradicting the official flight path in some respects, also contradict each other and the alleged ‘north of Citgo path’. For instance, in the top drawing at the above link, Ed has drawn a line roughly parallel to Columbia Pike, which has the plane flying over the Navy Annex and directly into the Pentagon; this line passes south of the Citgo gas station, which is out of view in that photo. This first drawing also contradicts the one CIT uses most often, the bottom one, an overhead view which shows the flight path as being roughly parallel to the official path, but further north of it. And the middle drawing has the plane flying wholly or partially over top of the Sheraton Hotel, also contradicting the bottom drawing.

These drawings and gestures don’t diminish Ed’s credibility as a witness; he was trying to be helpful, and when asked by CIT to speculate, he did so. Clearly, witness drawings and gestures from perspectives they didn’t have cannot be relied on as accurate, even if they aren’t obviously contradictory. And representing the results as giving anything other than a general, but inconclusive, idea of where the plane came from, where it was when Ed actually saw it, and where it was headed, is deceptive and a disservice to the public. Again, this is ironic, considering that Craig Ranke, taking issue with a critic’s interpretation of the drawings, said on the CIT forum 8/9/09, “Witnesses are data points. You can only rely on them for the general placement of the plane in relation to the ground they are standing. You can’t use a witness to extrapolate what you want regarding the placement of the plane in an area that they would not even be able to witness from their location! That is spin and is deceptive.” CIT will say that Ed’s account is corroborated by other witnesses, they are not relying on it alone; however, they’ve cherrypicked the statements of the other witnesses, made selective interpretations that support their theory while denying other possibilities, and apply double- and dubious- standards when judging the credibility of witness accounts that indicate the plane was on the official flight path, even slandering witnesses in some cases. Arabesque and Adam Larson have documented numerous examples of this, in addition to what I’ve pointed out in this essay:

William Lagasse: “These poles were not knocked down” CIT: “He didn’t see the light poles” by Arabesque

The South Path Impact: Documented by Adam Larson

Roughshod Over the Suspicious Ones by Adam Larson

VI. Conclusion

In summary: Shinki and Ed Paik place Ed in different locations at the moment the plane passed, and CIT, as of this writing, has not acknowledged Ed’s account placing himself in the office, if they were aware of it. According to Ed’s 2010 account, he mainly saw the right wing of the plane, from inside the office, for “one or two seconds”, though in 2006 he recalled seeing the body. Ed said he did not see the plane from the parking lot, and did not ‘see’ it fly over their shop; he qualifies his placement of the fuselage over their shop by saying his “feeling” is that’s where it was. Shinki specifically recalls seeing the VDOT antenna bent over; if Shinki said this in CIT footage, or if CIT was aware of this, they’ve never disclosed it, as of this writing. CIT has cited unnamed VDOT employees as saying the antenna was not damaged, to counter the hypothesis that it was. Ed’s drawings and gestures in CIT videos were based on seeing the wing for “one or two seconds”, and his “feeling” about where the body was. The gestures were made at a location he says he did not witness the plane from, and the drawings are based on perspectives he did not have. In addition, elements of these drawings variously support the official flight path, contradict each other, and contradict the FDR/radar flight path, as well as the path reported by Madelyn Zakhem, and Terry Morin in 2001.

My impression of Shinki and Ed Paik from my own and the other interviews, is they did their best to honestly and accurately describe what they recall seeing. However, while eyewitness testimony can be accurate- and seem compelling- in some cases, witnesses often miss significant details, make incorrect interpretations and recall things inaccurately, even when they’re sure they’re right. Human beings are subject to errors in judgment, perspective and memory, and in the case of an event that is over in “one or two seconds”, errors are more likely. Language barriers and misunderstandings between witnesses and questioners can also play a role in witness accounts being misinterpreted.

There are problems with some elements of Shinki and Ed Paik’s accounts, but CIT has compounded these by omitting or distorting elements of Ed and Shinki’s accounts, while selectively interpreting and hyping other elements. CIT has a history of doing this, they’ve consistently done it in ways that support their theory about ‘north path’ and ‘Pentagon flyover’, and their doing so- while accusing their critics of being ‘agents’ and ‘disinformation’- has created controversy and undermined their own credibility. Whether or not it’s intentional on their part, CIT have caused disruption and division in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and have distracted some activists from larger questions and more conclusive evidence of wrong doing on the part of those charged with defending the United States and its Constitution- for instance, the fact that the Pentagon was hit at all. I support disclosure and accountability for 9/11 and the way “the day that changed everything” has been exploited to justify a national security state, massive increases in funding for the military industrial complex, wars, torture and subversion of the Constitution. I support independent research and investigation 9/11 and related events- including study of efforts and ideas that distract, divide and disrupt the 9/11 Truth Movement. Not because ideas and efforts that are distracting and disruptive are worth of pursuing in themselves, but because learning which theories are false or inconclusive narrows the field of research to the most productive lines of investigation, and because learning which efforts are impeding progress can improve the effectiveness of activists who are seeking truth and justice.

*Revised and corrected 1/24/10

From their apartment, Dawn Vignola and her roommate Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman saw American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, September 11, 2001. Shortly afterward, they gave witness accounts to local and national TV media. In 2007, they were interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), who attempted to discredit their testimony. I interviewed Dawn and her husband, Dan Ferrigno, January 5, 2010 at that same apartment and found them credible; they talked openly with me, their accounts have not changed since they were first offered, and I saw for myself that Dawn and Tim could have easily seen what they claimed to have seen.

On September 11, 2001 Dawn Vignola shared a 16th floor apartment with Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman, in Arlington, VA, which overlooked the Pentagon and the surrounding area. They were both at home, and Dawn was on the phone with her husband, Dan Ferrigno, because of what was happening in New York. She saw the plane approaching out the West window, over the top of a line of trees, and then it turned East. She could see the AA, and in the bright sun the plane appeared to be white. (See here for photos of the Boeing 757 N64AA, the plane that was American 77 on 9/11; notice how it appears white in the photos where there is direct sun on it). It was flying above the line of trees and buildings, and seemed to be over 395 or Columbia Pike.

As the plane disappeared from view past the window’s North edge, she went over to the window on the North side and watched for the plane, which she had noticed was flying unusually low; she and Tim were accustomed to seeing airplanes flying over the area, including over the Pentagon, as Reagan National Airport is close by. She saw the plane cross in front of the Sheraton Hotel on Columbia Pike, then it disappeared from view behind some nearby buildings. She watched for it to appear in view on the other side of a neighboring apartment building; it did, and she and Tim saw it impact the Pentagon, about 3/4 of a mile away. They did not see the plane fly over- in fact, it hit so low at the base, it looked like it hit the heliport first.

At the time, there was only vacant land and buildings under construction in between their building and the Pentagon, and these did not obstruct their view of the heliport. Since then, shorter buildings have been built in that area, but they still can still clearly see the upper floors of the Pentagon. In person everything appears much larger and clearer than it does on the accompanying video; when the camera is zoomed in, it actually gives a better idea of how large everything appears in person. Dawn and Tim had a clear view of the impact side and the airspace over the Pentagon, and would have seen the plane fly over- or seen something else hit- if that had happened. In addition, Dan’s office across the Potomac River had a view of the airspace over the Pentagon; he was looking at it while on the phone with Dawn, and saw the black smoke rising, but did not see a plane flying over or away from the Pentagon.

This is a short video of the view from Dawn’s apartment, with my narration based on the above points: The View from Vignola’s Contradicts CIT

This photo gives an approximate idea of how large the Pentagon appears from Dawn and Dan’s apartment, but still does not accurately convey how clear everything appears in person (also note that the shorter buildings in the middle were not there on 9/11; the view of the heliport was not obstructed):

This Google Earth image shows Dawn Vignola’s apartment and the line of sight to the Pentagon, as it was on 9/11/01. As can be seen from this photo, the area between her apartment and the Pentagon was largely vacant, with some construction going on:

Shortly after they saw the impact, Dawn called WUSA, the local CBS channel, and was interviewed live on the air. Tim was listening to the questions as they were asked by the TV reporter, and he can be heard in the background offering his input to Dawn, some of which she passed on over the phone. Later, Tim was interviewed by CNN. Dawn’s account has not changed since that interview; it is the same account she gave to Citizen Investigation Team in 2007 (judging by what CIT has said about it), and the same account that was given to me. Dawn is no longer in contact with Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman. There are a number of hits for ‘Hugh Timmerman’ online, but I did not attempt to track him down for comment; CIT has said they could not locate him.

Since 9/11, various people have claimed that AA 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. As there are numerous witness accounts of an AA 757 crashing into the Pentagon, some crash skeptics have questioned those accounts. For instance, in the case of Dawn’s account, blogger Steven Welch alleged that Tim was ‘coaching’ Dawn in her account, and claimed neither testimony could be considered credible. And, according to Dawn and Dan in my interview of them, when Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (CIT) interviewed them in November 2007, Craig and Aldo were not simply interested in receiving Dawn’s account and verifying the view from the apartment. Rather, they sought information that would support their theory that the plane known as AA 77 had flown over the Pentagon, dismissed the elements of Dawn’s testimony that did not support this theory and attempted to persuade Dawn and Dan they were mistaken and their theory was correct. (For 2 sides to this story, see the ‘Plan271’ thread at CIT’s forum)

CIT insists they’re objective and have not done anything improper in their investigation and reporting. For instance, in a 12/12/09 podcast interview by Paul Tassopulos, Craig Ranke said, “Citizen Investigation Team, myself and Aldo Marquis, have been to Arlington, Virginia several times to interview dozens of eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack. We went there with no pre-conceived notions about what happened- we went there with no particular theory in mind. Our entire goal was to objectively ask the people on the street what they saw, and report it, and let the chips fall where they may.” (2:05) However, it is clearly not the case that they went to Arlington with “no pre-conceived notions about what happened”; as early as 1/11/06, before Craig and Aldo joined the Loose Change forum, Aldo Marquis had posted an article online titled “Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)“. Lloyd England says the plane knocked a light pole through his cab’s windshield, and numerous photos place him, his damaged cab and a broken light pole at the scene. Aldo attempted to show that England could not be telling the truth about what happened, and that the scene was staged. If the plane knocked the light pole through the windshield of England’s cab, the plane was on the ‘South of Citgo’ path, (not on the ‘North of Citgo’ path, as CIT claims certain other witness accounts prove), and this disproves CIT’s ‘flyover’ theory. And according to Pentagon crash witness Mike Walter, when he met Craig and Aldo at his barbeque on the first trip to Arlington, “They were saying things like, ‘Are you sure the plane didn’t land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?’ They kept coming up with all these scenarios.”

Dawn and Dan invited Craig and Aldo into their apartment, talked with them at length and gave them permission to record the view from their apartment, but declined to be interviewed on camera, as Dawn was close to 9 mo. pregnant at the time, and felt it would be invasive of her personal privacy. CIT recorded conversation at the apartment anyway, (and their phone conversations), without Dawn and Dan’s knowledge or consent. In a comment thread at 911Blogger, Craig Ranke acknowledged this at least in part, saying, “Obviously while we video taped her POV with her consent after being invited to her home our discussion with her at the time was recorded by the video camera. And we most certainly did record our initial conversations on the phone with her as we do with EVERY phone call we make in our investigation.”

“One-party consent” is all that’s required in Federal jurisdictions and 38 states, but there are differing opinions on whether it’s ethical for journalists to record subjects without their knowledge or consent; “Some journalists see taping as an indispensable tool, while others don’t like the formality it may impose during an interview. Some would not consider taping a call without the subject’s consent, others do it routinely.” Craig Ranke defended CIT doing it, stating that in Virginia “one party consent” to a conversation being recorded is all that’s required by law (true), and that they do this “so nobody can falsely accuse us of behaving inappropriately or saying or doing something underhanded or deceptive.”

CIT also recorded a conversation with Lloyd England without his knowledge or consent, and released it (in part), claiming it was a “virtual confession” and that it supported their previously-issued charge that he is an “accomplice” to the 9/11 attacks and subsequent cover up. (See this discussion thread at 911Blogger for alternative views on whether Lloyd England’s statements are a “virtual confession”). It seems another reason CIT might record interviewees without their consent or knowledge is the potential for capturing bits of unguarded conversation which they can represent as damaging to the credibility of witnesses whose testimony contradicts their ‘flyover theory’; certainly they’ve demonstrated they will release recordings if they think it does. As CIT haven’t released their recordings of Dawn and Dan, it may be there’s simply nothing on them they feel would work to their advantage if released. CIT expert Adam Larson (no relation) has documented a consistent pattern of CIT attempts to dismiss or discredit witness accounts that support the ‘South of Citgo’ path or plane hitting the Pentagon; 33 cases, including Dawn Vignola, Tim Timmerman and Lloyd England: CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART III: ROUGHSHOD OVER THE SUSPICIOUS ONES.

On 11/29/07, CIT published an entry on their forum titled Details of our Nov 2007 research trip to Arlington, more data proving a deception, and included this statement regarding their interview of Dawn: “Previously published witness Dawn Vignola who was coached by her former roomate [sic] Hugh Tim Timmerman on the radio as an eyewitness declined to be interviewed on camera but let us into her Pentagon City high rise apartment to get shots of her POV and the one of the best possible views of the the event from high up. Dawn swears that the plane was white and although with her panoramic view she got a great look at it approaching from a ways away, once it got near the Pentagon it was obscured by the building in front of her until a split second before the explosion. She says it hit the heliport. We know this isn’t true because there was no damage to the heliport so likely the explosion and fireball simply concealed what the plane really did.”

Following this, on 1/15/08, on CIT’s forum, Aldo Marquis posted an entry titled, Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 “impact” witnesses, and under a sub-heading for witnesses categorized as, “Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact”, he listed Dawn Vignola as “(TALKED TO by CIT, claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position)”

1/21/08, ‘plan271’ confronted Craig and Aldo on the CIT forum regarding inaccurate/misleading statements about ‘coaching’, the view Dawn and Tim had of the plane, the Pentagon and the crash, and what they had said about it. Craig and Aldo defended making an issue out of Tim interjecting comments during Dawn’s TV interview, although in dialogue with plan271 they referred to it as Tim ‘helping’ Dawn. They also denied accusing Dawn and Tim of lying, but continued to insist they could not have seen what they said they saw:

Craig Ranke, 1/21/08: “As soon as we saw the view from their apartment I knew instantly that there is no way she would have been able to physically see an impact and could only have deduced it based off the explosion.”

Aldo Marquis, 1/21/08: “We believe Timmerman and Vignola merely deduced the impact.”

12/5/08 (perhaps earlier) CIT posted this .gif of video from Dawn and Dan’s apartment:

“Timmerman and Vignola’s panoramic view on 9/11” (Compare this to the photo and video above)

Notice this was filmed wide angle, from the middle of the apartment (not from Dawn’s vantage point); this gives uncritical viewer’s the impression that Dawn and Tim could barely see the Pentagon, which is not true.

Dawn and Dan are aware of the allegations and misrepresentations regarding Dawn and Tim’s accounts. Dawn told me that after seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon, she felt it was important to alert the media, but hadn’t expected to be put on the air live, and had not wanted to attract attention. But now they’re part of the controversy over ‘what’ hit the Pentagon.* Dawn and Dan OK’d my coming to their apartment to record the view and spoke with me for over an hour, but due to their experience with CIT, they did not want the conversation recorded, and I didn’t. As Dawn explained in a January 2, 2010 email to Michael Wolsey, which she authorized for public release, “I am now hesitant to have a telephone conversation recorded or even to be interviewed since my experience has been that I cannot trust how it will loaded onto the Internet or whether others will be able to access it and then edit it, unjustly, for their own pursuits.  The last time I trusted someone in this sort of matter, in particular Craig and Aldo, I found my words being distorted, taken out of context, and/or insinuations that I meant something other than what I said.” In the near future, Dawn and Dan will be launching a website that will host photos, video, Dawn’s personal account written down shortly after witnessing the Pentagon crash, and other related material, in an effort to set the record straight.

For more information on Citizen Investigation Team, see the articles written by Arabesque and Adam Larson.

This article by Arabesque is a helpful overview, with information on many specific incidents and examples: CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy

*NOTE: This article was written to shed light on Dawn Vignola’s and Tim Timmerman’s witness accounts, and the manner in which CIT has conducted its investigation and reporting. I support independent research and investigation of 9/11, and there are many reasons to question the official version of events. I take issue with selective interpretation of evidence, absolute claims regarding events for which contradictory or incomplete evidence exists, and the promotion of speculation as fact.

Certainly, the US government should release all photos, video and documentation related to ‘what’ hit the Pentagon. By withholding evidence, the US government is diminishing its credibility, as well as fueling the controversy about ‘what’ hit, and this in turn has distracted from larger questions, including the questions about why the Pentagon was hit at all; about the reason there was no air defense over D.C. more than half an hour after the second WTC impact, close to an hour and a half after the first signs of hijacking, after a ‘summer of threat’ that included warnings from different nations about an impending attack on the US using planes, when the CIA, FBI, NSA and SOCOM had developed their own intelligence on the impending plot, when the FAA, NMCC, NORAD and NEADS have procedures that enable quick interception of aircraft and had known for decades of attempts to use aircraft as missiles, and when the NSC and White House were aware of “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” (Aug 6 PDB)

The 9/11 Commission omitted and distorted facts that are part of the public record, including in its own and other government reports. The Complete 9/11 Timeline at HistoryCommons.org gives a comprehensive overview of what’s known about 9/11 and related entities and events, based on ‘mainstream’ sources. In addition, 9/11 Research, and the Journal of 9/11 Studies, document many unanswered questions and disturbing facts related to the total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7, and about NIST’s investigation of same. The big picture and thousands of details make the case that there needs to be a full, independent investigation of 9/11, before that day- or any other terrorist attack- are used again to justify increased funding for the military-industrial complex, foreign interventions, and draconian domestic security measures.

At the End US Wars Rally in Lafayette Park, Washington D.C. on Dec 12, 2009, I was able to ask a few questions of Ralph Nader, David Swanson, Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney. Unfortunately, I deleted my video of McKinney by mistake, and held the camera sideways for the others (I now know video is not like photos…), so I only uploaded the audio w/ still clips for the others.

I had asked McKinney what she saw as the biggest challenges and opportunities for the 9/11 Truth Movement. She said she had supported NYCCAN and felt justice was disserved in the judge’s decision to disallow it. She suggested that a People’s Tribunal might be worth pursuing, but that something with legal authority would be best. She also said that she will be pursuing the issue if she gets reelected to Congress.

I particularly liked Ralph Nader’s response when I asked about the biggest unanswered questions; he said, “Who’s responsible?” is the biggest.

I asked Kucinich the status on his committee’s investigation into 9/11, and he said that it is an issue he maintains an interest in- he has questions about pre-9/11 financial transactions- but that his committee has been swamped dealing with Wall Street investigations and the economic meltdown.

David Swanson said 9/11 has not been investigated, and a full investigation is an important issue.

Ralph Nader

Dennis Kucinich

David Swanson

April 20, 2008 The New York Times broke the news that the Pentagon (and members of the Bush Administration) had been coordinating with retired military analysts on talking points to cover in their media appearances, as part of a ‘psyop’ on the American public to sell the ‘post-9/11 world’, the ‘War on Terror’, Guantanamo, torture, and the continued occupation of Iraq. These ‘analysts’, many of whom had undisclosed conflicts of interest such as financial ties to defense contractors, appeared over 4500 times in the media, as part of this campaign. The media outlets responsible for participating in the program- which includes the NY Times- have generally not acknowledged any fault on their own part, and some commentators attempted to spin the psyop as simply the Pentagon telling their side of things. A DOD Inspector General investigation found no wrong doing on the part of the Pentagon, but that report was later found to be so flawed, it was retracted and removed from the DOD’s website. More recently, RawStory.com has published the results of its own investigation into the program, which has uncovered further evidence, as well as indications that the Pentagon’s efforts to manipulate public opinion are continuing under the Obama Administration:

Pentagon pursuing new investigation into Bush propaganda program – Nov 5, 2009

Pentagon officials won’t confirm Bush propaganda program ended – Oct 29, 2009

Pentagon used psychological operation on US public, documents show – Oct 21, 2009

Senior official in Bush domestic propaganda program remains Obama’s Pentagon spokesman – Sep 29, 2009

——

New York Times article, Apr 20, 2008: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

History Commons Summary – April 20, 2008: Pentagon Domestic Propaganda Campaign Revealed; Relies on ‘Military Analysts’

This History Commons project documents the campaign, as well as previous propaganda efforts by the military-industrial complex:

Domestic Propaganda, Military Analysts, and the US Media

This post is to preserve the transcript of Scott Horton’s Oct 23 interview of Sibel Edmonds and John Cole.

Source: http://original.antiwar.com/scott/2009/11/01/fbi-whistleblower-names-names/

FBI Whistleblower Names Names

These are quotes that reveal foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7- from FDNY reports in the 9/11 Commission records, in Box 18 of the Team 9 (aka Team 8)/New York City Series.

“Ordered to evacuate 7 WTC because of collapse hazard.” (pg 2)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17627275/NY-B18-Division-8-Fdr-Operations-Summary-121

“Ordered to assist with hose stretch and operation in 7 WTC until ordered out of building due to possible collapse.” (pg 2)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17627436/NY-B18-Reserve-Apparatus-Fdr-Summary-Operations-Reports-126

“Lad. 85 then ordered to West & Vesey for extrication duties.Ordered to evacuate this

position due to 7 WTC instability. Lad. 85 took a standby position pending this collapse

on West St. Upon collapse of 7 WTC Lad.85 deployed on Greenwich St. extingushing

numerous auto & debris fires making a way to the north side (see page 2)” (pg 45)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17627299/NY-B18-Division-8-Fdr-Report-of-Services-Company-Operations-Reports-111

“We supplimented with another hydrant and supplied TL 119 in extinguishing the fire @ 5 WTC Until 7 WTC was in danger of collapsing” (pg 7)

“Operated until instructed to evacuated due to 7 WTC collapse.” (pg 25)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17627204/NY-B18-Division-1-Fdr-Company-Operations-Reports-107

Jon Gold has produced a list of 50 groups of facts that disprove or contradict the official myth about 9/11. Rooted in The Complete 9/11 Timeline at historycommons.org aka cooperativeresearch.org

Updated 10/6/09

Source: http://www.911blogger.com/node/17949

The Facts Speak For Themselves

I have updated facts #19, #23, and #36. Thanks to www.historycommons.org, DHS, and simuvac. This is dedicated to the 9/11 Truth Movement. – Jon

Jon Gold
9/25/2008

Before I begin, I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you’re not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, isPERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason these answers aren’t being given is “sinister” in nature. As Ray McGovern said, “for people to dismiss these questioners as “conspiratorial advocates”, or “conspiratorial theorists”… that’s completely out of line because the… The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT.” When you think about everything the previous Administration did in 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something “sinister” is not crazy. In fact, it’s the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After seven plus years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.

That being said, we have not proven it beyond the shadow of doubt. We do not have documentation that shows they planned it. We do not have a signed confession from someone. We have pieces of the puzzle, and to most of us that have been doing this a long time, those pieces point to more than just Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 19 hijackers. If we could somehow download all of our knowledge to every person on the planet, this fight would be over tomorrow. However, we can’t do that. I wish we could. I wish the media would DO THEIR JOB. But, they’re not. Therefore, we have to be smart with how we approach people. This is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.

As I have often said, we don’t need to come up with a narrative (theory) because our facts speak for themselves. I am going to do my very best to prove my point. A lot of these facts are from mainstream news outlets. Yes, they do report the news, but they DO NOT put the pieces together, they DO NOT ask the tough questions over and over again until they get an answer, they DO NOT give these facts the attention they should, reminiscent of the attention that Britney Spears, Scott Peterson, The Aruba Murders, and The Swift Boat Veterans got, and they DO NOT portray us in any other light except as “Conspiracy Theorists.”

Fact #1
The Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called “The Project For A New American Century.” This group produced a document entitled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that said the “process of transformation” they wanted our military to undertake would take an excessively long time, unless there was a “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” That document was written in September 2000. This document even cited that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” A lot of the same people were part of a group that wrote a report entitled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” that advocated an aggressive Israeli policy in the Middle East.

Fact #2
The Bush Administration came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq. This is so heavily documented that Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked the President about it. He denied it of course, and used 9/11 as the justification for what he and his administration have done.

Fact #3
Dick Cheney was the CEO for a company called Halliburton. During his tenure there, he gave a speech at the Institute of Petroleum that said, “while many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.” On 10/11/2005, it was reported that the shares that Dick Cheney claimed he no longer had with Halliburton, rose 3281% in one year.

Fact #4
In early 2001, Dick Cheney was put in charge of The National Energy Policy Development Group, or “Energy Task Force” for short. He prepared for this during the transition between the Clinton and Bush administrations. The task force met with what appears to be every oil executive in existence, even though they denied it before Congress. It was eventually discovered that one of the topics of discussionduring these task force meetings was Iraq’s oil fields. Five months before 9/11. The Vice President’s office fought long and hard to make sure the information from those meetings never saw the light of day. They even took the fight to the Supreme Court. Many were suspicious of the hunting trip that Antonin Scalia, and Dick Cheney went on prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case. Scalia was proud of the fact that he didn’t recuse himself from the hearings. Ultimately, they sent the fight to an appeals court, and it was decided that Cheney’s Task Force documents may remain secret.

Fact #5
In the months leading up to 9/11, there was an unprecedented amount of warnings that “Al-Qaeda” was about to conduct an attack. So many that CIA Director George Tenet was said to be running around with his “hair on fire,” and so many that a lot were not taken seriously “because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings.” One of those warnings came in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” that was initially hidden by the White House. Another came on July 10th, 2001 that spoke of an “imminent threat,” that was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report, and then lied about after it became public knowledge. Condi even had the audacity to ask “does anybody really believe that somebody would have walked into my office and said, oh, by the way, there’s a chance of a major attack against the United States and I would have said, well, I’m really not interested in that information?” Cheney said that his “Democratic friends in Congress… need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions, as were made by some today, that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11.”

Fact #6
There are indications that military action in Afghanistan was planned before 9/11. On 3/7/2001, the New York Times reports that Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley chairs an informal meeting to discuss Al-Qaeda. The approach is “two-pronged and included a crisis warning effort to deal with immediate threats and longer-range planning by senior officials to put into place a comprehensive strategy to eradicate al-Qaeda.” On 3/15/2001, Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that the U.S. is working with India, Iran, and Russia “in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.” General William Kernan, commander in chief of the Joint Forces Command said that “the details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001.” On 6/26/2001, it is reported that “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime.” In late Summer 2001, the Guardian will report that “reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan exist[s] on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north.” In early August, a senior Taliban official in the defense ministry will tell journalist Hamid Mir that “[W]e believe Americans are going to invade Afghanistan and they will do this before October 15, 2001, and justification for this would be either one of two options: Taliban got control of Afghanistan or a big major attack against American interests either inside America or elsewhere in the world.” The President had plans for the invasion of Afghanistan on his desk on 9/9/2001. They “outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf.” On 7/21/2001, three former American officials, Tom Simons, Karl Inderfurth, and Lee Coldren met with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is allegedly told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.“

Fact #7
On the day of 9/11, a number of key personnel were “scattered” across the country, and the world. With few exceptions, including Dick Cheney. The President of the United States, at a time when America was “under attack” from kamikaze hijackers in commercial airliners, in a highly publicized location, 5 miles away from an international airport, in a classroom full of children, was not whisked away by the Secret Service. His conduct on the morning of 9/11 changed on the first anniversary.

Fact #8
On the morning of 9/11, there were several military exercises taking place, some of which allegedly mirrored the events taking place that day. A lot of different people didn’t know whether or not the hijackings were “real-world or exercise.” According to Richard Clarke, on the morning of 9/11 at around 9:28am, he says to Gen. Richard Myers during a video teleconference “I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?” Myers, who is at the Pentagon, replies it’s, “NOT A PRETTY PICTURE, DICK (emphasis mine). WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF VIGILANT WARRIOR, A NORAD EXERCISE (emphasis mine), but… Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert.” The 9/11 Report only mentioned one of these exercises, Vigilant Guardian, and in a footnote in the back of the book. On 2/25/2005, then Rep. Cynthia McKinney asked (realplayer required) Donald Rumsfeld about the exercises that were taking place on 9/11, but did not get an answer on that day. On 3/10/2005, Rep. McKinney asked Donald Rumsfeld, and Gen. Richard Myers about the exercises again. The first question asked by Rep. McKinney was, “whether or not the activities of the 4 wargames going on on Sept. 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.” Gen. Myers responded with, “the answer to the question is, no, did not impair our response. In fact, Gen. Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission… I believe…I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond.” Then Rep. McKinney asked, “who was in charge of managing those wargames?,” and was cut off by Rep. Duncan Hunter. Gen. Myers never gave a name, but he did say, “North American Aerospace Defense Command was responsible.” She was promised an answer in writing and as far as I know, never received it.

Fact #9
From the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), Dick Cheney allegedly monitored Flight 77 from 50 miles outside of Washington D.C. This, according to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. According to Mineta, “during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” The 9/11 Report states that Cheney didn’t arrive in the PEOC until 9:58. No video conferences from within the PEOC have been made available. No personnel records for who was in the PEOC have been made available. The “young man” Norman Mineta mentioned has never been named, and was never brought before the 9/11 Commission to testify.

Fact #10
On the day of 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld started planning the Iraq War. DoD Staffer Stephen Cambone took down several notes with regards to what Rumsfeld was saying. “Best info fast… judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time – not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]” [...] “Go massive… Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” [...] “Hard to get a good case.”

Fact #11
Between 9:30pm and 10:00pm on 9/11/2001, Bush says, “this is a great opportunity. We have to think of this as an opportunity.” He does so again during his State Of The Union speech on 1/29/2002. Karl Rove said, “sometimes history sends you things and 9/11 came our way.”

Fact #12
In the days and months following the attacks, several people within the administration and elsewhere tried to tie Iraq to 9/11. General Wesley Clark said, “there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.” According to George Tenet, shortly after 9/11, Richard Perle said, “Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility.” Former CIA Director James Woolsey said, “[I]ntelligence and law enforcement officials investigating the case would do well to at least consider another possibility: that the attacks-whether perpetrated by bin Laden and his associates or by others-were sponsored, supported, and perhaps even ordered by Saddam Hussein,” he writes. “As yet, there is no evidence of explicit state sponsorship of the September 11 attacks. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Dick Cheney claimed the bogus Atta-Iraqi spy meeting had been, “pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” Since that time, they have done so again, and again, and again, andagain, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and even Hillary did it. On 5/14/2009, it was reported that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was tortured “in an effort to produce intelligence tying Iraq to al Qaeda.” According to Colin Powell’s former Chief of Staff, “what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.”

Fact #13
The heads of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, Rep. Porter Goss, and Sen. Bob Graham, along with Sen. John Kyl, met with an alleged financier of the attacks on the day of 9/11.

Fact #14
The Joint Congressional Inquiry, which both Bush and Cheney tried to “limit the scope” of, released a report with 28 redacted pages. Apparently, those 28 pages talk about “possible Saudi Arabian financial links.” In 2004, Sen. Bob Graham says that the Bush White House is covering up Saudi Arabia’s possible connection to the two hijackers that lived in San Diego. He said the information about them, “present[s] a compelling case that there was Saudi assistance.” He also says that the Bush Administration directed the FBI to “to restrain and obfuscate” any investigations into the connection. The landlord of the two hijackers was Abdussatar Shaikh, an FBI asset handled by agent Steven Butler. The FBI originally tried to prevent Butler from testifying before the Congressional Inquiry, but when he finally did, he said that he may have been able to uncover the 9/11 plot if the CIA shared their information on the two hijackers. He said, “it would have made a huge difference.” [...] “We would have immediately opened… investigations. We would have given them the full court press. We would… have done everything-physical surveillance, technical surveillance, and other assets.” On 1/8/2008, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that “a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia and key members of its royal family was put to a crucial test today as lawyers for victims of the 9/11 attacks urged a federal appeals court to reinstate the government of Saudi Arabia as a defendant.” The Cozen O’Connor law firm in Philadelphia “was the first to file suit against the government of Saudi Arabia in 2003, charging that the desert kingdom bears responsibility for the attacks because it permitted Islamic charities under its control to bankroll Osama bin Laden and his global terror movement.” The lawsuit “suffered a setback in 2005 when New York federal district court judge Richard Conway Casey ruled that the federal foreign sovereign immunity act barred lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and members of the royal family.” On 11/13/2008, it was reported that “thousands of victims of the 9/11 attacks appealed to the Supreme Court yesterday, asking it to overturn a lower court decision barring lawsuits against Saudi Arabia for supporting acts of terrorism.” On 1/6/2009, it is reported that “lawyers for Saudi Arabia have asserted in court papers that the Supreme Court should reject arguments that the desert kingdom be held accountable for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because, over a period of many years, it financed al-Qaeda. In papers filed with the Supreme Court, lawyers for the kingdom and several high-ranking Saudi royals say that U.S. law provides blanket immunity to Saudi Arabia from lawsuits over the 9/11 attacks.” On 2/24/2009, it is reported that “the Supreme Court yesterday asked the U.S. Solicitor General’s office to weigh in on whether a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia charging that it was a source of terrorist financing before the 9/11 attacks should move forward.” On 5/29/2009, the New York Times reports that “the Justice Department, in a brief filed Friday before the Supreme Court, said it did not believe the Saudis could be sued in American court over accusations brought by families of the Sept. 11 victims that the royal family had helped finance Al Qaeda. The department said it saw no need for the court to review lower court rulings that found in the Saudis’ favor in throwing out the lawsuit.” 9/11 Family Member, and “Jersey Girl” Kristen Breitweiser said, “I find this reprehensible. One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.” On 5/30/2009, the victims family members released two press releases. The first one states, “today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed the Administration’s decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens — 9/11 family members — to have our day in court. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.” The second one states, “on the day that President Obama holds his first summit with Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in Riyadh, the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism charged that recent actions by his administration would enable five of the king’s closest relatives to escape accountability for their role in financing and materially supporting the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” The second press release lists “allegations made in 2002 of the Saudi royal family’s sponsorship and support of al Qaeda that the families believe have been ignored by the Obama Administration.” On 6/9/2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that this case “is likely to reach a critical juncture this month when the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to hear arguments on Saudi Arabia’s legal exposure.” It goes on to say that “the hurdle for the plaintiffs, both insurers and individual victims, isn’t simply facts and law, but also the political dimensions. Saudi Arabia is one of the United States’ most important allies in the Middle East. It has been a forward staging area for the U.S. military, deemed an important counterweight to Iran’s regional ambitions, seen as a huge source of energy, and a very big purchaser of American goods and services.” Tom Burnett who lost his son on Flight 93 asks, “why would the Obama administration give less weight to the principles of justice, transparency, and security and more to the pleadings of a foreign government? It strikes a blow against the public’s right to know who financed and supported” the 9/11 attacks.” “Kagan’s May 29 brief, representing the opinion of the Obama administration, was significant because the Supreme Court in most cases follows the solicitor general’s lead.” On 6/11/2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “lawyers representing victims of the 9/11 attacks charge that the government sought to “appease” Saudi Arabia by urging the Supreme Court not to hear arguments that the kingdom could be sued for its alleged role in funding the attackers.” A “brief filed by the Center City law firm of Cozen O’Connor and other lawyers representing victims, employed unusually scathing and at times emotional language, suggesting at one point that the government’s brief was timed to coincide with President Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia last week.” “A spokeswoman for U.S. Solictor General Elena Kagan said the May 29 filing of the government’s brief had been determined by the schedule of the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide whether to hear the case by the end of the month.” On 6/23/2009, the Washington Times reports that a “series of closed-door meetings between the relatives’ groups and Justice Department officials, arranged as an update on Mr. Obama’s plan to close the detention facility at the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, turned instead into a sharp clash over the Saudi legal action.” Apparently, “the family members demanded to be be heard on the White House’s stance during a series of closed-door meetings at the State Department and the Justice Department last week.” On 6/24/2009, the New York Times reported that “classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families.” It goes on to say that Obama’s “Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.” 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser “said in an interview that during a White House meeting in February between President Obama and victims’ families, the president told her that he was willing to make the pages (28 redacted pages of the JICI) public. But she said she had not heard from the White House since then.” On 6/29/2009, it is reported that “the Supreme Court has refused to allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.” The “justices refused to review the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the Saudi defendants were protected by sovereign immunity in the lawsuit brought by victims of the attacks and their families.” The Supreme Court “turned down the appeal without comment.”

Fact #15
The Bush Administration was the families’ “biggest adversary” when it came to the creation of a so-called Independent 9/11 Commission. The families had to fight “tooth and nail,” and lobby to get an investigation because the Bush Administration clearly did not want one. Dick Cheney and George Bush refused to testify under oath before select individuals of the 9/11 Commission even though the families wanted them to. They testified together, not in public, and no recordings were allowed. The families requested the transcripts of their meeting, but were denied. They made it difficult for the commission to get funding. They tried to make Henry Kissinger the Chairman of the commission, but he resigned after the families started asking too many questions. Alberto Gonzales “stonewalled” the 9/11 Commission’s access to the White House. They appointed Thomas Kean as Chairman, someone “who will be easily controlled by the administration,” and Lee Hamilton, a long time friend of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to be the co-chair. Hamilton participated in two inquiries that resulted in cover-ups. The Iran/Contra Affair inquiry, and the October Surprise inquiry.

Fact #16
Philip Zelikow was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Paul Sperry explained, “though he has no vote, (Zelikow) arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses… In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.” In 1995, Zelikow wrote a book with Condoleezza Rice called, “Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft.” While at Harvard, “he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to William McNeill’s notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” Between 1997 and 1998, Zelikow helped to write a report that said “Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously… it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism.” They predict the consequences of such an event: “An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great ’success’ or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a ‘before’ and ‘after.’” In 1997, Zelikow and Ernest May wrote a report about John F. Kennedy that is “riddled” with errors. Zelikow wrote the pre-emptive war strategy for the Bush Administration. Zelikow said that the “real threat” with regards to Iraq’s WMD was to Israel. Zelikow tried to prevent the 9/11 Commission staffers from talking to the Commissioners. Zelikow tried to insert a false connection between Iraq and 9/11 into the 9/11 Report, but the families, and the staffers fought against it. It has been alleged that he may have taken direction from Karl Rove who, according to Philip Shenon, was concernedabout the 9/11 Commission because “in the wrong hands… [it] could cost President Bush a second term.” The allegation regarding Rove drove the September Eleventh Advocates (formerly known as “The Jersey Girls”) to call for an entirely new investigation. Only Rawstory.com covered that story. In early 2003, Philip Zelikow and Ernest May wrote a complete outline of the final 9/11 Report. Zelikow, Kean, and Hamilton decided to keep this outline a secret from the commission staffers. When “it was later disclosed that Zelikow had prepared a detailed outline of the commission’s final report at the very start of the investigation, many of the staff’s investigators were alarmed.” He rewrote the 9/11 Report to be more favorable of Condoleezza Rice. During the time of the 9/11 Commission, the families called for the resignation of Philip Zelikow, but were denied that request. After the 9/11 Commission was finished, Philip Zelikow was given a job with Condoleezza Rice at the State Department.

Fact #17
NORAD gave three different timelines with regards to their response on the day of 9/11. Sen. Mark Dayton slammed the 9/11 Commissioners for what the 9/11 Report said about NORAD. On 6/17/2004, 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick will question Gen. Myers about NORAD’s mission. “In my experience, the military is very clear about its charters, and who is supposed to do what. So if you go back and you look at the foundational documents for NORAD, they do not say defend us only against a threat coming in from across the ocean, or across our borders. It has two missions, and one of them is control of the airspace above the domestic United States, and aerospace control is defined as providing surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States. To me that air sovereignty concept means that you have a role which, if you were postured only externally you defined out of the job.” [...] “I would like to know, as the second question, is it your job, and if not whose job is it, to make current assessments of a threat, and decide whether you are positioned correctly to carry out a mission, which at least on paper NORAD had.” At the end of this exchange, Gen. Myers asks, “did I answer both questions?” Jamie Gorelick responds, “yes, and no, and my time has expired.” According to information collected by Dean Jackson, NORAD’s mission at the time, coincided with Jamie Gorelick’s understanding of it. On 8/2/2006, the Washington Post reported that “the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public” and that “the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.” Later, it was reported that NORAD’s mistakes were due to “inadequate forensic capabilities” and “poor record-keeping.” William P. Goehring, a spokesman for the Inspector General’s office, said that “the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report that is still in preparation.” To my knowledge, that report has not been released as of this date. Here are some excerpts from Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton’s book, “Without Precedent.” “There were also discrepancies between things NORAD was telling us about their performance on the morning of September 11—things that the agency had stated publicly after 9/11—and the story told by the limited tapes and documents the commission had received…. These were puzzling and disturbing developments, and they account in part for some of the more bizarre and inaccurate conspiracy theories about 9/11.” [...] “Farmer believed that NORAD was delivering incomplete records with the knowledge that the commission had a fixed end date that could be waited out.” [...] “Throughout the course of our inquiry, the topic that invited the most skepticism—and thus the most conspiracy theorizing—was the performance of the FAA and NORAD on the day of September 11, 2001.” [...] “Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue.” On 9/17/2001, NORAD gives a briefing to the White House. 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey will say “it feels like something happened in that briefing that produced almost a necessity to deliver a story that’s different than what actually happened on that day.”

Fact #18
Different pieces of evidence have been destroyed or is being withheld from the public. Kevin Delaney, the quality assurance manager for the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, destroyed a tape recorded by six Air Traffic Controllers on the morning of 9/11 “by breaking up the plastic housing and cutting the tape into small fragments, depositing the remnants in trash cans throughout the Center.” 2.5 terabytes of information regarding Able Danger was destroyed in April/May 2000. The CIA destroyed interrogation tapes. In 2003, a book was written by Gail Swanson entitled, “Behind-the-Scenes: Ground Zero” that is a “collection of personal accounts” from people that were at Ground Zero on that day. In that book, Firefighter Nicholas DeMasi says “at one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes. We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV. When we got into the ATV to take off, the agent accidentally pushed me forward. The ATV was already in reverse, and my foot went down on the gas pedal. We went down the stairs in reverse. Fortunately, everything was okay. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.” The 9/11 Commission says those black boxes were not found. Most of the steel from the WTC was removed, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Fire Engineering magazine wrote, “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.”

Fact #19
Several Whistleblowers have come forward over the years with information pertinent to the 9/11 attacks. Most were ignored or censored by the 9/11 Commission. Some of these people are John M. Cole (Senior Counterintelligence Operations Manager-FBI), Bogdan Dzakovic (Former Red Team Leader-FAA), Sibel Edmonds (Language Specialist-FBI), Behrooz Sarshar (Language Specialist-FBI), Melvin A. Goodman (Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager-CIA), Gilbert Graham (Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence-FBI), Coleen Rowley (Retired Division Counsel- FBI), John Vincent (Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI), Robert Wright (Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FB), Mark Burton (Senior Analyst- NSA), Mike German (Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI), Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and Scott Philpott. 9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza said “Sibel came to, actually, the four widows, and asked us if she could get a hearing with the Commission because nobody of the Commission was responding to her requests to testify. And part of the problem with testifying, um… as someone who’s working for one of the agencies, is that, they have to be careful with state secrets, what they reveal. And, in order to be a whistle-blower, and not be retaliated against, most whistle-blowers need to be subpoenaed, cause then their co-workers, and those who might retaliate against them, know that under penalty of, ya know, law, they could be… um… ya know, accused of being traitors and what not, and put in jail, or executed. So, most whistle-blowers were… did not come forward on the basis of what happened to Sibel Edmonds. Um, Sibel brought us many whistle-blowers, and I submitted them personally to Governor Kean, who was the Chairman of the Commission. And I said, “these people are not being subpoenaed. They will not come before the Commission voluntarily unless they are subpoenaed.” And, he promised me… to my face that “every whistle-blower would be… indeed heard.” And, most were not heard. Sibel was only heard because we dragged her in and surprised the Commission on one of the days we were meeting with them… that we had her with us. Um, we met other whistle-blowers on the side of the road in Maryland, ya know, to hear what they could tell us. None of them revealed state secrets to us by the way (laughs)… um, but, they had information… and basically, the Government knew… ya know, other than the exact moment… they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come. (pauses) And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission. And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, “What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.” And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication.” On October 29th, 2007, Sibel Edmonds agreed to break the gag order that was placed on her, and tell her entire story to the media. Until very recently, the only paper to take the challenge was the Sunday Times. At the time, the media in this country did not give her the time of day with one exception that I know of, and it wasn’t prominently displayed. Sibel’s story mentions the same alleged financier of the 9/11 attacks that Rep. Porter Goss, Sen. Graham, and Sen. Kyl met with on the morning of 9/11. More about Sibel will be mentioned later.

Fact #20
Apparently, Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, the head of the Pakistani ISI, someone who met with U.S. elected and appointed officials in the weeks before 9/11, on the day of 9/11, and in the days after 9/11, ordered possible MI6 Agent Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta. The 9/11 Families’ submitted a question to the 9/11 Commission about this incident. Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, John S. Pistole stated that their investigation “has traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan, where high-ranking and well-known al-Qaeda operatives played a major role in moving the money forward, eventually into the hands of the hijackers located in the US.” In January 2002, during a visit to India, FBI Director Robert Mueller was told about Saeed Sheikh’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks by Indian Investigators. Apparently, “on the eve of the publication of its report, the 9/11 Commission was given a stunning document from Pakistan, claiming that Pakistani intelligence officers knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks.” On 3/3/2006, the Friday Times reported that “Pakistan gave tens of thousands of dollars through its lobbyists in the United States to members of the 9/11 inquiry commission to ‘convince’ them to drop some anti-Pakistan findings in the report.” This according to FO Official Sadiq. According to the Pakistan paper Daily Times, this story about bribery “triggered” U.S. media interest. I don’t remember seeing any mention of this story at all. If you know of an American media outlet that investigated this story, and reported on the results of that investigation, please let me know. On 4/10/2006, Pakistan officially denied the allegations of bribery. “Pakistan has never indulged in the illegal activity of bribing or buying influence anywhere in the world,” said a statement issued by the FO spokesperson here on Sunday. On 10/1/2001, Lt. Gen. Ahmed and Saeed Sheikh may have been involved in another “terrorist attack” together. Recently, it was reported that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh has been running a terrorist network from prison, and was planning to assassinate President Musharraf. Former ISI Chief Hamid Gul recently defended Lt. Gen. Ahmed regarding the allegations of the wire transfer. On 3/15/2002, Condoleeza Rice is asked a question about Lt. Gen. Ahmed. “Dr. Rice, are you aware of the reports at the time that ISI Chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired to Pakistan to this group here in this area? While he was here meeting with you or anybody in the administration?” Her response was, “I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.” The transcript of this has “ISI Chief” replaced with “–.”

Fact #21
On the morning of 9/11, a homemaker by the name of Maria will notice a group of people sitting on top of a white van. She says, “They seemed to be taking a movie” at the time of the first impact. She calls the police. At 3:31pm on 9/11, the FBI issues a BOLO (be on the lookout) that says, “White, 2000 Chevrolet van…with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center…. Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals.” At 3:56pm on 9/11, these individuals are arrested. On 9/14/2001, the owner of Urban Moving Systems flees to Israel. Because of great pressurein late October 2001, the arrested men, allegedly Israeli spies, are released in November 2001. One of the men claims “our purpose was to document the event.”

Fact #22
No one has been held accountable, and instead, people that don’t deserve it, have been promoted.

Fact #23
On 9/11/2006, 9/11 Family members Donna Marsh O’Connor, Michele Little, and Christina Kminek, along with Kyle Hence (Executive Producer of 9/11: Press For Truth), and Paul Thompson (www.historycommons.org, author of “The Terror Timeline”), called for a new investigation (RealPlayer required) at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. I believe this is the only news outlet to cover it. Over the years, different family members like Bob McIlvaine, Lorie Van Auken, Daniel Wallace (RIP), Barry Zelman, and Manny Badillo have spoken out for the truth. The September Eleventh Advocates have released letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter trying to get some truth. The media has been silent. Right now, there is an effort underway in New York to get a new investigation on the ballot. So far, the city has argued that a real/new investigation into 9/11 is “not a proper subject to be placed before the voters.” When Supreme Court Justice Edward Lehner asked city counselor Steve Kitzinger “if the City had done anything to investigate 9/11. Kitzinger flatly responded, “No.” In disbelief, Judge Lerner responded with, “the City never did anything?” 9/11 Whistleblowers Coleen Rowley, and LTC Anthony Shaffer have endorsed this initiative.

Fact #24
The United States Government has not fully cooperated with international investigations into 9/11. With regards to Abdelghani Mzoudi, the United States “would not allow Mzoudi’s defense to cross-examine bin al-Shibh,” and as a result he was acquitted. During an appeal, “Kay Nehm, Germany’s top federal prosecutor, again appeals to the US State Department to release interrogation records of bin al-Shibh to the court. However, the US still refuses to release the evidence, and a list of questions the court gives to the US for bin al-Shibh to answer are never answered.” With regards to Mounir El-Motassadeq, his conviction having to do with the 9/11 attacks was overturned after finding that “German and US authorities withheld evidence.” He was later convicted for his “Al-Qaeda” membership, but not for 9/11.

Fact #25
As I mentioned in the introduction, the Mainstream Media has not covered the questions concerning the 9/11 attacks as they should, and for the most part, with the exception of small town news, have attacked those that do. According to James Goodale, the founders of the United States “enacted the First Amendment to distinguish their new government from that of England, which had long censored the press and prosecuted persons who dared to criticize the British Crown.” On 10/31/2005, Reporters Without Borders reported that the United States ranked 44th in the world for Freedom Of The Press “mainly because of the imprisonment of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and legal moves undermining the privacy of journalistic sources.” At the recent RNC, several journalists, including Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow were arrested. Over the years, the Mainstream Media has essentially used George Bush’s policy of never tolerating “outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th – malicious lies that attempt to shift blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.” At first, and still, they have referred to anyone that questions the events of 9/11 as “Conspiracy Theorists.” They have done so again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. The Mainstream Media has also repeatedly focused on what is considered the “fringe” of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and has ignored the more credible researchers. Several celebrities have spoken out for 9/11 Truth. Each time one has done so, almost in unison, the Mainstream Media has attacked them. They have done so again, and again, and again, and again, and again. They have portrayed those who question the official account as “unpatriotic,” and also as “terrorist sympathizers.” We were even painted as Holocaust Denying murderers. As pointed out in Fact #23, the media has also ignored the 9/11 Family Members who question the official account, but they have also given a lot of attention to people like Ann Coulter that have attacked some of those family members again, and again, and again. The September Eleventh Advocates responded to Coulter’s remarks. The media has heavily promoted movies like “Path To 9/11” which are factually incorrect, and ignored movies liked “9/11: Press For Truth,” which calls into question the entire 9/11 Report, and is endorsed by the family members that fought for it. The MSM have also repeatedly said that if you question the official account of 9/11, you are dishonoring the family members.

Fact #26
The 9/11 Commission was mandated to give a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.” The 9/11 Commission had the power of subpoena, but rarely used it. Instead, they used what were called “document requests” which could be, and were ignored. As mentioned in Fact #19, several whistleblowers were brought forward, but were either censored or ignored by the 9/11 Commission. Early on, the 9/11 Commission didn’t hold people under oath. At one point, an advertising campaign was started that asked for people to be held under oath. On 4/27/2009, a memo was discovered that talked about “Government Minders” intimidating witnesses. According to Kevin Fenton’s article, they “answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses,” they “acted as “monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.” The staff thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution,” and they “positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions.” The following are some quotes from 9/11 Commissioners Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton from their book “Without Precedent.” “The two sides decided to split the difference, allowing eighteen months for the inquiry—a period of time that proved insufficient” [....] “The White House also suggested some candidates for executive director for our staff. The importance of this position cannot be overstated” [...] “…we seriously only considered one candidate: Philip Zelikow…. Zelikow was a controversial choice. In the 1990s, as an academic, he had co-authored, with Condoleezza Rice, a book about German unification, and he later assisted Stephen Hadley in running the National Security Council transition for the incoming Bush administration in 2000-2001″ [...] “After Philip Zelikow came on board as executive director, he began recruiting and interviewing candidates…. Zelikow was selected with little consultation with the rest of the committee, but several commissioners had concerns about the kind of inquiry he would lead” [...] “We soon encountered problems, both in obtaining information and with the laborious conditions placed on our access to some information” [...] “We decided against an aggressive use of subpoenas for several reasons…. Furthermore, we knew that many of the most important documents we sought were potentially the subject of an executive privilege claim—meaning that the president might not be legally compelled to share that material with another branch of government, even with a subpoena” [...] “We were supposed to be independent, not necessarily confrontational. We were investigating a national catastrophe, not a White House transgression; this was 9/11, not Watergate” [...] “Senior officials from the FAA and NORAD—Jane Garvey and Craig McKinley—made statements about the timeline of 9/11 that were later proven to be inaccurate” [...] “Many interviews were recorded, though we were not permitted to record those conducted with current officials from the Executive Office of the President” [...] “We were set up to fail.” The 9/11 Family Steering Committee was made up of 12 family members, including the “Jersey Girls.” They monitored the commission, they worked with the staffers of the commission, and they provided 100’s of well researched questions for the commission to answer. According to 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean, “They monitor us, they follow our progress, they’ve supplied us with some of the best questions we’ve asked. I doubt very much if we would be in existence without them.” The 9/11 Commission only answered 30% of the families questions.

Fact #27
The level of fear that resulted from the attacks of 9/11 was nourished and maintained, and still is to this day. Reich Marshal Hermann Goering once said “of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists forlack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” On 6/23/2007, Glenn Greenwald wrote about how insurgents in Iraq were being referred to as “Al-Qaeda” more frequently. He states, “what makes this practice all the more disturbing is how quickly and obediently the media has adopted the change in terms consciously issued by the Bush administration and their military officials responsible for presenting the Bush view of the war to the press.” Fox News once suggested “Al-Qaeda” was responsible for starting California Wildfires. Keith Olbermann ran two stories that I know ofregarding the political usage of “terror threats.” The New York Times recently ran a massive story on how military analysts with “ties to military contractors” were being used by the Pentagon to “shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.” They “have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated.”

Fact #28
The 9/11 Report was, and is promoted as a triumph. The Washington Post reported that it is “a useful analysis of the changes that have taken place since, as well as the changes that have not taken place, ” and calling the commission’s unanimity and comprehensiveness “impressive.” WaPo also reported that “the final report is a document of historic sweep and almost unprecedented detail, offering the sort of examination of a highly classified subject that customarily would not be possible for decades after the fact. From the findings of spy agencies to the tactics of fighter pilots, from the conversations of heads of state to the verbatim texts of secret presidential briefings, this is the government laid bare.” The New York Times reported that it was “uncommonly lucid, even riveting,” and is an “improbable literary triumph.” Time Magazine said the report was “meticulous in its reconstruction of the attacks and unflinching in its conclusions about why the government failed to stop them.” The 9/11 Commission’s report was nominated by the National Book Foundation in 2004 for best in Non-fiction. Former Representative Katherine Harris referred to the 9/11 Report as “one of the most important publications of our age.” Senator Hillary Clinton said the 9/11 Commission’s report was “a great testimony to the their willingness to search hard for the truth, to get at the facts.” Senator Charles Schumer said the 9/11 Commission did an “incredible job.” In 2004, Bush’s Presidential Campaign said “the Commission’s report makes the case for the policies that U.S. President Bush has been pursuing in the War on Terror and eliminates any doubt that the best defense against the threat of global terror is a strong offense.” Bush said, “I agree with their conclusion that the terrorists were able to exploit deep institutional failings in our nation’s defenses that developed over more than a decade.” A different kind of praise for the 9/11 Report has come in the form of requests for “9/11-Type Commissions” for other horrible events in America’s history such as Katrina and the recent “financial crisis.”

Fact #29
Osama Bin Laden has not been indicted for the 9/11 attacks. Some time before 9/26/2001, FBI spokesman Rex Tomb says, “there’s going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged.” He continues, “To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court.” On 9/23/2001, then Secretary of State Colin Powell is asked, “will you release publicly a white paper which links [bin Laden] and his organization to this attack to put people at ease?” He responds by saying “we are hard at work bringing all the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think in the near future we will be able to put out a paper, a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack.” The following day, then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer when asked about Powell’s statement says “I think that there was just a misinterpretation of the exact words the secretary used on the Sunday shows.… I’m not aware of anybody who said white paper, and the secretary didn’t say anything about a white paper yesterday.” On 10/4/2001, Tony Blair will present a paper that makes the case for Osama Bin Laden’s involvement before Parliament. It says, “this document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law.” Nevertheless, it continues, “on the basis of all the information available [Her Majesty’s Government] is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document.” On 6/6/2006, Rex Tomb will say, “the reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” This according to Ed Haas of the Muckraker Report. On 8/28/2006, the Washington Post will report about this story. They state “from this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain. Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings.” They speak to Rex Tomb who says “There’s no mystery here” [...] “They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don’t need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it.” According to David N. Kelley, a former U.S. attorney, “It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view,” said Kelley, now in private practice. “If I were in government, I’d be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was.” Contrary to WaPo’s claim that “bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings,” Osama denied any involvement in the attacks on three separate ocassions. On 9/16/2001, he says, “I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.” On 9/28/2001, he says, “I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle.… The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive. They may be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who have been annoyed with President Bush ever since the Florida elections and who want to avenge him.… Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from Congress and the government every year.… They needed an enemy.… Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked who carried out the attacks.” On 12/26/2001, Bin Laden releases a tape that says the U.S.’s invasion of Afghanistan is “a vicious campaign based on mere suspicion.” On 9/10/2008, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino will be asked a question. “But Osama bin Laden is the one that — you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 –” Her response is to say that “No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and he’s sitting in jail right now.”

Fact #30
The authenticity of video and audio recordings that have been released over the years allegedly from Osama Bin Laden have been disputed. On 10/29/2007, MSNBC reported about a “running debate among video analysts about whether al-Qaida faked” a video that was released on 9/7/2007. The so called “confession video” has been disputed from three different points of view. The translation of the tape was disputed. Professor Gernot Rotter from the University of Hamburg says, “this tape is of such poor quality that many passages are unintelligible. And those that are intelligible have often been taken out of context, so that you can’t use that as evidence. The American translators who listened to the tape and transcribed it obviously added things that they wanted to hear in many places.” The date the video was made is disputed by analyst Maher Osseiran. Several commentators questioned whether the person depicted in the video is actually Osama. According to CNN, Bush was asked about the authenticity of the tape, but “scoffed” at the idea “that the videotape of Osama bin Laden discussing the September 11 terrorist attacks might not be authentic.” He said, “It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored” [...] “That’s just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man.”

Fact #31
The majority of the testimony from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks, something the 9/11 Report is heavily based on, was gotten through torture, and “third-hand- passed from the detainee, to the interrogator, to the person who writes up the interrogation report, and finally to [its] staff in the form of reports, not even transcripts.” Because of the latter, the 9/11 Commission decided to add a disclaimer to the chapters that are heavily based on detainee interrogations. The disclaimer says, “Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al-Qaeda members. A number of these ‘detainees’ have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses—sworn enemies of the United States—is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process. We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al-Qaeda members in our report. We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the US government.” The 9/11 Commission became unhappy because the government’s investigators were “not asking the detainees the kinds of questions [it wanted] answered.” On 8/6/2007, the New Yorker reports that a former CIA official estimates that about “ninety percent of the information was unreliable.” KSM’s interrogations are mentioned as a source in the 9/11 report 211 times. On 6/15/2009, the Associated Press reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he would “make up stories” in order to get them to stop torturing him.

Fact #32
The Military Tribunals taking place at Guanatanamo Bay are a slap in the face to those seeking justice for the crimes of 9/11, as well as to the rest of the world. The level of secrecy is counterproductive. As the September 11th Advocates state, “prosecuting these men within a system that is secretive in nature and lacking in due process, and which uses evidence tainted by questionable interrogation methods and possibly even torture, is a dangerous endeavor.” Several other family members have voiced their concerns about the secrecy. Unlike U.S. Federal courts, “the Guantanamo tribunal permits hearsay evidence as well as information gleaned from coercion and makes no guarantee that the accused will be able to confront his accusers or know all the evidence against him.” As far as the media goes “only a handful of journalists will be allowed in the courtroom, confined to a glass enclosed booth where they can be shut off from hearing testimony on the judge’s instructions.” [...] “Audio recordings and pictures of the proceedings are barred.” The ACLU charged that “the U.S. government is blocking the American Civil Liberties Union from paying attorneys representing suspected terrorists held here, insisting that the ACLU must first receive a license from the U.S. Treasury Department before making the payments.” Once the Supreme Court ruled that detainees “have the right to challenge their detention in civilian court,” the Bush Administration decided “to rewrite the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time.” A propaganda film was shown to the court room. “The video is entitled “The Al Qaeda Plan,” an echo of “The Nazi Plan” made by Oscar-winning director George Stevens as evidence in the Nuremberg war crimes trials of German leaders after World War II.” Judge Keith Allred approved the video, but said, “The planes crashing into the towers and the people screaming doesn’t prove anything.” Army Brig. Gen. Gregory Zanetti said that Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the Pentagon official who oversees the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals, was “abusive, bullying, unprofessional.” Detainee lawyers say that “political interference taints the proceedings.” On 4/18/2008, it was reported that the families would be able to watch the trials. According to Army Col. Lawrence Morris, “we’re going to broadcast in real time to several locations that will be available just to victim families.” Later, the military decided against that. However, they were going to allow Debra Burlingame, a 9/11 Family Member that happens to be pro-Bush to attend. Several family members released a statement that said, “selectively inviting only 9/11 family members whose views are in alignment with those of the Bush administration is only one example of the repeated attempts to infuse politics into what should be an impartial process that has the goal of achieving justice.” On 10/27/2008, it was reported that “the Pentagon has made plans to bring victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks – chosen by lottery — to watch a hearing of reputed al Qaeda kingpin Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s death penalty trial.” Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said, “Soon, some of those victim families will have the opportunity to see firsthand the fair, open and just trials of those alleged to have perpetrated these horrific acts.” The Miami Herald cites, “a long-promised victims witness program, which will enable thousands of family members of the Sept. 11 dead to watch the eventual trial through satellite feeds to four U.S. military bases.” On 12/10/2008, a group of 31 9/11 family members, along with the ACLU released a statement that said, “many of us do not believe these military commissions to be fair, in accordance with American values, or capable of achieving the justice that 9/11 family members and all Americans deserve.”

Fact #33
The resulting dust from the collapse of the buildings on 9/11/2001 was toxic, and people like Condoleezza Rice and Christie Todd Whitman lied about it so things like Wall Street could reopen. As a result,several 1000 9/11 First Responders, and residents of New York are sick and dying. Both local and Federal Governments have ignored them in their time of need.

Fact #34
Suspicious trading in the world markets took place before 9/11/2001. On or around 8/6/2001, what appear to be “suspicious” put option purchases are made. According to one analyst, “from what I’m hearing, it’s more than coincidence.” In early September 2001, “suspicious” short selling of reinsurance company stocks take place. Also in September 2001, suspicion of insider trading takes place in many other countries, resulting in the creation of several investigations. The countries mentioned are Belgium, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, Cyprus, U.K., Italy, and Japan. On 10/3/2001, the San Francisco Chronicle will report that the NYSE sees “unusually heavy trading in airline and related stocks several days before the attacks.” Some of those companies are American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, United, and US Airways. In early September 2001, there is a sharp increase in short selling of American and United Airlines stocks. Between 9/6/2001, and 9/10/2001, suspicious trading of put options on American and United Airlines occur. Ernst Welteke, the President of a German central bank, says that his bank has done a study. “There are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge.” His researchers have found “almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.” During the time of the 9/11 Commission, the families pressed for answers about this suspicious trading. The 9/11 Report states, “highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.” [...] “The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.”

Fact #35
The 9/11 Report says, “to date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000–$500,000 over nearly two years.” The 9/11 Commission repeats this in a document entitled, “The Financing of the 9/11 Plot.” “To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. As we have discussed above, the compelling evidence appears to trace the bulk of the funds directly back to KSM and, possibly, Qatari, but no further. Available information on this subject has thus far has not been illuminating. According to KSM, Bin Ladin provided 85–95 percent of the funds for the plot from his personal wealth, with the remainder coming from general al Qaeda funds. To the extent KSM intended to refer to wealth Bin Ladin inherited from his family or derived from any business activity, this claim is almost certainly wrong, because Bin Ladin was not personally financing al Qaeda during this time frame. Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular source of funds dried up, it could have easily tapped a different source or diverted money from a different project to fund an attack that cost $400,000–$500,000 over nearly two years.”

Fact #36
“Al-Qaeda” has curious connections to intelligence agencies all over the world. Wikipedia defines “Al-Qaeda” as “an international Sunni Islamist movement founded in 1988. Al-Qaeda have attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001. These actions were followed by the US government launching a military and intelligence campaign against al-Qaeda called the War on Terror.” On 9/28/2006, the Washington Post reported that “a leaked document accuses Pakistan’s intelligence agency of indirectly supporting terrorist groups including al-Qaida and calls on Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to disband the agency.” [...] “Indirectly, Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism _ whether in London on (July 7, 2005) or in Afghanistan or Iraq.” The BBC reports that ” [The West has] turned a blind eye towards existing instability and the indirect protection of Al Qaeda and promotion of terrorism.” On 9/30/2006, the BBC reported Mumbai Police Commissioner AN Roy’s statement that, “We have solved the 11 July bombings case. The whole attack was planned by Pakistan’s ISI and carried out by Lashkar-e-Toiba and their operatives in India.” On 10/7/2006, the Sunday Times reports that “captured Taliban fighters and failed suicide bombers have confirmed that they were trained by the Pakistani intelligence service, known as the ISI.” In March 2001, Selig Harrison, a “long-time regional expert” says, “the CIA still has close links with the ISI.” Harrison is said to have “extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia.” In 2000, “Ahmed Rashid, longtime regional correspondent for the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph” referred to the U.S. as “Pakistan’s closest ally, with deep links to [Pakistan’s] military and the ISI.” On 10/19/2007, B. Raman reported that “Brig Ejaz Shah, a former officer of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence” [...] “used to be the handling officer of Osama bin Laden and Mulla Omar, the amir of the Taliban.” When I asked Mr. Raman “What does it mean to be Osama Bin Laden’s “Handling Officer” for the Pakistani ISI? What is the responsibility of the person that has this particular job?” his response was, “The handling officer of a source in Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies is the person who looks after the welfare of the source, keeps him motivated and uses him as needed. The source cannot meet anybody else other than his handling officer except the head of the agency. One source–one handling officer is the general rule. This is to prevent the exposure of the operation and maintain its deniability. I understand in the CIA they call him the Running Officer of a source.” On 10/31/2001, Le Figaro reports that while staying in the American hospital in Dubai, he is treated by Dr. Terry Callaway. “He is possibly accompanied by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (who is said to be bin Laden’s personal physician as well as al-Qaeda’s second-in-command), plus several bodyguards. Callaway supposedly treated bin Laden in 1996 and 1998, also in Dubai. Callaway later refuses to answer any questions on this matter.” “During his stay, bin Laden is visited by “several members of his family and Saudi personalities,” including Prince Turki al-Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence.” “On July 12, bin Laden reportedly meets with CIA agent Larry Mitchell in the hospital. Mitchell apparently lives in Dubai as an Arab specialist under the cover of being a consular agent. The CIA, the Dubai hospital, and even bin Laden deny the story. The two news organizations that broke the story, Le Figaro and Radio France International, stand by their reporting.” “The Guardian claims that the story originated from French intelligence, “which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.” The Guardian adds that during his stay bin Laden is also visited by a second CIA officer.” “In 2003, reporter Richard Labeviere will provide additional details of what he claims happened in a book entitled “The Corridors of Terror.” He claims he learned about the meeting from a contact in the Dubai hospital. He claims the event was confirmed in detail by a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain. This prince claimed the meeting was arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal. The prince said, “By organizing this meeting…Turki thought he could start direct negotiations between [bin Laden] and the CIA on one fundamental point: that bin Laden and his supporters end their hostilities against American interests.” In exchange, the CIA and Saudis would allow bin Laden to return to Saudi Arabia and live freely there. The meeting is said to be a failure.” “On July 15, Larry Mitchell reportedly returns to CIA headquarters to report on his meeting with bin Laden.” “French counterterrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising: It “is nothing extraordinary. Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989.” “A CIA spokesman calls the entire account of bin Laden’s stay at Dubai “sheer fantasy.” Luai Sakra, an alleged CIA informant is said to have trained 6 of the 9/11 hijackers. Ali Mohamed has connections to both the FBI and the CIA. On 3/17/2007, Seymour Hersh reported that, “Iran-Contra veterans working out of Dick Cheney’s office are using stolen funds from Iraq to arm al Qaeda-tied groups and foment a larger Sunni-Shia war.” On 4/3/2007, ABCNews reported that, “a Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005.” […] “Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.” On 7/2/2009, a successful “working relationship” was established “between the Bush Administration, specifically Cheney, the CIA, and the Pakistani ISI” [...] “for the express purpose of funding, manipulating and using a “terrorist” organization in order to carry out terrorist attacks.” On June 24th, 2009, 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, someone the ACLU refers to as the “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America” because of the Bush Administration’s usage of the “States Secrets Privilege” to gag her on two separate occasions, said on the Mike Malloy Show that Osama Bin Laden had “intimate relations” with elements within the U.S. Government up until the day of 9/11. As I pointed out in Fact #20, “Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, the head of the Pakistani ISI, someone who met with U.S. elected and appointed officials in the weeks before 9/11, on the day of 9/11, and in the days after 9/11, ordered possible MI6 Agent Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta.” I refer you back to Fact #35.

Fact #37
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland had a lot of interesting things to say. Between January and July of 2003, the Bush Administration delayed the release of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry Report until after the start of the Iraq War. Max Cleland says, “The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaeda) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war. There’s no connection, and that’s been confirmed by some of bin Laden’s terrorist followers… What you’ve seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends. The reason this report was delayed for so long—deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created—is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over… before (it) came out. Had this report come out in January [2003] like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration.” After 1/27/2003, Max Cleland is disappointed with the start of the 9/11 Commission’s investigation. Specifically, he is not happy that the Commission “will not issue subpoenas for the documents it wants and will have a single non-partisan staff headed by executive director Philip Zelikow, who is close to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.” In May 2003, Max Cleland wanted the 9/11 Commission to investigate the false claims tying Iraq to 9/11 made by the Bush Administration. He says, “they were focused on Iraq, they were planning a war on Iraq, they were not paying attention to the business at hand.” Zelikow, Kean, and Hamilton opposed this. Phil Shenon will write, “even some of the Democrats [on the commission] were distancing themselves from him. Cleland knew he was quickly becoming a pariah.” Cleland will say, “it was painfully obvious to me that there was this blanket over the commission” [...] “Anybody who spoke out or dissented, whether against George Bush, the White House, or the war against Iraq, was going to be marginalized.” In November 2003, the Commission, and the White House were battling over how much access the Commission would have to Bush daily briefings. Cleland says, “all ten commissioners should have full, unfettered, and unrestricted access to all evidence.” In December 2003, Max Cleland is offered a “position on the board of the Export-Import Bank.” He accepts. Before leaving the Commission, he calls the Bush Administration’s stonewalling of the Commission a “national scandal,” and says “I’m not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I’m not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I’m not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I’m not going to be part of that. This is serious.” On 10/26/2003, Cleland tells the New York Times “as each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted.”

Fact #38
Over the years, several polls have been conducted that show a majority of people are concerned about this issue. In August 2004, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded “half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.” In May 2006, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded 45% of voting Americans think “Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success.” In September 2007, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded “51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 Attacks.” In August 2006, Scripps Howard/Ohio University conducted a poll that concluded, “more than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.” In November 2007, Scripps Howard/Ohio University conducted another poll that concluded, “nearly two-thirds of Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings.”

Fact #39
Several interesting and thought provoking quotes have been made by people over the years with regards to the 9/11 attacks. Sen. Patrick Leahy said, “the two questions that the congress will not ask, because republicans wont allow it, is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama Bin Laden cornered why didnt they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions these questions would have been asked years ago.” Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission John Farmer states in his upcoming book, “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.” 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said, “By the way, there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place. In the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made. The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission.” 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser said, “it is clear that [Zelikow] should never have been permitted to be a member of the commission, since it is the mandate of the commission to identify the source of failures. We can now see that trail would lead directly to the staff director himself.” On 7/22/2005, at the 9/11 Congressional Briefing chaired by then Rep. Cynthia McKinney, 9/11 Family Members Monica Gabrielle, and Mindy Kleinberg accompanied 9/11 Family Member Lorie Van Auken who said, “the 9/11 Commission’s report is one year old today. This report was supposed to provide the definitive account of what had transpired on September eleven, 2001. We hoped that our thousands of unanswered questions would be addressed and answered. Yet incredibly we have found that the Commission’s definitive final report has actually yielded more questions than answers.” 9/11 Family Member Donna Marsh O’Connor said at the National Press Club on 9/11/2006, “This Government has made me a victim of Conspiracy Theories, because they haven’t answered fully, or allowed anyone to ask the true questions of September 11th, and that’s what I’m asking from you today. For exposure. We are not crazy. We have questions. We demand answers. [...] We’re asking for a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end.”

Fact #40
A document entitled, “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” from 1962 proves BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT that elements within our Government are MORE THAN CAPABLE of devising a “9/11 Type” plan.

Fact #41
There are several indications that Osama Bin Laden has been protected, and even allowed to escape after the 9/11 attacks. On 12/24/1998, at the request of then CIA Director George Tenet, President Clinton signs an order authorizing the CIA to assassinate Osama Bin Laden. Philip Shenon will write that Clinton’s authorization is “written in stark language” and it makes it very clear “that the president was telling the tribal leaders they could kill bin Laden.” However, this order is “closely held within the CIA, and the 9/11 Commission will comment, “This intent [to have bin Laden killed] was never well communicated or understood within the agency.” “Apparently, it is never even communicated to Michael Scheuer, head of Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit. Scheuer will later express his frustration at not being allowed to try to kill bin Laden, “We always talked about how much easier it would have been to kill him.” In February 1999, Clinton rewrites the order for the CIA and “deletes the wording authorizing an operation to simply kill bin Laden.” In December 1999, Clinton issues a wider memo that deals “with “a wider set of contingencies,” and they authorize the use of force only within the context of a capture operation, not an assassination attempt. The CIA is therefore allowed to try to kill bin Laden only using one specific group of assets—tribal leaders tracking bin Laden in Afghanistan, still based on the earlier instructions. But the CIA does not test “the limits of available legal authority,” apparently because the CIA’s bin Laden unit is not told of the kill authorization and due to confusion.” On 9/21/2001, it is reported that President Putin “had warned the Clinton administration about the dangers posed by Bin Laden. “Washington’s reaction at the time really amazed me. They shrugged their shoulders and said matter-of-factly: ‘We can’t do anything because the Taliban does not want to turn him over’.” After 9/11, Bush says about Bin Laden, “If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.” Two days after that, he says, “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’” In Afghanistan, veteran CIA agent Gary Berntsen is in charge of the team responsible for capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden called “Jawbreaker.” “He will claim that at the start of December 2001, one of his Arabic-speaking CIA agents finds a radio on a dead al-Qaeda fighter during a battle in the Tora Bora region. This agent hears bin Laden repeatedly attempt to rally his troops. On the same radio, that agent and another CIA agent who speaks Arabic hear bin Laden apologizing to his troops for getting them trapped and killed by US aerial bombing. Based on this information, Berntsen makes a formal request for 800 US troops to be deployed along the Pakistani border to prevent bin Laden’s escape. The request is not granted. Berntsen’s lawyer later claims, “Gary coordinated most of the boots on the ground. We knew where bin Laden was within a very circumscribed area. It was full of caves and tunnels but we could have bombed them or searched them one by one. The Pentagon failed to deploy sufficient troops to seal them off.” “A Knight Ridder investigative report will later conclude, “While more than 1,200 US Marines [sit] at an abandoned air base in the desert 80 miles away, Franks and other commanders [rely] on three Afghan warlords and a small number of American, British, and Australian special forces to stop al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters from escaping across the mountains into Pakistan.” Military and intelligence officials warn Franks that the two main Afghan commanders cannot be trusted. This turns out to be correct, as the warlords accept bribes from al-Qaeda leaders to let them escape.” On 12/5/2001, Brig. Gen. James N. Mattis “is convinced his forces can seal the Tora Bora area to trap bin Laden there. Around this date, Mattis argues strongly to his military superiors at Centcom that his troops should fight at Tora Bora, but he is turned down.” Between December 8th – 14th, British special forces pursue Osama Bin Laden, and are reportedly “20 minutes behind” him but are “pulled off to allow US troops to go in for the kill.” However, it takes hours for the Americans to arrive, by which time bin Laden has escaped.” On 10/6/2008, it is reported that “a team of elite Delta Force commandos was sent into Afghanistan with an assignment to find and kill Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora” but were stopped by U.S. officials. On 60 Minutes, the commando leader is asked by Scott Pelley, “how often does Delta come up with a tactical plan that’s disapproved by higher headquarters?” His answer is “in my experience, in my five years at Delta, never before.” Apparently, Cofer Black is fired on 5/17/2002. “Six anonymous US intelligence officials will claim that, in fact, Black is removed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld because Black publicly revealed details of the US military’s failure to capture or kill bin Laden in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in late 2001.” On 3/13/2001, Bush says, “He’s a person who’s now been marginalized.… I just don’t spend that much time on him.… I truly am not that concerned about him.” Instead, Bush is “deeply concerned about Iraq.”

Fact #42
Over the years, there have been several reports indicating that Osama Bin Laden is dead. On 12/26/2001, Fox News reported that “Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication.” On 1/18/2002, President Pervez Musharraf says, “I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a … kidney patient.” On 7/18/2002, the FBI’s counter-terroism chief Dale Watsonsays, “I am not really sure of the answer… I personally think he is probably not with us anymore but I have no evidence to support that.” On 10/7/2002, President Hamid Karzai says that Bin Laden is probably dead. On 10/16/2002, Israeli intelligence sources report that Osama is dead. On 10/23/2005, a Multan newspaper reports that Osama Bin Laden, “died four months ago in a village near Kandahar of severe illness.” On 3/15/2006, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports about a claim by then Rep. Curt Weldon that Osama Bin Laden died in Iran. On 9/23/2006, it is reported that “a French regional newspaper quoted a French secret service report on Saturday as saying that Saudi Arabia is convinced that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan last month.” President Chiracsaid this was “in no way whatsoever confirmed.” Recently, former CIA official Robert Baer said that he thinks Osama is dead. On 6/30/2008, Time released an article entitled, “Is Osama bin Laden Dying … Again?”

Fact #43
Several of the alleged hijackers should not have been given visas. Between April 3-7, 2001, three hijackers are given visas to the United States through the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. They are Nawaf Alhazmi, Salem Alhazmi, and Khalid Almihdar. “Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi are already “al-Qaeda veterans” and battle-hardened killers.” “All three men have indicators in their passports marking them as Islamist radicals. These indicators are used to track them by the Saudi authorities, but are apparently not noticed by US officials.” According to Michael Springmann, someone who was the head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from Sept. 87 to March of 87, said that he was “repeatedly ordered… to issue [more than 100] visas to unqualified applicants.” “He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah.”

Fact #44
Footnote 44 of the 9/11 Report states, “CIA cable,“Activities of Bin Ladin Associate Khalid Revealed,” Jan. 4, 2000. His Saudi passport—which contained a visa for travel to the United States—was photocopied and forwarded to CIA headquarters. This information was not shared with FBI headquarters until August 2001. An FBI agent detailed to the Bin Ladin unit at CIA attempted to share this information with colleagues at FBI headquarters. A CIA desk officer instructed him not to send the cable with this information. Several hours later, this same desk officer drafted a cable distributed solely within CIA alleging that the visa documents had been shared with the FBI. She admitted she did not personally share the information and cannot identify who told her they had been shared. We were unable to locate anyone who claimed to have shared the information. Contemporaneous documents contradict the claim that they were shared. DOJ Inspector General interview of Doug M., Feb. 12, 2004; DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael, Oct. 31, 2002; CIA cable, Jan. 5, 2000; DOJ Inspector General report,“ A Review of the FBI’s Handling of Intelligence Information Related to the 9/11 Attacks,” July 2, 2004, p. 282.” 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser referred to George Tenet as “Mr. “I failed to tell the FBI for 18 months that two known al Qaeda killers were living in San Diego and planning the 9/11 attacks.”

Fact #45
NIST released a report about the collapse of building 7 that is in dispute. Recently, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) published comments critiquing NIST’s report on building 7. The September Eleventh Advocates released a statement that cleverly mocked their report. There is an organization known as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that disputes this report. A physics professor formerly of Brigham Young University named Steven E. Jones, a whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories named Kevin Ryan, and several others belong to a group called Scholars For 9/11 Truth & Justice that have written several critiques of NIST’s reports from over the years that have been published. NIST’s questionable report on building 7 caused people that were once on the fenceregarding the collapse of those buildings on 9/11, to think that those advocating something different than NIST’s conclusions, responsibly, might be right. On 4/3/2009, the Open Chemical Physics Journal of Bentham-Open published a peer reviewed paper entitled, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” According to Dr. Steven Jones, “unless an objector actually publishes his or her objection in a peer-reviewed established journal” [...] “then the objection is not considered serious in the scientific community.”

Fact #46
After the 9/11 attacks, George Bush’s popularity ratings soared to record numbers. On 9/18/2001, the Washington Post reported that, “the country has rallied to the president’s side. Even those who wished for a little more eloquence from him did not want to hear a word against him. Ask any journalist who raised questions about his initial handling of the crisis: They have been inundated with furious calls calling them a disgrace to their profession and even traitors. Congress is well aware that George Bush has become a colossus, surpassing his father’s 90 percent approval rating after the Persian Gulf War. Congress has been more than satisfied with a supporting role in the wake of the horror. On Tuesday night members convened and sang “God Bless America” and pledged allegiance to Bush. Democratic consternation and misgivings have been expressed behind the scenes. When Bush requested blanket authority for retaliation, some remembered the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which they unwarily gave to Lyndon Johnson during Vietnam and came to regret. They said the president’s current powers give him all the authority he needed to punish the authors of the obscene attacks. But, as one Democrat said disconsolately, “No one wants to say no to Bush now.”

Fact #47
The Moussaoui Trial had a lot of problems, and revealed a lot of information. On 3/7/2006, the Associated Press reported that “a defense lawyer got FBI agent Michael Anticev to admit that the FBI was aware years before Nine-Eleven that al Qaida planned to slam planes into prominent buildings.” On 3/13/2006, AP reports that “an angry federal judge unexpectedly recessed the death penalty trial of al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to consider whether government violations of her rules against coaching witnesses should remove the death penalty as an option.” Another AP report cites that a, “government lawyer who has jeopardized the prosecution of al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui used a transcript of the first day of the trial to try to shape future testimony to meet or deflect possible defense attacks, court documents indicate.” [...] “Arguing that Martin’s e-mails tainted three government and four defense witnesses beyond repair, the defense has asked the judge to dismiss the government’s bid to execute Moussaoui, the only person charged in this country in connection with al-Qaida’s Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.” This “outraged” the families. “I was really horrified and very outraged to hear that this type of mistake was made,” Regenhard said. “This is probably one of the most important trials in the history of this country — how someone could put that at risk. She betrayed the families of the victims who certainly have been waiting nearly five long years to get some kind of scintilla of justice.” On 3/15/2006, the Washington Post reports that “U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema decided yesterday to exclude all aviation security evidence after Martin violated a court order by e-mailing trial transcripts to seven witnesses and coaching them about their upcoming testimony.” [...] “I am furious,” said Rosemary Dillard, whose husband, Eddie, was killed on the plane that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. “Aviation is a big part of this case. Aviation is what killed our loved ones. It was planes. You take aviation out . . . where do they go from here?” [...] “How are we supposed to get any new information now?” said Fiona Havlish, formerly of Buck County, Pa., whose husband was killed at the World Trade Center. “I think what all of us are looking for is the truth, and the truth has not been forthcoming out of Washington. I mean, I can only speak for myself, but I do not feel that the truth has come out no matter how hard we as family members have tried. And this was just one more avenue to find a particle of truth, and that is being thwarted.” [...] “Some wondered whether she was being used as a scapegoat for other government officials who did not want the aviation security evidence to be made public.” [...] “I don’t think she is alone,” Dillard said in a telephone interview last night. “I just don’t think she could have gotten away with that. Somebody helped her or prompted her. It just makes me wonder whether this is one more thing where no one is going to be held accountable. . . . It’s almost too clean. I wonder if there is more to the story than we know.” [...] “I felt the government wasn’t telling us all that it knew, and I do know that feeling is shared in the Massachusetts circle of families within which I travel,” said Blake Allison, of Hanover, N.H., whose wife, Anna Allison, was killed on American Airlines Flight 11. “We talked about this the first day of the trial, the hope that the trial would bring some clarity to some of the circumstances leading up to 9/11.” On 3/15/2006, the Sunday Times reports more about 9/11 Family Member Rosemary Dillard’s anger about what happened. “I felt like my heart had been ripped out,” said Rosemary Dillard, whose husband Eddie was killed aboard the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. “I felt like my husband had been killed again. I felt like the Government had let me down again.” [...] “I don’t think in the annals of criminal law there has ever been a case with this many significant problems,” said Judge Brinkema, who considered abandoning the trial altogether but eventually decided to adjourn it until Monday.” [...] “The missing testimony was expected to deal with how much the Federal Aviation Administration already knew about possible terror threats to airlines prior to 9/11, and what security measures were in place.” On 3/16/2006, MSNBC reports that “the lawyer whose coaching of witnesses in the death penalty case of Zacarias Moussaoui caused his trial to be halted was placed on administrative leave from her job, the Transportation Security Administration said Thursday.” On 3/17/2006, AP reportsthat “the judge has issued a written order that says prosecutors can present exhibits and a witness or witnesses if they are untainted by contact with Transportation Security Administration lawyer Carla Martin.” On 3/20/2006, Reuters reports that “an FBI agent testified in the sentencing trial of September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui on Monday that agency superiors repeatedly blocked his efforts to warn of a possible terror attack. Harry Samit, the FBI agent who arrested Moussaoui three weeks before the deadly airliner hijackings that killed 3,000 people, said he tried to tell his superiors that he thought a hijacking plan might be in the works. “You tried to move heaven and earth to get a search warrant to search this man’s belongings. You were obstructed,” defense attorney Edward MacMahon said as the trial resumed after a week’s delay over improper witness coaching. “From a particular individual in the (FBI’s) Radical Fundamentalist Unit, yes sir, I was obstructed,” Samit said.” Forbes reports that “MacMahon (Moussaoui defense attorney) introduced an Aug. 31 letter Samit drafted “to advise the FAA of a potential threat to security of commercial aircraft” from whomever Moussaoui was conspiring with. But Maltbie barred him from sending it to FAA headquarters, saying he would handle that, Samit testified. The agent added that he did tell FAA officials in Minneapolis of his suspicions.” On 3/25/2006, the Washington Post reports that the families hope for answers at the Moussaoui Trial is “unfulfilled.”

Fact #48
On 9/25/2006, former 9/11 Commission Richard Ben Veniste makes public knowledge a deal within the 9/11 Commission to keep Bush, Cheney, and Clinton’s testimony classified until 2009. “BLITZER: Now, I read this report, the 9/11 Commission report. This is a big, thick book. I don’t see anything and I don’t remember seeing anything about this exchange that you had with the president in this report.BEN-VENISTE: Well, I had hoped that we had — we would have made both the Clinton interview and the Bush interview a part of our report, but that was not to be. I was outvoted on that question. BLITZER: Why? BEN-VENISTE: I didn’t have the votes. BLITZER: Well, was — were the Republican members trying to protect the president and the vice president? Is that what your suspicion is? BEN-VENISTE: I think the question was that there was a degree of confidentiality associated with that and that we would take from that the output that is reflected in the report, but go no further. And that until some five years’ time after our work, we would keep that confidential. I thought we would be better to make all of the information that we had available to the public and make our report as transparent as possible so that the American public could have that.”

Fact #49
In the fall of 2003, former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, Sandy Berger, “removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency’s internal watchdog said Wednesday.” [...] “Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administration’s representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.” On 4/1/2005, it was reported that Berger “pleaded guilty yesterday to pilfering classified documents from the National Archives, saying he showed “very poor judgment” and that his actions were “wrong.” On 1/9/2007, Fox News reports that “some classified documents that were unlawfully removed from the National Archives three years ago may never have reached their intended destination — the Sept. 11 commission, a House Republican report concluded Tuesday.” [...] “Released by Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the report said Berger could have taken White House staff working papers that never were inventoried by the archives. In that case, nobody would know they were gone, the report said.”

Fact #50
Several companies friendly to the Bush Administration as well as others, and several partners in the “War On Terror” have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks. A long time ago at the 2004 9/11 People’s Commission, I asked ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern what he thought could be the possible motives (Quicktime required) for doing something as horrible as 9/11. He mentioned an acronym for “O.I.L.” that he created. “O for oil, I for Israel, and L for the logistical bases necessary to exert (inaudible) military capability in that part of the world.” Before he answered my question, he spoke of the PNAC’s dream of invading Iraq. He spoke of eliminating any possible threat to the state of Israel. He spoke of what were considered then to be 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, and so on. Since 9/11, oil companies like Exxon, Shell, and Chevron have made massive fortunes. on 6/20/2008, the Guardian reported that “Iraq is preparing to allow four of the biggest western oil companies to renew exploitation of the country’s vast reserves for the first time in almost four decades. Iraq’s oil ministry stepped up talks with BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total after the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, visited Iraq in March, where he also pressed the government to revive efforts to pass the hydrocarbon law that nationalist MPs were blocking. The first contracts are expected to be signed this month. Some 90% of Iraq’s budget comes from oil revenues.” Companies like Bechtel and Halliburton have made fortunes because of the “War On Terror.” Granted, like most companies, they have lost some of those fortunes within the last two months. Since 9/11, the Bush Administration have made repeated claims that they will protect Israel. On 1/26/2006, the Mail & Guardian reports that Bush has committed to the “defence of Israel.” On 2/1/2006, Reuters reports that Bush says the U.S. would defend Israel against Iran. On 5/23/2006, CNN reports that Bush promises to protect Israel if attacked by Iran. On 1/7/2008, AFP reports that Bush promises again to protect Israel if attacked by Iran. Haaretz reported about a possible pipeline of oil going from Iraq to Israel. On 5/24/2007, the Daily India reports that “a new study released by the Centre for Public Integrity, a non-profit organisation based in Washington, has said that Pakistan has been the largest recipient of anti-terror funds in the four years after 9/11.” On 5/30/2007, publicintegrity.org reported that most of the money Pakistan received “came through a Defense Department program subject to virtually no congressional oversight.” According toSpencer Ackerman, a lot of the money came in the form of “untraceable cash transfers.” Both Pakistan and Israel are considered partners in the “War On Terror.” If we’re not staying in Iraq, we sure have a massive U.S. embassy, “the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq’s turbulent future.” According to Wiki, Ray McGovern, “was a mid-level officer in the CIA in the 1960s where his focus was analysis of Soviet policy toward Vietnam. McGovern was one of President Ronald Reagan’s intelligence briefers from 1981-85; he was in charge of preparing daily security briefs for Reagan, Vice President George H.W. Bush, the National Security Advisor, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Cabinet. Later, McGovern was one of several senior CIA analysts who prepared the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) during the first Bush administration.” It seems to me that he knows what he’s talking about.

There are so many facts concerning the 9/11 attacks, that it is impossible to know them all. People like to laugh at, and mock our theories (that we all have) concerning the events of 9/11. However, they have a difficult time with the facts. I hope that I have proven my point.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am convinced some elements within our Government, and others were complicit in the attacks of 9/11. As you can see above, the information that exists today clearly points in that direction. We have pieces to the puzzle, and we KNOW who refuses to give up the other pieces. However, as I said, this is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Let’s have a real investigation, be it a domestic or international one, and do what can only be described as the right thing. Holding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, whoever they may be, accountable. It is long overdue. Justice has never been more needed. The perverse usage of that day can no longer continue. It is time to take away the “9/11 Card,” and let those poor 2,973 souls finally rest in peace.

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org (or 911Reports.com). 911Truth.org (and 911Reports.com) will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

Sibel Edmonds has been interviewed by former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi for the American Conservative. Edmonds, who has been twice gagged under the State Secrets Act by Ashcroft and called ‘credible’ by Sens. Leahy and Grassley, and DOJ IG Fine, alleges members of Congress, top Defense and State Dept officials, and RAND employees have colluded with Turkish, Israeli, Pakistani and Saudi agents. Crimes, many of which amount to treason, include espionage, blackmail, bribery, trading political favors, laundering money, trafficking in drugs, arms and nuclear secrets and weapons technology. Edmonds also says there were pre-9/11 discussions with Turkish officials on invading and dividing up Iraq, and that the CIA was aiding and abetting ‘bin Ladens’ and Mujahideen (now called Al Qaeda) right up to 9/11.

Scott Horton Interviews Philip Giraldi & Joe Lauria

In Pursuit of the Facts: Inviting Ms. Schakowsky to Join……. (Sibel Edmonds responds to Jan Schakowsky’s attack)

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds? Interview by Philip Giraldi

Source: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/

Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.

A Department of Justice inspector general’s report called Edmonds’s allegations “credible,” “serious,” and “warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI.” Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. “60 Minutes” launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds’s revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.

John Ashcroft’s Justice Department confirmed Edmonds’s veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.”

But on Aug. 8, she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with The American Conservative based on that testimony. What follows is her own account of what some consider the most incredible tale of corruption and influence peddling in recent times. As Sibel herself puts it, “If this were written up as a novel, no one would believe it.”

* * *

PHILIP GIRALDI: We were very interested to learn of your four-hour deposition in the case involving allegations that Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accepted money from the Turkish government in return for political favors. You provided many names and details for the first time on the record and swore an oath confirming that the deposition was true.

Basically, you map out a corruption scheme involving U.S. government employees and members of Congress and agents of foreign governments. These agents were able to obtain information that was either used directly by those foreign governments or sold to third parties, with the proceeds often used as bribes to breed further corruption. Let’s start with the first government official you identified, Marc Grossman, then the third highest-ranking official at the State Department.

SIBEL EDMONDS: During my work with the FBI, one of the major operational files that I was transcribing and translating started in late 1996 and continued until 2002, when I left the Bureau. Because the FBI had had no Turkish translators, these files were archived, but were considered to be very important operations. As part of the background, I was briefed about why these operations had been initiated and who the targets were.

Grossman became a person of interest early on in the investigative file while he was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey [1994-97], when he became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as “Susurluk” by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact.

Another individual who was working for Grossman, Air Force Major Douglas Dickerson, was also removed from Turkey and sent to Germany. After he and his Turkish wife Can returned to the U.S., he went to work for Douglas Feith and she was hired as an FBI Turkish translator. My complaints about her connection to Turkish lobbying groups led to my eventual firing.

Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet Eymür, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, Eymür was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while “most wanted” by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996.

GIRALDI: So Grossman at this point comes back to the United States. He’s rewarded with the third-highest position at the State Department, and he allegedly uses this position to do favors for “Turkish interests”—both for the Turkish government and for possible criminal interests. Sometimes, the two converge. The FBI is aware of his activities and is listening to his phone calls. When someone who is Turkish calls Grossman, the FBI monitors that individual’s phone calls, and when the Turk calls a friend who is a Pakistani or an Egyptian or a Saudi, they monitor all those contacts, widening the net.

EDMONDS: Correct.

GIRALDI: And Grossman received money as a result. In one case, you said that a State Department colleague went to pick up a bag of money…

EDMONDS: $14,000

GIRALDI: What kind of information was Grossman giving to foreign countries? Did he give assistance to foreign individuals penetrating U.S. government labs and defense installations as has been reported? It’s also been reported that he was the conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as “agents of influence.”

EDMONDS: Yes, that’s correct. Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. The top person obtaining classified information was Congressman Tom Lantos. A Lantos associate, Alan Makovsky worked very closely with Dr. Sabri Sayari in Georgetown University, who is widely believed to be a Turkish spy. Lantos would give Makovsky highly classified policy-related documents obtained during defense briefings for passage to Israel because Makovsky was also working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

GIRALDI: Makovsky is now working for the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a pro-Israeli think tank.

EDMONDS: Yes. Lantos was at the time probably the most outspoken supporter of Israel in Congress. AIPAC would take out the information from Lantos that was relevant to Israel, and they would give the rest of it to their Turkish associates. The Turks would go through the leftovers, take what they wanted, and then try to sell the rest. If there were something relevant to Pakistan, they would contact the ISI officer at the embassy and say, “We’ve got this and this, let’s sit down and talk.” And then they would sell it to the Pakistanis.

GIRALDI: ISI—Pakistani intelligence—has been linked to the Pakistani nuclear proliferation program as well as to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

So the FBI was monitoring these connections going from a congressman to a congressman’s assistant to a foreign individual who is connected with intelligence to other intelligence people who are located at different embassies in Washington. And all of this information is in an FBI file somewhere?

EDMONDS: Two sets of FBI files, but the AIPAC-related files and the Turkish files ended up converging in one. The FBI agents believed that they were looking at the same operation. It didn’t start with AIPAC originally. It started with the Israeli Embassy. The original targets were intelligence officers under diplomatic cover in the Turkish Embassy and the Israeli Embassy. It was those contacts that led to the American Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and then to AIPAC fronting for the Israelis. It moved forward from there.

GIRALDI: So the FBI was monitoring people from the Israeli Embassy and the Turkish Embassy and one, might presume, the Pakistani Embassy as well?

EDMONDS: They were the secondary target. They got leftovers from the Turks and Israelis. The FBI would intercept communications to try to identify who the diplomatic target’s intelligence chief was, but then, in addition to that, there are individuals there, maybe the military attaché, who had their own contacts who were operating independently of others in the embassy.

GIRALDI: So the network starts with a person like Grossman in the State Department providing information that enables Turkish and Israeli intelligence officers to have access to people in Congress, who then provide classified information that winds up in the foreign embassies?

EDMONDS: Absolutely. And we also had Pentagon officials doing the same thing. We were looking at Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. They had a list of individuals in the Pentagon broken down by access to certain types of information. Some of them would be policy related, some of them would be weapons-technology related, some of them would be nuclear-related. Perle and Feith would provide the names of those Americans, officials in the Pentagon, to Grossman, together with highly sensitive personal information: this person is a closet gay; this person has a chronic gambling issue; this person is an alcoholic. The files on the American targets would contain things like the size of their mortgages or whether they were going through divorces. One Air Force major I remember was going through a really nasty divorce and a child custody fight. They detailed all different kinds of vulnerabilities.

GIRALDI: So they had access to their personnel files and also their security files and were illegally accessing this kind of information to give to foreign agents who exploited the vulnerabilities of these people to recruit them as sources of information?

EDMONDS: Yes. Some of those individuals on the list were also working for the RAND Corporation. RAND ended up becoming one of the prime targets for these foreign agents.

GIRALDI: RAND does highly classified research for the U.S. government. So they were setting up these people for recruitment as agents or as agents of influence?

EDMONDS: Yes, and the RAND sources would be paid peanuts compared to what the information was worth when it was sold if it was not immediately useful for Turkey or Israel. They also had sources who were working in some midwestern Air Force bases. The sources would provide the information on CD’s and DVD’s. In one case, for example, a Turkish military attaché got the disc and discovered that it was something really important, so he offered it to the Pakistani ISI person at the embassy, but the price was too high. Then a Turkish contact in Chicago said he knew two Saudi businessmen in Detroit who would be very interested in this information, and they would pay the price. So the Turkish military attaché flew to Detroit with his assistant to make the sale.

GIRALDI: We know Grossman was receiving money for services.

EDMONDS: Yes. Sometimes he would give money to the people who were working with him, identified in phone calls on a first-name basis, whether it’s a John or a Joe. He also took care of some other people, including his contact at the New York Times. Grossman would brag, “We just fax to our people at the New York Times. They print it under their names.”

GIRALDI: Did Feith and Perle receive any money that you know of?

EDMONDS: No.

GIRALDI: So they were doing favors for other reasons. Both Feith and Perle were lobbyists for Turkey and also were involved with Israel on defense contracts, including some for Northrop Grumman, which Feith represented in Israel.

EDMONDS: They had arrangements with various companies, some of them members of the American Turkish Council. They had arrangements with Kissinger’s group, with Northrop Grumman, with former secretary of state James Baker’s group, and also with former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attaché in an attempt to convince them to help.

Meanwhile Scowcroft, who was also the chairman of the American Turkish Council, Baker, Richard Armitage, and Grossman began negotiating separately for a possible Turkish protectorate. Nothing was decided, and then 9/11 took place.

Scowcroft was all for invading Iraq in 2001 and even wrote a paper for the Pentagon explaining why the Turkish northern front would be essential. I know Scowcroft came off as a hero to some for saying he was against the war, but he was very much for it until his client’s conditions were not met by the Bush administration.

GIRALDI: Armitage was deputy secretary of state at the time Scowcroft and Baker were running their own consulting firms that were doing business with Turkey. Grossman had just become undersecretary, third in the State hierarchy behind Armitage.

You’ve previouly alluded to efforts by Grossman, as well as high-ranking officials at the Pentagon, to place Ph.D. students. Can you describe that in more detail?

EDMONDS: The seeding operation started before Marc Grossman arrived at the State Department. The Turkish agents had a network of Turkish professors in various universities with access to government information. Their top source was a Turkish-born professor of nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was useful because MIT would place a bunch of Ph.D. or graduate-level students in various nuclear facilities like Sandia or Los Alamos, and some of them were able to work for the Air Force. He would provide the list of Ph.D. students who should get these positions. In some cases, the Turkish military attaché would ask that certain students be placed in important positions. And they were not necessarily all Turkish, but the ones they selected had struck deals with the Turkish agents to provide information in return for money. If for some reason they had difficulty getting a secuity clearance, Grossman would ensure that the State Department would arrange to clear them.

In exchange for the information that these students would provide, they would be paid $4,000 or $5,000. And the information that was sold to the two Saudis in Detroit went for something like $350,000 or $400,000.

GIRALDI: This corruption wasn’t confined to the State Department and the Pentagon—it infected Congress as well. You’ve named people like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, now a registered agent of the Turkish government. In your deposition, you describe the process of breaking foreign-originated contributions into small units, $200 or less, so that the source didn’t have to be reported. Was this the primary means of influencing congressmen, or did foreign agents exploit vulnerabilities to get what they wanted using something like blackmail?

EDMONDS: In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued.

Well, as the FBI developed more information, Tom Lantos was added to this list, and then they got a lot on Douglas Feith and Richard Perle and Marc Grossman. At this point, the Justice Department said they wanted the FBI to only focus on Congress, leaving the executive branch people out of it. But the FBI agents involved wanted to continue pursuing Perle and Feith because the Israeli Embassy was also connected. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, and everything was placed on the back burner.

But some of the agents continued to investigate the congressional connection. In 1999, they wiretapped the congressmen directly. (Prior to that point they were getting all their information secondhand through FISA, as their primary targets were foreigners.) The questionably legal wiretap gave the perfect excuse to the Justice Department. As soon as they found out, they refused permission to monitor the congressmen and Grossman as primary targets. But the inquiry was kept alive in Chicago because the FBI office there was pursuing its own investigation. The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago.

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

GIRALDI: So we have a pattern of corruption starting with government officials providing information to foreigners and helping them make contact with other Americans who had valuable information. Some of these officials, like Marc Grossman, were receiving money directly. Others were receiving business favors: Pentagon associates like Doug Feith and Richard Perle had interests in Israel and Turkey. The stolen information was being sold, and the money that was being generated was used to corrupt certain congressmen to influence policy and provide still more information—in many cases information related to nuclear technology.

EDMONDS: As well as weapons technology, conventional weapons technology, and Pentagon policy-related information.

GIRALDI: You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11…

EDMONDS: I don’t know if it was CIA. There were certain forces in the U.S. government who worked with the Turkish paramilitary groups, including Abdullah Çatli’s group, Fethullah Gülen.

GIRALDI: Well, that could be either Joint Special Operations Command or CIA.

EDMONDS: Maybe in a lot of cases when they said State Department, they meant CIA?

GIRALDI: When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA.

EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.

There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.

GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?

EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.

GIRALDI: And, of course, none of this has been investigated. What do you think the chances are that the Obama administration will try to end this criminal activity?

EDMONDS: Well, even during Obama’s presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of “change” being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naïve blogosphere. First of all, Obama’s record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clearly. For all those changes that he was promising, he had done nothing. In fact, he had taken the opposite position, whether it was regarding the NSA’s wiretapping or the issue of national-security whistleblowers. We whistleblowers had written to his Senate office. He never responded, even though he was on the relevant committees.

As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It’s an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing—in many cases, criminal activities. And the Obama administration has not only defended using the State Secrets Privilege, it has been trying to take it even further than the previous terrible administration by maintaining that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity. This is Obama’s change: his administration seems to think it doesn’t even have to invoke state secrets as our leaders are emperors who possess this sovereign immunity. This is not the kind of language that anybody in a democracy would use.

The other thing I noticed is how Chicago, with its culture of political corruption, is central to the new administration. When I saw that Obama’s choice of chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, knowing his relationship with Mayor Richard Daley and with the Hastert crowd, I knew we were not going to see positive changes. Changes possibly, but changes for the worse. It was no coincidence that the Turkish criminal entity’s operation centered on Chicago. 
__________________________________________

Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Philip Giraldi is a former CIA officer and The American Conservative’s Deep Background columnist.

Sibel Edmonds testified under oath August 8, 2009. This post contains links to four video clips and transcript portions related to her testimony regarding 9/11 and nuclear trafficking:

1) Sibel Edmonds Deposition Video Clip: State Secrets Gag Order

This segment covers her testimony regarding former Attorney General John Ashcroft claim of State Secrets to justify placing two gag orders on her. The first gag order was in response to her First Amendment case, the second when she was subpoenaed by 9/11 families regarding her knowledge of Saudi institutions and Al Qaeda financing.

2) Sibel Edmonds Deposition Video Clip: Nuclear Trafficking- US & Turkish Officials & RAND

This segment covers her testimony regarding the involvement of US and Turkish officials in a nuclear trafficking network, and the outing of Brewster Jennings as a CIA front company which was investigating them.

3) Sibel Edmonds Deposition Video Clip: Behrooz Sarshar – 9/11 Foreknowledge

This segment covers her testimony regarding Behrooz Sarshar, an FBI translator who Edmonds took to the FBI’s Inspector General and the 9/11 Commission; Sarshar had personal knowledge that the “FBI received information in April 2001 from a reliable Iranian intelligence asset that Osama bin Ladin was planning attacks on four to five cities with planes.  Some of the people were already in the country, and the attacks would happen in a few months.”

4) Sibel Edmonds Deposition Video Clip: ‘Cold War Is Not Over’

This segment covers her testimony regarding US and Turkish government officials and other entities engagement in “… practices and policies that were inimical to American interests and had, in fact, resulted in both the direct and indirect loss of American lives.” To summarize this, Edmonds says, “The best way to describe it is Cold War is not over.” These ‘practices and policies’ include: CIA radicalizing Muslims for use in proxy wars contributed to 9/11; providing protection and aid, including US sanctuary, for Fetullah Gulan- a founder of radical Madrassahs; trafficking in nuclear secrets and outing Brewster Jennings as a CIA front company in Summer 01, when Marc Grossman discovered it was getting close to the nuclear trafficking network.

For the deposition video in its entirety, see BradBlog.com: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374

Full transcript here: http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/SibelEdmondsDeposition_Transcript_080809.pdf

Sibel Edmonds testified under oath August 8, 2009. This segment covers her testimony regarding US and Turkish government officials and other entities engagement in “… practices and policies that were inimical to American interests and had, in fact, resulted in both the direct and indirect loss of American lives.” To summarize this, Edmonds says, “The best way to describe it is Cold War is not over.” These ‘practices and policies’ include: CIA radicalizing Muslims for use in proxy wars contributed to 9/11; providing protection and aid, including US sanctuary, for Fetullah Gulan- a founder of radical Madrassahs; trafficking in nuclear secrets and outing Brewster Jennings as a CIA front company in Summer 01, when Marc Grossman discovered it was getting close to the nuclear trafficking network.

VIDEO CLIP:

youtube.com/watch?v=Mk_jI1kewko (REMOVED – 12” vid; YouTube has 10” limit)

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/sibel-edmonds-cold-war-not-over

SOURCE: See Video 3 of 5, Transcript pgs 88-99

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374

http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/SibelEdmondsDeposition_Transcript_080809.pdf

TRANSCRIPT, Pgs. 88-99:

Q       … I understand that you executed an affidavit or a declaration actually in this case on August 5, 2009. I’m happy to show it to you. I’ve only got one copy, but I’m happy to show it to you if you’d like to see, but I just have some questions about some of the things you said in the declaration. In Paragraph 3 of your declaration, you say, “I also obtained evidence that the government of Turkey had engaged in practices and policies that were inimical to American interests and had, in fact, resulted in both the direct and indirect loss of American lives.” Do you recall saying that in your declaration?

A       Yes.

Q       Can you tell me what practices and policies that you were referring to that were inimical to American interests?

A       There’s several. One is practices and operations implemented from mid-1990s at least until towards end of 2001 in Central Asia and Caucasus, and these operations and practices included Islamization of certain segments of those Turkic nations, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan. There are so many of them in that — in that area, and setting up madrasahs and bringing in, helping bringing — at the time they were not referred to as al-Qaeda until 2001, September 11th. They were referred to as mujahideens from Afghanistan and Pakistan into Central Asia, then to Turkey to give them passports, and then funnel them in 1997, 1998 to certain Eastern European countries and the Balkans. And also — and it’s very broad I can go on for a long time about what practices and why they were — they were against the security and the interests of the Americans and the lives.

Q       Okay. Well, I don’t want to burden you too much, but I would like as complete an answer as you can give us in terms of what you were referring to.

A       Those operations when until — at least until September 2001, and again, for those operations, they corroborated and worked with certain U.S. persons who were involved in these operations. The other, the obtaining, illegally obtaining and selling U.S. military and military technology and that includes weapons and nuclears, and even from foreign policy related secret or high — top secret information, and not only for Turkey, but passing this information to what they refer to as highest bidders and whoever bid highest, whether these people were nation-states or they were just individuals that they were pursuing under counterterrorism after September 11. That would be another example of activities that they were involved that were against the security and the interest of the Americans with cost in terms of lives.

Q      Well, that was going to be my next question, is how do you connect what the Turkish government was doing to the direct and indirect loss of American lives.

A       One example of this would be with Brewster Jennings, for example, just selling that information and giving that information out in the hands of those foreign entities, including Pakistan. One of the things that the CIA was asked for right away, to do damage assessment, and one of the things that came out of it was the damage assessment included damage to asset both in terms of effectiveness, which was neutralized and that Brewster Jennings’ front company for CIA have to be immediately absolved that summer after this information was obtained, but also they were accessing U.S. people who were compromised because of that by — within these foreign governments. That’s another. And the third one that I started talking about were helping these individuals from Azerbaijan, the Turkey entities that served the mujahideen groups starting from 1995, 1996. They were given Turkish passports. In some cases they were given Azerbaijani passports, and they — Turkey played a very active and important role in taking these people and moving them into Europe and some of those people actually ended up in the United States.

Q       And I think you indicated earlier that the Turkish government to your knowledge was provided support to what was once called the mujahideen.

A       Correct.

Q       It’s now called al-Qaeda.

A       Right.

Q       And has it generally been publicly reported that al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks?

A       Correct.

Q       And that cost American lives?

A       Correct.

Q       How else has, to your knowledge, the mujahideen or al-Qaeda that Turkey was supporting cost American lives?

A       September 11 and the other category I talked about was the intelligence and identifying assets or the front companies. The third category that involved narcotics activities and that was, at least until I left, these Turkish people, and some of them are directly connected to Turkish intelligence and Turkish military in the United States, they played a very significant role in bringing in heroin from source from Afghanistan to Turkey, but from Turkey into both United States, but also directly to Belgium, large quantity, very, very large quantity of heroin.

Q       All right. So if I were to say that — if I were a Congress person and I’m taking money from the Turkish government either directly or indirectly, would it be a fair statement that I’m taking money from a government that has engaged in policies and practices that cost American lives?

A       Correct.

Q       Are you familiar with a person named Fetullah Gulan, G-u-l-a-n?

A       Yes.

Q       Can you tell us who that is?

A       My information is mainly about his activities and issues that were, again, done from late 1990s until I left, and then after that it will be known activities here in the United States. He shortly — he was the religious activist figure in Turkey, and he landed on Turkish government’s wanted list and was going to be persecuted for wanting to throw Turkish secular government — replace it with Islamic shariah kind of type of government. And when he was wanted in Turkey for that and he was going to go to jail, he actually got on the plane and came to the United States, and he was given immediately visa to stay in the United States, and he has been in the United States until now as far as I know. He has since established more than 300 madrasahs in Central Asia and what he calls universities that have a front that is called Moderate Islam, but he is closely involved in training mujahideen-like militia Islam who are brought from Pakistan and Afghanistan into Central Asia where his madrasahs operate, and his organization’s network is estimated to be around $25 billion. He has opened several Islamic universities in the United States. As I said it’s being promoted under Moderate Islam. It is supported by certain U.S. authorities here because of the operations in Central Asia, but what they have been doing since late 1990s is actually radical Islam and militizing (phonetic) these very, very young, from the age 14, 15, by commandoes they use, and this is both commandoes from Turkish military, commandoes from Pakistani ISI in Central Asia and Azerbaijan, and after that they bring them to Turkey, and from Turkey they send them through Europe, to European and elsewhere. Up until 1999, the Turkish government, also paramilitary units in Central Asia, they operated under the groups that call themselves Gray Wolves, ultra-nationalists, and their method was, you know, assassination of certain leaders in the Central Asian countries, and militizing, but not through Islam. But after this scandal that took place in Turkey, Susurluk scandal, they were no longer supported by certain segments in the United States, and instead some of our people involved in foreign policy, they supported the Islamic movements of Gulan in the Central Asian countries in order to counter Russia as far as the energy sources are concerned in those countries.

Q       How is it, if you know, or how is it that Gulan is allowed to be in the United States? Let me ask a different question.

A       Okay.

Q       I’m sorry. Is that an individual based on what you’ve told me that you would be — that you would consider a threat to U.S. interests?

A       One hundred percent, absolutely.

Q       And if you know, how is it that he’s allowed to be in the United States?

A       Because part of what he has in terms of the deal with certain segments in the United States is furthering the interests of the people who are interested in the energy sources in Central Asia, and that is the — whether it’s oil or whether it’s natural gas, and basically it’s a fight. The best way to describe it is Cold War is not over. It’s a continuation of Cold War over those nations, and what we did in Afghanistan in early 1980s with mujahideen, we have been joined now in Central Asia by using Islam and extremism and these madrasahs, and Pakistani and Afghani elements to build (unintelligible) and staff in terms of those resources towards certain business interests.

Q       Did you say that Gulan had set up schools in the United States as well?

A       Yes.

Q       Are some of those in Cincinnati, if you know?

A       I’m not sure. I know of some in Texas. I know one in Virginia, but I don’t know. They are multiplying, and they’re spreading rapidly. There’s Islamic madrasahs or universities everywhere. So I haven’t kept track of the locations. I don’t know.