What is Happening in America?

Are we headed back to the Middle Ages?

Sourcebook on 9/11 and its Aftermath




19 Sept. 2007








Table of Contents


Polls 2

Personal Statements 4

Overviews 10

The Post-9/11 Spin Campaign. 19

Withholding of Evidence. 19

No Punishments for Incompetence. 19

No Following of the Money Trail 20

Mass Media Fail to Cover News of 9/11. 21

Who Was in Charge of the Events of 9/11? 22

Calls for New 9/11 Investigation. 31

“Some Troops Ready to Mutiny”. 32

Movement to Impeach the President 33

Questions from the Families of 9/11 Victims 35

The Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story. 49

Critical Mass Is Only 5% of a Population. 59

Quotes 60




Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 - As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush' and Vice President Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.


The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001.

WTC 7 housed the mayor's emergency bunker and offices of the SEC, IRS, CIA and Secret Service and was not hit by any planes but still completely collapsed into its own footprint nearly eight hours after the Twin Tower attacks. FEMA did not explain this collapse, the 911 Commission ignored it, and the promised official study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is now 2 years overdue.

Janice Matthews, executive director of poll sponsor 911truth.org, observes: "The supermajority response to the WTC Building 7 question signals an increasing public concern about this remarkable event -- up from 38% last year. We can perhaps credit this rising awareness to the millions who have recently witnessed videos or Youtube clips of this skyscraper's descent and the outspoken demands for a new WTC inquiry from over 150 architects and engineering professionals, including NIST's own former Fire Science Division Chief, Dr. James Quintiere. Another contributory factor is the increased questioning among Hispanics, Blacks and Asians whose responses appear significantly more critical of the 9/11 Commission than Whites, sometimes twice as critical."


Strategy aide W. David Kubiak adds, "While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their current personal knowledge, a clear majority of citizens still seems hungry for a full exposure of the facts. The results suggest widespread public support for legislators like Rep. Dennis Kucinich who pledge to investigate unanswered 9/11 questions in the relevant congressional committees this fall. We hope more of our representatives find the spine to respond to this escalating dissatisfaction with the dubious accounting we have received thus far." (“Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment,” ny9/11truth.org, 6 Sept. 2007, downloaded from http://www.ny911truth.org/, 11 Sept. 2007.)


On May 22nd, a new Zogby Poll release shows that 42% of adults believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. This amounts to 70 million people!


Additionally, 45% believe Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success.(“New Zogby Poll Reveals Critical Mass Call for Truth,” ny911truth.org, downloaded from http://www.ny911truth.org, 11 Sept. 2007.)


53% of the Americans in the New York Times / CBS [poll] think the government is lying to them about 9/11.  (Davis Fleetwood interviewing Senator Mike Gravel, Patriots Question 911, downloaded from http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 12 August 2007.)


Personal Statements


Combined with similar events which occurred around the country, we can truly say we've set the stage for a tsunami of truth for the 9/11 truth movement which will reverberate globally. The Project For A New American Century neocons got their catastrophic, catalyzing event on 9/11/01. Now we've created our own catalyzing event which will be catastrophic for their global domination agenda. Through 9/11 truth activists fulfilling their role as educators, communicators, and mobilizers for truth and justice, we can now redefine what it is to purify the predatory political structures which control and manipulate us into a new power paradigm in which We The People re-create those structures to serve us. (“The 9/11 Truth Breakthrough Weekend,” ny9/11truth.org, downloaded from http://www.ny911truth.org/, 11 Sept. 2007.)


The official story could not possibly have happened.  In other words, what the administration has put forward is essentially a conspiracy theory  that does not conform to the facts.  It’s not possible.  It’s not operationally feasible... The Commission was a whitewash." (Statement of Catherine Austin Fitts – Assistant Secretary of Housing under George H.W. Bush. Former Managing Director and Member of the Board of Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 16 Aug. 2007.)


The 'Official Story' of what actually took place on 9-11 is a lie. We do not pretend to have put together a full and definitive account of how, and by whom, the attacks were carried out. But information reported in mainstream media, and viewed in the light of common sense and the laws of physics, demonstrate that the 'Official Story', examined closely, is not credible.

(Attorney Phil Berg, cited on 911Truth.dk, downloaded from http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/home.htm, 19 Aug. 2007.)


[We] believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda. (Scholars for 911 Truth, cited on 911Truth.dk, downloaded from http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/home.htm, 19 Aug. 2007.)


One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up. (Statement of Senator Max Cleland, former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 16 Aug. 2007.)


As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."  (Statement of Col, George Nelson, M.B.A., U.S. Air Force (ret), Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 12 August 2007.)


After five years of talking to many individuals in the intelligence community, in the military, foreign intelligence agencies, and a whole host of other people, people from the air traffic control community, the FAA, I came to the conclusion that after five years what we saw happen on that morning of September 11, 2001, was the result of a highly-compartmentalized covert operation to bring about a fascist coup in this country. ...

These people need to be brought to justice, if not by our own Congress, then by an international tribunal in the Hague, in the Netherlands.  Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney should be sitting in the same dockets where Milosevic and the Croatia-Serbia war criminals sat. (Wayne Madsen, former U.S. Navy Intelligence officer, specialist in electronic surveillance and security, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/m 15 Aug. 2007.)


We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail.  Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".  Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.

We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.  Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders.  The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason.  (Statement of Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, M.S., Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 6 August 2007.)

“We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said [Charlie] Sheen.


"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."  (Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson, “Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11. Story Calls for truly independent investigation, joins growing ranks of prominent credible whistleblowers,” PrisonPlanet.com, 20 March 2006.)


There is something outrageous at work here. This is not a third-rate burglary of a political campaign headquarters. This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people, changed the course of history, led to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and has disrupted our country, our economy and people's lives...There's something very sinister going on here that really troubles me." (US Congressman Curt Weldon,
Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Weldon, 6 August 2007.)


The thing I question on 9/11 was simply the fact; where were our planes?  When all this was going on and planes were being hijacked an hour apart and there were four of them.  They cover about a six-hour space.  At no time, to my knowledge, did we have any fighter planes up in the air.  Why? ...


In light of the fact that there was a cover-up that got us into the Viet Nam war and there was, in my opinion, a cover-up of John Kennedy's assassination, I would just say that I don't believe it's beyond reason to not at least consider that the government certainly would do things like that.  (Gov. Jesse Ventura on Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/media.html, 4 August 2007.)


At first, again, I wanted to believe 9/11, you know. But the problem I have with 9/11 is just a real simple one. I'm trying to figure out -- and of course they're now attempting to answer it somewhat -- how we could have failed so miserably in not having air defense. ...


And the problem I have with 9/11 is that. Where the heck was our defense? Who was sleeping at the wheel? While all of these planes... I mean, I've been to air traffic control when I was Governor, and you've got a dozen people there looking at these dials, watching every plane in their sector. They know where it's going and they know what direction it's supposed to be going


Now, how is it that these planes were able to be hijacked at half hour intervals, turned directly opposite the way they're supposed to be going and no bells went off, no emergency sirens went off, no fighter jets were scrambled? Just what the hell happened in that area of time?! And that's the part that troubles me about 9/11. ...


I mean here's the Pentagon, the head of our military. How was this plane able to circle the city of Baltimore [sic] at least once, picking out a target, and then drive into it, and we didn't have -- nothing up in the air? There wasn't one scrambled fighter jet up there to defend in any way, shape, or form? (Gov. Jesse Ventura on Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/media.html, 4 August 2007.)


A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."


Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings." (“Former Bush Admin Economist Says Official Story of WTC Collapse 'Bogus,'” UPI, 14 June 2005.)


I believe the [9/11] Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ..

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics.  The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...


More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day. (Statement of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 6 August 2007.)


There are some people I work with that I think are upset about my talking about 9/11 and thinking that it was an inside job, and, you know, they're worried about my career and worried about what's going to happen and things like that.  I don’t think people really want to really take in the reality that our government could do us harm. I think that's the thing.  It's really just a matter of taking in that reality.  I think we want to look at our government as sort of like a benevolent father that’s going to take care of us and be kind to us and treat us well and I think it’s just too much for people to even conceptualize and I'm sure that’s what happened to people in Nazi Germany. (Christine Ebersole, in radio interview with John Connor 2//07 as reported on Patriots Question 911, downloaded from http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/media.html, 4 August 2007.)


A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash.  It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. … Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.…

Who gained from 9/11?  Who covered up crucial information about 9/11?  And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place?  When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.

I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen.  Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder. (Statement of Col. Robert Bowman, Ph.D., Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 6 August 2007.)


We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. (William Christison – Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/m 15 Aug. 2007.)


I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).

Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!  (David L. Griscom, Ph.D., research physicist, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/m 15 Aug. 2007.)


We were told that nineteen Muslim fanatics somehow bypassed our forty billion dollar defense system and hi-jacked four planes, simultaneously, causing their transponders to go off almost at the exact same time, were totally lost from FAA Radar, not to mention satellite radar and NORAD Radar, made their way to New York and crashed into two prominent landmarks, the two towers of the World Trade Center, and then another one crashed into the Pentagon, and then another one crashed in Pennsylvania, and all of this under the direction of a Muslim Cleric hiding in a cave in Afghanistan with a computer.  Now, if that isn’t about the craziest conspiracy theory I ever heard and yet that is what we are expected to accept as the legitimate version of what happened on 9/11. (Jim Marrs, Journalist, Author of Rule by Secrecy in One Nation Under Seige video.)


Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism.  (Statement of Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler, EdD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute.  Served as a B-52 Radar Navigator in the Gulf War.  24-year Air Force career, on Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 14 Aug. 2007.)

I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. That was when I realized that the perpetrators had made a colossal blunder in collapsing the South Tower first, rather than the North Tower, which had been hit more directly and earlier.

Other anomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane], the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon, the impossibility of ordinary cell phone (as opposed to Airfone) calls being made consistently from passenger aircraft at cruising altitude, etc., etc., etc.

I have taken off my uniform as a US Army intelligence officer, but I have not taken back my oath of loyalty to the United States of America and its Constitution. If it comes to a fight to the finish for my nation: count me in! (Statement of Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S Army,
Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Zeigler%20Statement.html, 16 Aug. 2007.)

The attack on the World Trade Center was a tragedy for the people in the towers and in the airplanes, and a tragedy for their families. It also marked the beginning of the tragic war on terror. The current trends in Western society towards greater surveillance and the loss of civil rights can also only be called tragic. If we have also been lied to, the tragedy is complete.  (Prof. Niels Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, “The Seventh Tower,” 911Truth.dk, downloaded from http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm, 19 Aug. 2007.)



The more I consider the master plan for 911, the more I marvel at what went right. Then I roll my eyes and shake my head at what went wrong.

The flaws are obvious and leap out at any objective observer not blinded by denial or a false sense of patriotism.

Anyone possessing logic and a basic knowledge of science and the rudiments of human behavior can see the gigantic flaws.

Still, when you consider that the mainstream media in America is corporate-owned and those corporations earn billions in war profits (directly related to 911), the deathly silence about the many obvious flaws in the perfect plan does surprise you.

Presently, the planners enjoy immunity for the time being, enjoying a godlike sense of power to commit acts, however flawed and criminal, without repercussion.


This hubris, this overwhelming feeling of power, is itself a strength and flaw. The powerful do not fear the weak. As long as the master planners, however flawed and corrupt, hold top positions in the Department of Justice (sic), Department of War, both houses of Congress and the White House -- plus the US media, they understandably feel invincible.

Let us examine a few of the biggest flaws in the master plan of 911. The master planners -- for the sake of argument let us call this group the Project for a New American Century or PNAC  [Ed.: Not to be confused with PNAC – Project for a New American Citizen] -- discussed a new Pearl Harbor attack which took place soon after their blueprint. They knew America needed enemies and needed control of oil-bearing countries and needed to prop up the US dollar.

So they devised a plan that would terrorize Americans, allow the rise of a profitable, trillion dollar police state (while embezzling over a trillion dollars through the Pentagon), while smashing the enemies of Israel at US taxpayer expense and with American blood.

And the entire scenario would be wrapped around a "terror" event concocted by a relatively few men without morals who planned to make a huge amount of money.

Diabolical, yet perfectly brilliant, however flawed.

The flaws point clearly to Israeli involvement in 911 but implicate US overseers who conveniently looked the other way all throughout the "terrorist" attack.

The chief flaw seems to be with the hijackers themselves. They behaved unlike any religious ideologue/fanatic ever. They behaved like pimps. They behaved like very bad actors who deviate from the script. They partied nonstop and tossed money around like confetti. They gambled. They frolicked with strippers at bars and on yachts. They acted badly and screamed at bystanders about what they intended to do.

In short they appeared to be role players, rather than religious ideologues, paid for by powerful sponsors.

And all the while they lived next to highly secure US government bases. They lived on the exact same streets as Israeli operatives posing as art dealers, who also attempted to penetrate highly secure US government bases.

Anyone see a flaw here? The "hijackers," fit the psychological profile of pretenders and posers.

Or patsies controlled, handled, followed, manipulated or directed by the top two governments, Israel and the US, parties that fit the profile of conspirators exactly.

Indeed, the Israelis appear to be minders -- babysitters even -- of the hijackers, aware of their every move.

Another apparent flaw. The airplanes. Investigative reporter Greg Szymanski at www.arcticbeacon.com went so far as to note that many of the "destroyed" planes remained on active rolls long after 911.

With the convenient NORAD standdown, the remote controlled planes could safely fly through the skies.

Otherwise a USAF top gun could slide up close to those big birds and radio back that they were NOT the flights 11, 175, 77 or 93.

So NORAD fighters had to be far from the action. The flaw here is that the fingerprints of conspiratorial guilt lead directly back to Dick Cheney or General Eberhart. Because within five minutes of that second plane striking the WTC, everyone in America knew the skies over Washington DC should have been -- would have been -- secure if NORAD acted properly

The gigantic flaw is that Al Qaeda does not control NORAD but top US officials do.

The next obvious flaw is how to topple the Security & Exchange (SEC) records building at the WTC-7 without striking it with an airplane or without a major fire.

This flaw worried the master planners all throughout September 11, 2001.

The arsonists had done a professional job of evacuating everyone and then systematically torching as many floors in the building as they could. But still, compared to many other major fires in steel skyscrapers, the spot fires in WTC-7 resembled exactly what it was: arson.

Predictably, the US media and scholarly "experts" of academia (bought and paid for by the US government) did their best to explain away the collapse of WTC-7.

Still the peculiar collapse, caught on video and film, of the building falling straight down and close to freefall gravitational speed, remains a flaw by the master planners.

They factored on the many videos of the second plane smacking the WTC but did not factor for the endless video record of the controlled demolition of WTC-7.

Another major flaw also pertains to video tape. At the Pentagon the FBI collected CCTV tapes from surrounding businesses and government cameras.

When no video images were forthcoming, coupled with the lack of debris, Americans naturally assumed a conspiracy.

The flaw was in the planning.

The conspirators should have realized videos would indicate an aircraft but not the Boeing Flight 93 and assembled fuzzy images of an exact copy of the big Boeing beforehand ready for public consumption.

The flaw in the Put Options -- investors betting that airline stock would plummet after 911 -- was explained away as one investment firm advising its subscribers to acquire an abnormally large amount of such options.

But who told the firm? I surmise that someone close to the master plan told someone connected to the investment firm to buy. Not surprisingly, the heads of the CIA have always enjoyed friendly ties to large investment firms.

Many former top CIA officials retire to take positions at top Wall Street banks.

Another huge flaw remains the crushed trucks laden with gold discovered weeks later in the basement of the WTC.

Who loaded those trucks and why? Certainly NOT anyone connected to the Islamic terrorists. The trucks indicate a huge slip in the planning and execution and point to some group who knew beforehand the buildings were coming down. They decided to profit from their insider knowledge, probably without the consent of the master planners.

Curiously, the New York media let the story die rather than ask difficult questions.

The Internet linked and filed the newsreport of the crushed truck laden with gold bars, otherwise the US media would deny the story as an "urban legend."

These are just a few of the more evident flaws in the master plan. Dozens more remain. Any good investigator could pick apart the official story. 911 remains the greatest unsolved crime of the century. But because the master planners control both the investigative bodies and the US media, they continue to breath free and rake in the profits from their crime.

Colonel Prouty, government whistleblower forty years ago, wrote: "Almost everyone who has taken the time to do any reading and thinking about that crime knows this is a game for the biggest stake of all -- absolute control of the government of the United States of America; and, with control of this government, control of the world. And yet the real crime underlying all of this has not even been identified, stated, and charged.

"The real criminals still walk the streets, run their corporations, control their banks, and pull strings throughout their political and financial machines."    (Douglas Herman, “The Flaws in the Perfect Plan of 911,” rense.com, 10 Jan. 2007, downloaded from
http://www.rense.com/general74/pplan.htm, 7 August 2007.


Now unless this is one incredible coincidence, is it not safe to assume that all four of [the] events [that happened on 9/11] are inescapably married to one another? And is it not also safe to assume, that if you find one person involved, or a party involved in one of these events they’re probably involved in all of them?


Well, following this train of thought, since there was no credible claim of responsibility, is it not safe to assume that those involved, or those parties involved, or agencies or groups that were involved in the events of 9-11, would do anything that they can to obfuscate, distract, distort or cover up any information that might lead to their discovery? And if that’s true, is it not also safe to assume that if you find somebody, a group, agency, a party, that is involved in the obfuscation, distraction, distortion, or cover up of any information involved in ANY of the events of 9-11, does it not indicate possible involvement and even guilt in the events of 9-11?   Keep this in mind as we look at the video evidence of September 11th. (Dave vonKleist on 9/11: In Plane Site.)


Q: Doesn't the government-conspiracy view of the attack necessitate the involvement of large numbers of people?

A: Not in the execution of the attack. In fact there are plausible scenarios that involve fewer conspirators than the official story. High-ranking officials in the government have at their disposal several things that Osama bin Laden did not, including advanced weapons systems operable by computer, and a hierarchical and compartmentalized military command structure that allows complex operations to be hidden from all but a small group of operatives. The speculative scenario outlined in
Attack Scenario 404 explains how the attack might have been carried out by as few as twelve individuals.


Q: How could even a small number of people be persuaded to participate in such a horrific plan?

A: Money is very persuasive, and given the magnitude of the economic interests riding on the success of the attack (measurable in hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars), huge sums could have bought people's cooperation. Some operatives may have been misled about the scope and cruelty of the plan. For example, operatives who set up the Pentagon attack may have been unaware of the planned
World Trade Center attack and vice versa. People who installed explosives in the towers may have believed they were preparing the buildings for demolition under circumstances quite different than the 9/11/01 attack.

Q: How is it that none of the conspirators have changed their minds and come forward, allowing the story to remain invisible in the mass media for more than four years?

A: Operatives would be carefully screened to assure their loyalty to the attack's planners and to each other. Given the magnitude of the crime, admission of involvement would expose a conspirator to swift silencing by co-conspirators, vigilante justice by an outraged public, or harsh judgment by a court of law. It is also possible that many of the operatives could have been killed before or during the attack.


Q: How is it that no one who was NOT involved -- but who happened to be close enough to see evidence and draw the right conclusions -- has come forward either?

A: Appearances that there are no such witnesses are deceptive. For example, firefighters reported explosions in the towers, but official transcripts of their statements were purged of all such references. The objections of many people to the
destruction of Ground Zero evidence was not widely reported. Coverage has also been sparse on the lawsuits by some of the victims' families.


Q: How could the conspirators have been confident enough to plan such a complex attack given the risk of exposure by witnesses who saw too much?

A: The key to success was to make the attack so bold and shocking that even people who were involved in covering it up (like leaders in the media, FEMA, FBI, etc.) would fall for the fraud. The FBI agents running around
seizing video around the Pentagon may have thought they were covering up a war-game-gone-bad. Architects of the massive evidence destruction operation at Ground Zero may have thought they were shielding the building's designers from charges of faulty engineering. Layers of cover stories allow people abetting the scam to think they are covering up less serious crimes.


Q: In spite of the consolidation of ownership of the media, wouldn't there at least be some reporters and editors willing to expose the scam to make names for themselves?

A: To seriously investigate the 9/11/01 attack, reporters and editors have to question the basic tenets of the official story. Such questioning, while widespread on the web, continues to be heresy in newsrooms. For reporters to acknowledge the larger implications of the attack being an inside job, they would have to question much of what they have been taught since childhood about the beneficence of our leaders and the nobility of our government and economic system. Such a "Matrix"-like awakening can involve a great deal of painful disillusionment. The small group of wealthy people who own and control the media are not inclined to question the OBL myth since that myth shifts responsibility away from the real perpetrators, whom they associate with. (Research 9-11, “Frequently Asked Questions: Conspiracy,”
http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/conspiracy.html, downloaded 31 July 2007.)


How do you know that 9-11 was a Muslim terrorist plot? How do you know that three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because two were hit by airliners? You only "know" because the government gave you the explanation of what you saw on TV. (Did you even know that three WTC buildings collapsed?)

I still remember the enlightenment I experienced as a student in Russian studies when I learned that the Czarist secret police would set off bombs and then blame those whom they wanted to arrest.

When Hitler seized dictatorial power in 1933, he told the Germans that his new powers were made necessary by a communist terrorist attack on the Reichstag. When Hitler started World War II by invading Poland, he told the Germans that Poland had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany.

Governments lie all the time -- especially governments staffed by neoconservatives whose intellectual godfather, Leo Strauss, taught them that it is permissible to deceive the public in order to achieve their agenda.

Some readers will write to me to say that they saw a TV documentary or read a magazine article verifying the government's explanation of 9-11. But, of course, these Americans did not check the facts, either -- and neither did the people who made the documentary and wrote the magazine article.

Scientists and engineers, such as Clemson University Professor of Engineering Dr. Judy Woods and BYU Professor of Physics Dr. Steven Jones, have raised compelling questions about the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The basic problem for the government's account is that the buildings are known to have fallen at free-fall speed, a fact that is inconsistent with the government's "pancaking" theory in which debris from above collapsed the floors below. If the buildings actually "pancaked," then each floor below would have offered resistance to the floors above, and the elapsed time would have been much longer.

These experts have also calculated that the buildings did not have sufficient gravitational energy to accommodate the government's theory of the collapse. It is certainly a known and non-controversial fact among physicists and engineers that the only way buildings can collapse at free fall speed into their own footprints is by engineered demolition. Explosives are used to remove the support of floors below before the debris from above arrives. Otherwise, resistance is encountered and the time required for fall increases.

Engineered demolition also explains the symmetrical collapse of the buildings into their own footprints. As it is otherwise improbable for every point in floors below to weaken uniformly, "pancaking" would result in asymmetrical collapse as some elements of the floor would give sooner than others.

Scientific evidence is a tough thing for the American public to handle, and the government knows it. The government can rely on people dismissing things that they cannot understand as "conspiracy theory." But if you are inclined to try to make up your own mind, you can find Jones' and Woods' papers, which have been formally presented to their peers at scientific meetings, online at www.st911.org/

Experts have also pointed out that the buildings' giant steel skeletons comprised a massive heat sink that wicked away the heat from the limited, short-lived fires, thus preventing a heat buildup. Experts also point out that the short-lived, scattered, low-intensity fires could barely reach half the melting point of steel even if they burned all day, instead of merely an hour.

Don't ask me to tell you what happened on 9-11. All I know is that the official account of the buildings' collapse is improbable.

Now we are being told another improbable tale. Muslim terrorists in London and Pakistan were caught plotting to commit mass murder by smuggling bottles of explosive liquids on board airliners in hand luggage. Baby formula, shampoo and water bottles allegedly contained the tools of suicide bombers.

How do we know about this plot? Well, the police learned it from an "Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border several weeks ago." And how did someone so far away know what British-born people in London were plotting?

Do you really believe that Western and Israeli intelligence services, which were too incompetent to prevent the 9-11 attack, can uncover a London plot by capturing a person on the Afghan border in Pakistan? Why would "an Islamic militant" rat on such a plot even if he knew of it?

More probable explanations of the "plot" are readily available. According to the Aug. 11 Wayne Madsen Report, informed sources in the United Kingdom say that "the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party revolt, cleverly cooked up a new 'terror' scare to avert the public's eyes away from Blair's increasing political woes. British law enforcement, neocon and intelligence operatives in the United States, Israel and Britain, and Rupert Murdoch's global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally borrowing from the failed 1995 'Oplan Bjinka' plot by Pakistan- and Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the U.S."

There are other plausible explanations. For example, our puppet in Pakistan decided to arrest some people who were a threat to him. With Bush's commitment to "building democracy in the Middle East," our puppet can't arrest his political enemies without cause, so he lays the blame on a plot.

Any testimony against Muslim plotters by "an Islamic militant" is certain to have been bought and paid for.

Or consider this explanation. Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush and Blair are war criminals. Bush is so worried that he will be held accountable that he has sent his attorney general to consult with the Republican Congress to work out legislation to protect Bush retroactively from his violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Tony Blair is in more danger of finding himself in the dock. Britain is signatory to a treaty that, if justice is done, will place Blair before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

What better justification for the two war criminals' illegal actions than the need to foil dastardly plots by Muslims recruited in sting operations by Western intelligence services? The more Bush and Blair can convince their publics that terrorist danger abounds, the less likely Bush and Blair are ever to be held accountable for their crimes.

But surely, some readers might object, our great moral leaders wouldn't do something political like that!

They most certainly would. As Joshua Micah Marshall wrote in the July 7 issue of Time magazine, the suspicion is "quite reasonable" that "the Bush administration orchestrates its terror alerts and arrests to goose the GOP's poll numbers."

Marshall proves his conclusion by examining the barrage of color-coded terror alerts, none of which were real -- and, yes, it all fits with political needs.

And don't forget the plot unearthed in Miami to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Described by Vice President Cheney as a "very real threat," the plot turned out to be nothing more than a few harmless wackos recruited by an FBI agent sent out to organize a sting.

There was also the "foiled plot" to blow up the Holland Tunnel and flood downtown New York City with seawater. Thinking New Orleans, the FBI invented this plot without realizing that New York City is above sea level. Of course, most Americans didn't realize it, either.

For six years, the Bush regime has been able to count on the ignorant and naive American public to believe whatever tale that is told them. American gullibility has yet to fail the Bush regime.

The government has an endless number of conspiracy theories, but only people who question the government's conspiracies are derided for "having a conspiracy theory."

The implication is even worse if we assume that the explosive bottle plot is genuine. It means that America and Britain by their own aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by enabling Israel's war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon, have created such hatred that Muslims, who identify with Bush's, Blair's and Israel's victims, are plotting retaliation.

But Bush is prepared. He has taught his untutored public that "they hate us for our freedom and democracy."

Gentle reader, wise up. The entire world is laughing at you. (Paul Craig Roberts, “Gullible Americans,” Global Currency Evaluation Institute, no date,
http://www.1global.org/article_gullible_americans.html, downloaded 11 Aug. 2007.)


The Post-9/11 Spin Campaign


In February 2003, Colin Powell made submissions to the UN about Saddam Hussein's comprehensive weapons of mass destruction program. These submissions later turned out to be based on dubious intelligence and outright falsehoods. (“Questioning the Official Account,” 911Truth.dk, downloaded from http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/home.htm, 19 Aug. 2007.)


Withholding of Evidence


As the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman during the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the run-up to the Iraq war, Sen. Bob Graham tried to expose what he came to believe were national security coverups and manipulations by the Bush administration. But he discovered that it was hard to reveal a coverup playing by the rules. Much of the evidence the Florida Democrat needed to buttress his arguments was being locked away, he found, under the veil of politically motivated classification. (Statement of Senator Bob Graham – Former U.S. Senator from Florida 1987 - 2004.  Former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Co-Chairman of the Joint House-Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (JICI) that investigated the events of 9/11 on Patriots Question 911 downloaded from  http://www.patriotsquestion911, 15 Aug. 2007.)


No Punishments for Incompetence


Q: Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded
for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

A:  Because 9/11 was an "inside job" orchestrated by traitors inside the Pentagon, assisted by the Israeli secret services and the Central Intelligence Agency.  Those guilty parties were not incompetent, but enormously successful in executing the most sophisticated counter-intelligence operation in the history of the world.  (9/11Truth.org, Answers to 9/11 Families’ Questions, posted 20 July 2007 at
http://blogs.albawaba.com/post/2011/73057, downloaded August 6, 2007.)


No Following of the Money Trail


Q: Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into insider trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in some 15 billion dollars in traceable gains?

A:  By "following the money" those results will immediately implicate
principals of the homicide conspiracy and murder racket that continues, to this day, to protect those principals.  For example, consider the insurance payouts that a jury awarded to the WTC leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, who admitted that he authorized the FDNY to "pull” (i.e. demolish) WTC Building 7, which was not hit by any aircraft.  Silverstein is currently under investigation on suspicion of arson (at least). (9/11Truth.org, Answers to 9/11 Families’ Questions, posted 20 July 2007 at
http://blogs.albawaba.com/post/2011/73057, downloaded August 6, 2007.)


(Ed. Note: Who made money on the 9/11 attack of the World Trade Center? Investigations by SEC, DoJ and FBI have mysteriously stopped dead in their tracks. Who called off the dogs and why?)


Between August 26 and September 11, 2001, a group of speculators, identified by the American Securities and Exchange Commission as Israeli citizens, sold 'short' a list of 38 stocks that could reasonably be expected to fall in value as a result of the pending attacks.

These speculators operated out of the Toronto, Canada and Frankfurt, Germany, stock exchanges and their profits were specifically stated to be "in the millions of dollars."

Short selling of stocks involves the opportunity to gain large profits by passing shares to a friendly third party, then buying them back when the price falls.

Historically, if this precedes a traumatic event, it is an indication of foreknowledge. TBRNEWS.ORG, “ SEC Investigates 9/ 11'Short' Stock Sales Profits,”  Conspiracy Planet, downloaded from
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=79&contentid=2111, 7 Aug. 2007.)


Mass Media Fail to Cover News of 9/11


The Downing Street Memo [Ed. The Downing Street Memos are reproduced below] - minutes of a meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisors that said the U.S. was "fixing" the intelligence to support the Iraq War - was not enough to get the mainstream U.S. media or members of Congress to take the issue seriously. Now there is Downing II, III, IV, V, VI and VII!


As the evidence mounts, the failure of the media to seriously investigate the issues is baffling. Why aren't they interviewing current and former U.S. military intelligence officials about these reports from highest levels of British government? Isn't the media supposed to investigate and get the truth for their readers and viewers?


And, how about Congress - shouldn't they be subpoenaing witnesses to testify under oath about pre-war intelligence gathering, the influence Bush administration had on manipulating or misstating intelligence findings and whether intelligence was gathered to report the truth or designed to support a pre-ordained war? The Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, has promised to investigate whether intelligence was manipulated by the Administration - but that promise remains unfulfilled and last week Knight-Ridder reporter Dick Polman was told it was "still on the back burner." Maybe it is time to make good on that promise.


How much more information is needed before the truth is sought and reported to the American people? (Kevin Zeese, “How Much Proof Needed Before the Truth Comes Out? Now Seven Leaked British Documents Raise Iraq War Questions,” Global Research, June 14, 2005.)


Wouldn’t the administration have realized that people are going to investigate this? We’re not a nation of dummies.

We are a nation that is very poorly informed by its mainstream media, a nation that has had drilled into it that we are America the Good, we make mistakes but we’re never deliberately evil.

We’ve had drilled into us that people who believe in conspiracy theories are idiots, so we wouldn’t want to be one of those.

But most importantly we’re a nation with a controlled press, a corporately controlled press. We do not have free press. And in fact, if you want to say that the definition of a free press is one that is not controlled by religion, one can say ours is, because we really have a religion of capitalism–we like to call it free enterprise—and that’s what controls our press, so we do not have a free press any more than the Soviet Union had a free press.

They’ll just say, “He holds the ridiculous theory that explosions planted by our own government brought the building down” but they never say, “Now what’s the evidence?” And they would certainly never bring me or Jim Hoffman or Jim Fetzer on to NBC or ABC or CBS or to say what is the evidence for that. (“Interview with David Ray Griffin,” Whole Life Times, downloaded from
http://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html, 7 August 2007.)


I’ve done quite a bit of reading about the press and people say that if you’re going to be successful in the press you learn very early on what kind of stories will fly, what ones won’t, and if you take a story of a certain type to your editor once or twice and it’s turned down you know not to take that kind of story again.

The editor doesn’t have to say, “If you do this again I’ll fire you.” You get the message, this is futile, you’re not going to get promoted, you’re not going to get the plush jobs if you don’t understand how things are done. (“Interview with David Ray Griffin,” Whole Life Times, downloaded from
http://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html, 7 August 2007.)


Who Was in Charge of the Events of 9/11?


In the book [The Price of Loyalty], O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

This is what O'Neill says happened at his first hour-long, one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk about, and I thought to engage on and as the book says, I was surprised that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening … As I recall, it was mostly a monologue.”

He also says that President Bush was disengaged, at least on domestic issues, and that disturbed him. And he says that wasn't his experience when he worked as a top official under Presidents Nixon and Ford, or the way he ran things when he was chairman of Alcoa. (“Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?

O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11,” CBS News/60 Minutes, downloaded from 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml, 16 Aug. 2007.)


Only the most devout Bush-worshippers continue to believe [Bush] is the master of events in the Executive branch. Everyone else has correctly concluded that the ideological fuel and bureaucratic muscle in this administration flows from Cheney.


Though his policy initiatives are greeted with failure after failure, though the poll numbers continue to wither, Cheney and the remaining true-believers continue to slog onward, dragging all of us deeper into the morass. Should the trial of Libby present a definitive threat to the political standing and power of Dick Cheney, all bets may be off regarding Iran. We will be faced with the possibility that an attack may be ordered for no better reason than to redirect attention and change the subject.  (William Rivers Pitt, “A Cornered Animal,” Truthout.org, 26 Jan. 2007.)


Now that mainstream media bias is an established fact and recognized as such by the mainstream reading and viewing public, the revelation of Vice President Dick Cheney's total unilateral control over all levels and branches of American government has not only raised eyebrows and concerns of dictatorship, but for those politically astute, begs the question as to why the Washington Post would be the journalistic vehicle to publish the four-part June 24 through June 27 series exposing this reality.


The Post's publisher, Donald E. Graham, has once again participated in the annual secret Bilderberg conclave, the latter the principal organizational player whose membership is made up of extremely high-level international bankers, mass media publishers, corporatists in both the oil industry and the military-industrial complex, and other principal international political movers and shakers. Bilderberg's primary objective is a one world global government, the New World Order. And the NWO will be phased in via the European and then the North American Union.


Is it safe to say that the most recent Bilderberg http://www.bilderberg.org/2007.htm meeting, held in Istanbul May 31 to June 3rd, considered the most vital issues confronting future global government? And of course, those issues would have been 1) Iraq, and 2) Iran. It is clear that American, British and Israeli control over Mid East oil is definitely on the agenda in their lockstep, jackboot march to deliver US all to the New World Order. This triumvirate is the world's "real axis of evil."


Mountain ranges of corporate money have been provided to Congress by lobbyists and corporatists representing the oil industry, military weapons contractors, AIPAC, banking and media interests, to not only buy into American government, but to where their "investments" have now facilitated total control of America. They have replaced what was once reserved as the exclusive representative domain of the people of the United States, which allowed the latter their collective voice in government. And the people's representatives, after abandoning America's interests, have turned over congressional war-making powers to Bush, who has in turn delegated virtually all of his presidential duties to Vice President Richard B. Cheney. And Cheney-Bush are profiting personally via heavy investment interests in oil and an oil support industry giant [Halliburton].


Constitutionally speaking, the Office of Vice President of the United States of America has no duties. This inefficate position in the executive branch serves only as President of the Senate, and then functions legislatively only in an extremely narrow capacity to break a deadlocked vote. Complaints about the "do-nothing" status of the vice president's role and function date back to America's first Vice President, John Adams.


Considering the absence of constitutionally mandated responsibilities, it should be clear that at least from a regulatory and legal standpoint, there's little to nothing a vice president can do wrong; he has, basically, no executive branch functions. And it is for this reason that Congressman Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333, seemed at first, to be a wrong-headed exercise in partisan politics hand wringing.


But that was before the Washington Post launched its four-part series. The Post is a nationally recognized bastion of the American mass media. It is the paper of <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/index.html>Watergate fame, the paper of Bradlee, Bernstein and Woodward. And considering all that the Cheney-Bush regime has done to launch NWO, the attempted legalization of Mexican illegals, the private "negotiations" between Bush and the heads of Canada and Mexico to dissolve totally our borders to create a North American Union, the United States' unilateral abolition of the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties ensuring and protecting the sovereignty of independent nations, why would Graham's Washington Post now attack Bilderberg's "dream team?"


Obviously, something is up with the planners and conspirators maneuvering the human race into a one world global government. The Post series, written by staff writers Barton Gellman and Jo Becker, would never have been allowed off the ground and would have never been accorded so much focus unless it was sanctioned and possibly even urged by the Bilderbergs. And consider the appearance of the series so shortly after the latter's annual secret meeting. So what's up?


It can only be speculated since the movement for global government is so secret. That is why everything the Cheney-Bush crime machine does is a matter of "national security." 9/11 was indeed an inside job perpetrated by Cheney-Bush; it is the source of their unlimited dictatorial power. But if they arranged 9/11, why the suspension of our Bill of Rights and why the intense spying on Americans? The answer is obvious: they fear Americans will find out, organize, and plan an armed rebellion. They do not fear al Qaeda, because al Qaeda doesn't exist, or at least it didn't exist in terms of planning and executing 9/11. No, Cheney-Bush intend to enslave America, strip it of its national identity, and serve US all up to the New World Order. Multizillionaire international banker David Rockefeller has already admitted to the latter effort.


Apparently, something has happened to interfere with the bankers' plans and schedule. Perhaps Cheney-Bush have provided too much evidence of their criminal and treasonist intentions, and the threat of an armed rebellion is now looming larger than ever. Perhaps a military coup is in the wind. Or perhaps, the unpopularity of the Cheney-Bush dictatorship is causing even the world conspirators to fractionalize. Whatever it is, something must be up to have triggered the Gellman-Becker series.


The exposé has now provided solid evidence that Cheney is running the show and is therefore definitely impeachable. As Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and a former associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan wrote in his June 27th article, "Impeach Cheney" and posted in <http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2169292>Slate, "Under Dick Cheney, the office of the vice president has been transformed from a tiny acorn into an unprecedented giant oak. In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and the Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III."


Fein continues: "The most recent invention we know of is the vice president's insistence that an executive order governing the handling of classified information in the executive branch does not reach his office because he also serves as president of the Senate. In other words, the vice president is a unique legislative-executive creature standing above and beyond the Constitution. The House judiciary committee should commence an impeachment inquiry. As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney's multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify."


During the Clinton administration, Bill Clinton "wrote legislation" via executive orders. The opposition's beef at the time was that such presidential fiat executive orders were not national law, but were instead confined to operational directives within the executive branch alone. Now Cheney explains his vision that executive orders do not apply to the executive branch of government, and if they do, they don't apply to him because he has decided he isn't in the executive branch of government. That's not what is written in the Constitution. His arrogant defiance of the United States Constitution and an executive order that applies directly to him constitute the very political crimes attorney Bruce Fein pointed out were in violation of the rule of law of this nation.


And although the Gellman-Becker Post series started out promisingly enough, and in spite of the fact that it still evidences a refreshing air of professional journalism, Part I of the series defining Cheney's criminal dictatorial control gives way later in the series to a condoning tone and a dimension of approval articulating Cheney's exceptional talent in cutting through the mire of government bureaucracy red tape to arrive expeditiously at common sense solutions. The plight of the Klamath basin farmers in opposing the federal Environmental Protection Agency, a cause resoundingly favored by "conservatives" who hate the bureaucratic stupidity of big government, was presented by the "liberal" Washington Post as a case in point as to Cheney's astonishing and beneficent vision. Huh?! Championing the rights of individuals trying to earn profits over caring, compassionate, Big Brother government is now a cause for the Washington Post?


As stated, the series does indeed expose Cheney's dictatorial control, but before the series is over, this dictatorial control is offered up as "good" dictatorship. Perhaps this is the real purpose of the series, to admit to Cheney's total control of America, but to blunt its horror and danger by pointing out evidence of beneficence. And considering that no more mention of this horrible anomaly in American government can be found anywhere in the mass media, it would seem that its timing and shock effect would wear off quickly given the newspaper mentality and short collective memory of the American public. Again, it is most difficult to surmise the real intent of the series.


Part I is the most shocking in terms of describing how one individual controls ALL in American government. Here's an example from the opening paragraph: "Just past the Oval Office, in the private dining room overlooking the South Lawn, Vice President Cheney joined President Bush at a round parquet table they shared once a week. Cheney brought a four-page text, written in strict secrecy by his lawyer. He carried it back out with him after lunch.


In less than an hour, the document traversed a West Wing circuit that gave its words the power of command. It changed hands four times, according to witnesses, with emphatic instructions to bypass staff review. When it returned to the Oval Office, in a blue portfolio embossed with the presidential seal, Bush pulled a felt-tip pen from his pocket and signed without sitting down. Almost no one else had seen the text."


The article continues: "Cheney's proposal had become a military order from the commander in chief. Foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States were stripped of access to any court -- civilian or military, domestic or foreign. They could be confined indefinitely without charges and would be tried, if at all, in closed 'military commissions.'"


Is this the way American laws should be written? Does this align with Constitutional constraints that provide for a separation of powers and checks and balances to ensure individual freedoms? "Suspects" are now designated as such by the government's executive branch, and proof in a court of law is now no longer required. And what is to differentiate between a terror suspect and any other kind of suspect? And how about members of a political opposition ­ are they also "terrorists" because they disagree with this criminal administration? Only Cheney and Bush now have this power, which they gave to themselves!


Even members of Bush's own administration were outraged by this dictatorial fiat. Gellman and Becker elaborate after members of the Bush regime found out about the fiat while still in the dark as to its origin: "'What the hell just happened?' Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, a witness said, when CNN announced the order that evening, Nov. 13, 2001. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, incensed, sent an aide to find out. Even witnesses to the Oval Office signing said they did not know the vice president had played any part."


As much as Cheney covets total control protected by total secrecy, Gellman and Becker note that, "Cheney expresses indifference, in public and private, to any verdict but history's, and those close to him say he means it." But isn't this the same outlook that can be attributed to Hitler and Stalin? Isn't it the same indifference and arrogance that justifies "breaking some eggs to make an omelet?"


In the opinion of this writer, there is more behind Cheney's quest for unlimited power, shrouded in absolute secrecy, and all-encompassing in every matter of federal government control. And the article makes it clear, that anyone who crosses Cheney gets wasted. Gellman and Becker point out to the sharp differences of opinion and the conflicts that former EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman had with Cheney, differences that led her to eventually resign from the agency. They mention former Attorney General John Ashcroft's differences with Cheney, also leading to his resignation. The article documents Cheney's meddling with both the EPA and the Department of Justice. And his pressuring the CIA for fraudulent intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraqis now well known.


The Washington Post's Gellman-Becker series is, whatever the reason for its airing, an absolute masterpiece of journalism, but not for reasons that are immediately obvious. It's not the writing style, nor is it even the revelations resultant from intense investigative reporting. Perhaps the real benefits of the article have been totally missed by Graham and the Post's executive staff. The expose answers two not so obvious questions: first, why do we have such an incompetent fool as president, and second, why does such an incompetent fool wield so much power and is so assertive regarding "his" decisions? The series provides the answer: Dick Cheney.


For early on in the quest to rid America of a very popular yet very destructive president, Cheney's name came up as a dedicated American to replace a dedicated internationalist. And this may be the real reason for the subdued attack/exposure on Cheney. It may not be his fascism that offends, but his nationalism. Perhaps it's Cheney's vision for a New World Order controlled byWashington that bothers the Bilderberg internationalists. And it is this same nationalism which turned off the bankers to both Hitler and Stalin. But there is no need to speculate the connection between Cheney and Bush.

Undoubtedly, Cheney was the GOP's pick to replace Clinton. But because of his heart problems, Cheney would never win a presidential election. Enter stage right, G. Bush, a simpleton, and an obedient and virtually clueless stooge. Bush serves not only as the buffoon heat sink for the GOP dictatorship, but is also its "decider" as related in the Post's series when describing how Cheney writes law and Bush decides to sign without either reading or understanding what it is that he is signing. The series explores how Cheney decides on everything that is within the federal government's purview.


The series explains Cheney's involvement and direct supervision and control over the Department of Justice, his intimidation of the EPA, his power over the CIA, his total control of foreign policy, and his total control over the White House staff and Bush. Gellman and Becker try to paint the picture that Bush retains some identity distinct from Cheney's oversight, but at least for this observer, it simply doesn't work. I'm convinced that Cheney is behind EVERYTHING this dangerous, corrupt and criminal regime has perpetrated. And that would include 9/11!


As Dr. David Ray Griffin has pointed out in his latest book, both the 9/11 Commission report and the government-sanctioned released tapes falsify the timeframe wherein Cheney was in the bunker on 9/11. After reading the Post series, can there be any doubt as to who was in charge on that awful day? Can there be any doubt as to who really ordered those WTC buildings to be "pulled?" Can there be any doubt as to who decided that certain attorneys in the Justice Department were to be let go? And for Hillary and Congressman Nadler, can there be any doubt as to who made the phone call to EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman directing her to lie about the condition of the pulverized glass, concrete and steel in the dust and smoke of the disintegrated WTC buildings? Hillary demanded to know who gave the order to Whitman; now we know!


The benefit of this journalistic effort has little to do with presentation; it has everything to do with timeliness and the solving of the types of mysteries such as Hillary and Congressman Nadler were looking into. Can one imagine the anger in Whitman for having to take the fall for the very guy that forced her to resign? Here are Gellman and Becker again: "Stealth is among Cheney's most effective tools. Man-size Mosler safes, used elsewhere in government for classified secrets, store the workaday business of the office of the vice president. Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped 'Treated As: Top Secret/SCI.' Experts in and out of government said Cheney's office appears to have invented that designation, which alludes to 'sensitive compartmented information,' the most closely guarded category of government secrets. By adding the words 'treated as,' they said, Cheney seeks to protect unclassified work as though its disclosure would cause 'exceptionally grave damage to national security.'"


And, "Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that 'the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch,' and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance." Have you ever seen a better description of a total dictatorship?


If the evidence wasn't there before, it sure as hell is now! Cheney is absolutely guilty as charged, and Congress now has the evidence. Congressman Kucinich hit the nail perfectly on the head, and the time for Congress to nail the Cheney-Bush regime is long overdue. Nothing more needs to be written or said about the Cheney-Bush regime; it's now all been said. And in conjunction with the continuously mounting scientific evidence proving the 9/11 terrorist acts as being inside jobs, we also know of Cheney's modus operandi and his commitment to history instead of his required dedication to America and its people. Has there ever been a more immoral character than Cheney capable of the expression "the public be damned?"


As Bruce Fein wrote after reading the Post series, "Cheney must be impeached!" Fein documents the long list of criminal activities the Bush administration, now proven to be under the total control of Cheney, has perpetrated against the American people and the entire human race for which the administration, the Congress, AND the American people must now all be held accountable for in the eyes of our Creator. How many letters have you sent to your congressional representatives and senators? How many discussion groups or activist groups have you joined or participated in? Should you come up with a negative response, then YOU are guilty as well! Anyone who remains silent witnessing these egregious crimes and the evil of merely one "human" being should consider themselves an accessory, before, during and after the fact. It is time to impeach, sentence and punish these most dangerous and evil criminals! (Ted Long, “The Cheney Affair,” Global Research, 11 August 2007.)


As you know, I have been researching the question lately of who caused 9/11.


I have not answered that question for myself in its ultimate sense; that is, in the sense of who gave the order; who was in ultimate command.  From all we have discussed here, I cannot imagine that it was George Bush.


One could postulate that it was Dick Cheney, but was there someone behind Cheney? If so, who? Who ultimately pulled the strings prior to 9/11 and could be expected to pull the strings in the event of a second 9/11?


Daniel Abrahamson has answered one part of that question for me. In his lecture before the Project for a New American Citizen, in Austin, Texas, April 2007, Abrahamson made a connection which is logical and simple.


He said that the military organizations that ran the drills on 9/11 could safely be assumed to be the military elements behind 9/11. That is, they are the necessary, though not the sufficient, cause of 9/11. He calls them the “coup faction.”


Before looking at who those agencies are, I'd like to add that his list does not necessarily help us identify who set the thermate charges in the three World Trade Center buildings or who carried out the countless other actions vis-à-vis the WTC, the Pentagon, and Flight 93.


But it does point to agencies who played a definite role in the events of that day. Abrahamson is the first person I am aware of who has identified at least some of the players.


Who are these military agencies?


According to Abrahamson, on September 11, 2001, NORTHCOM ran Vigilant Guardian, the (simulated?) hijackings, and the AWACS. We already know that NORTHCOM will be in charge of all policing and military matters within the United States once martial law is declared. They will run the prison camps that are even now being built. They will be the regime's enforcers.


STRATCOM ran the nuclear war games.


FEMA ran what Abrahamson refers to as “Tripod.”


The National Reconnaissance Office ran what Abrahamson refers to as the “plane crash drill.”


The U.S. Space Command ran something he calls Apollo Guardian and Global Guardian. I do know that the "mystery plane" spotted above the Pentagon during and after the missile strike on that building was identified as an E4B, part of "Global Guardian." 


The DIA, which I assume is the Defence Intelligence Agency, ran “Able Danger.”


In Abrahamson’s view (as depicted in his overhead slide), “Space warriors + STRATCOM + NORTHCOM + FEMA + DIA = 911 Coup Faction.” (He actually poses that as a question, rather than as an assertion.)


I do not pretend to understand all of what Abrahamson says here. But I offer this information to you as an educated guess as to what military organizations will stage the second 9/11, which I feel is almost certain to occur, in all likelihood this summer.

Abrahamson thinks that the war against Iran is the beginning of an action which is designed to culminate in a nuclear war against Russia and China. The aim is total American global military dominance.  (Steve Beckow, “Who Caused 9/11?” Impeach Space, downloaded from http://network.a28.org/forum/topic/show?id=595326%3ATopic%3A32329, 10 August 2007.)


There are many who argue that the U.S. government would never be evil enough to be behind the massacre of 3,000 people. First, we never state that this is the case. Of course, the entire government could not have participated in such a monstrous crime. However, a covert criminal faction at the highest levels of our government, whether they're elements within our shadow government or a multi-national team of mercenaries, must be considered to be the actual perpetrators due to the overwhelming evidence that the official story just doesn't hold together. (“Another 9/11 Rescue Dog Dies of Cancer,” 9/11Blogger.com, 11 Sept. 2007, downloaded from http://www.ny911truth.org/, 11 Sept. 2007.)


Calls for New 9/11 Investigation




with New York legislators, first responders, victim families, and millions of NY citizens calling for a new investigation of unsolved 9/11 crimes, and the full prosecution of those found responsible.

In memory and on behalf of:


the more than 2800 murdered in New York on September 11, 2001, including 343 firefighters and 75 police officers;


the hundreds of thousands of residents and workers variously harmed by the assault;


the equivalent numbers suffering dire health effects from attack-related pollution;


New York's collateral victims, human and institutional, who collectively lost billions of dollars in business, career and property damages; and


the millions of New York citizens who have lost precious freedoms, rights, family members and/or faith in government in the resulting so-called "War on Terror."


We the undersigned:

a) think that there is ample evidence and probable cause to believe that many grave and still unresolved crimes were committed by US officials prior to, during and after the events of 9/11;

b) observe that most of these apparent crimes, including but not limited to abetment of mass murder, criminal negligence, insider trading, and obstruction of justice, fall well within the jurisdiction of New York's top law enforcement officials, who thus become the People's last recourse when federal intervention yields no credible answers, relief or accountability;

c) therefore petition the Attorney General of the State of New York and the District Attorney of the Borough of Manhattan:


  • to open urgent new investigations into the most serious, incriminating,
    and still largely unexplicated bodies of 9/11 evidence,


  • to expose and fully prosecute the perpetrators of all discovered crimes,


  • to restore damages, justice and honor to the state and people of New York, and thereby


  • to reclaim the public trust in government and our system of law.  (Justice for 9/11 Steering Committee, Justice for 9/11, downloaded from http://www.justicefor911.org/, 15 Aug. 2007.)


“Some Troops Ready to Mutiny”


Donn de Grand-Pre: (laughs) Yeah, you see there's a definite cleavage between the military of the Pentagon and the civilian hierarchy - and never the twain shall meet.

Alex Jones: Well, there was an article right after that you talk about in mid-2002 in the Washington Times saying the morale in the Pentagon had never been lower. And you would think it would be high right after 911 and getting together to fight the enemy. But it said that the officers didn't believe in the "mission" or in the intelligence.


DGP: That is correct. That came out of the Washington Times and I can verify that from Col. Dick Schultz, who is a friend of mine in the Joint Chiefs. Morale was not only low but he said some of the troops are ready to mutiny. If it wasn't for the fact that the government, the civilian hierarchy, has control over retirements, they would probably be blood in the streets by now. (Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.): Explosive New 9/11 Revelations and Explanations,” The Alex Jones Show, downloaded from http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html, 13 Aug. 2007.)


Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning [for an attack on Iran] are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War, The American Conservative, 2 August 2005 cited in Michel Chossudovsky, “Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?” Globalresearch.ca, 22 Feb. 2006, downloaded from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032, 27 Aug. 2007.)



Movement to Impeach the President


If a national movement calling for the impeachment of the President is rapidly emerging and the corporate media are not covering it, is there really a national movement for the impeachment of the President?


Impeachment advocates are widely mobilizing in the U.S. Over 1,000 letters to the editors of major newspapers have been printed in the past six months asking for impeachment. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette letter writer George Matus says, “I am still enraged over unasked questions about exit polls, touch-screen voting, Iraq, the cost of the new Medicare…who formulated our energy policy, Jack Abramoff, the Downing Street Memos, and impeachment.” David Anderson in McMinnville, Oregon pens to the Oregonian, “Where are the members of our congressional delegation now in demanding the current president’s actions be investigated to see if impeachment or censure are appropriate actions?” William Dwyer’s letter in the Charleston Gazette says, “Congress will never have the courage to start the impeachment process without a groundswell of outrage from the people.”


City councils, boards of supervisors, and local and state level Democrat central committees have voted for impeachment. Arcata, California voted for impeachment on January 6. The City and County of San Francisco, voted Yes on February 28. The Sonoma County Democrat Central Committee (CA) voted for Impeachment on March 16. The townships of Newfane, Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney in Vermont all voted for impeachment the first week of March. The New Mexico State Democrat party convention rallied on March 18 for the ”impeachment of George Bush and his lawful removal from office.” The national Green Party called for impeachment on January 3. Op-ed writers at the St. Petersburg Times, Newsday, Yale Daily News, Barrons, Detroit Free Press, and the Boston Globe have called for impeachment. The San Francisco Bay Guardian (1/25/06) The Nation (1/30/06) and Harpers (3/06) published cover articles calling for impeachment. As of March 16, thirty-two US House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors to House Resolution 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment.


Polls show that nearly a majority of Americans favor impeachment. In October of 2005, Public Affairs Research found that 50% of Americans said that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq. A Zogby International poll from early November 2005 found that 53% of Americans say, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." A March 16, 2006 poll by American Research Group showed that 42% of Americans favored impeaching Bush.


Despite all this advocacy and sentiment for impeachment, corporate media have yet to cover this emerging mass movement. The Bangor Daily News simply reported on March 17 that former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark has set up the website Votetoimpeach.org and that other groups are using the internet to push impeachment. The Wall Street Journal, on March 16, editorialized about how it is just “the loony left” seeking impeachment, but perhaps some Democrats in Congress will join in feeding on the “bile of the censure/impeachment brigades.”


The corporate media are ignoring the broadening call for impeachment — wishing perhaps it will just go away. Television news and talk shows have mentioned impeachment over 100 times in the past 30 days, mostly however in the context of Senator Russ Feingold’s censure bill and the lack of broad Democrat support for censure or impeachment. Nothing on television news gives the impression that millions of Americans are calling for the impeachment of Bush and his cohorts. 


The Bush Administration lied about Iraq, illegally spied on US citizens, and continues war crimes in the Middle East. Despite corporate media’s inability to hear the demands for impeachment, the groundswell of outrage continues to expand. (Peter Phillips, “National Impeachment Movement Ignored by Corporate Media,” Project Censored. The News That Didin’t Make the News, downloaded from http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/impeach.htm, 21 Aug. 2007.)


Questions from the Families of 9/11 Victims


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

Statement and Questions 1-23 submitted February 16, 2004
Questions 24-39 submitted March 18, 2004


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This would include briefings or communications from


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

27. During the second presidential debate on Oct. 11, 2000, as a Presidential candidate you responded to a question about racial discrimination and said that " ...there is other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab Americans are racially profiled in what's called "secret evidence".

28. On Feb 28, 2001, you issued a memorandum on racial profiling to Attorney General Ashcroft, stating; "I hereby direct you to review the use by Federal law enforcement authorities of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches, and other investigative procedures."

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

29. In the first few weeks of the Bush administration it has been reported that Andrew Card, Chief of Staff required that all regulations (passed down by the Clinton administration) that had not yet been issued had to be reviewed anew by an official appointed by the new administration, generally, the department secretary.


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

30. In July, 2001, an executive order was issued which “blocks all property and interests in property of the Taliban and prohibits trade-related transactions by United States persons involving the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban.”


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

“The Bush White House stepped up negotiations with the Taliban in 2001. When those talks stalled in July, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands.”


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


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

"[Plans had been drawn up by the] Clinton administration to launch an attack on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Those plans were shelved when Bush took office, but were revived and accelerated in August 2001, following the breakdown of the pipeline negotiations. By the beginning of September 2001, the war plans had been approved by the Pentagon. On September 9 a National Security Presidential Directive outlining plans for an attack the following month, was presented to President Bush for approval."


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


32. Please explain your 14 month opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request to Senator Daschle to quash such an investigation.

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

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

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

"Bush has virtually used, word for word, the written statements by PNAC members when he speaks publicly about Iraq crisis”

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

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

37. Why was author, Bob Woodward, author of Bush at War permitted access to confidential PDBs while the Joint Inquiry, and subsequently, the Commission, was not?

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

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


(Downloaded from http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html, 31 July 2007.)


Part 1: Bush Administration
National Security Council
March 18, 2004

Dick Cheney, Vice-President of the United States


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

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

•Specifically, what were the discussions/negotiations about?
•Expand upon the discussions, agreements, or threatening remarks that were reportedly made? http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/06/05/memo/index_np.html

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

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

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

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


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

7. Please explain your opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request that Senator Daschle quash an investigation.

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

•In addressing the issue of domestic terrorism, which you were asked to oversee by President Bush in May, 2001, whom did you consult and/or from whom did you request briefings?

•What were your findings on the threat level?
•What recommendations for improved security resulted from your study of domestic terrorism? When were they made and to whom?
•What coordinated plans of action, directives or protocols developed as a result?
•Were those recommendations carried out following the September 11th attacks?

9. Why were the recommendations of the Hart Rudman Report ignored?

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

“At least some White House personnel were given Cipro six weeks ago. White House officials won't discuss that, or who might be receiving the anthrax-treating antibiotic now…

On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was a precaution, according to one person directly involved.” http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2001/ap102401.html

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

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


(Downloaded from http://www.911independentcommission.org/cheney3182004.html, 31 July 2007.)


Questions for

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice


1. Beginning with the transition period between the Clinton and Bush administrations, and ending on 9/11/01, specifically what information/ warnings about terrorists, planned attacks and targets had you received?

This would include briefings or communications from

    •  outgoing Clinton officials
    •  the CIA, FBI, NSA and other intelligence agencies
    •  foreign intelligence, governments, dignitaries or envoys
    •  Former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman
    •  http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/index.html

2. Please describe your role in the preparation of daily Presidential Briefings. Did you ever summarize or revise the information provided by the intelligence agencies?

3. Regarding the meeting of Abdullah Abdullah (close aide to Massoud and now the Afghan Foreign Minister) in July , 2001, with “some top National Security Council (NSC) and State Department officials,” what information about al Qaeda did he convey?

4. Specifically, what warnings did you receive from Sandy Berger and the Clinton administration?

5. After the revelation of the Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing which warned that terrorists may hijack planes, you explained,

It was an analytic report that talked about UBL’s [bin Laden's] methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998.
It mentioned hijacking, but hijacking in the traditional sense and, in a sense, said that the most important and most likely thing was that they would take over an airliner, holding passengers and demand the release of one of their operatives.



Comment: Al Qaeda attacks have one goal--- killing as many people as possible, usually in a spectacular way. Further, al Qaeda’s attacks are often lethal, well-planned, simultaneous strikes against symbolic or high-profile targets. Those characteristics are inconsistent with the conclusion that the most likely scenario would be hijackings in the traditional sense, especially when coupled with bin Laden’s declaration in 1998 that "every American should be a target for Muslims,” and that it is “the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill British and American citizens.”

Please describe the analysis of al Qaeda methods of operation and what bin Laden had done historically which led you to conclude that an al Qaeda attack would be simple hijackings?


Questions For Dr. Rice from the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Appendix

1. As stated in the Appendix of the Joint Inquiry of Congress’ Final Report:
“Despite the White House decision [to deny access to the PDBs], the Joint Inquiry was advised by Intelligence Community representatives of the content of an August 2001 PDB item that is discussed in the report. This glimpse into that PDB indicated the importance of such access.*

*National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated in a May 16, 2002 press briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) included information about Bin Laden’s methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997. One of the methods was that Bin Laden might choose to hijack an airliner in order to hold passengers hostage to gain release of one of their operatives. She stated, however, that the report did not contain specific warning information, but only a generalized warning, and did not contain information that al-Qa’ida was discussing a particular planned attack against a specific target at any specific time, place, or by any specific method.” (Joint Inquiry Final Report, Appendix, "Access Limitations Encountered by the Joint Inquiry," pages 1-2).

Ms. Rice can you reconcile this intimated discrepancy?

Terrorism as a Policy Priority

1. During your time as National Security Advisor, what priorities did you establish for U.S. Intelligence priorities and where did terrorism fit in? How did this change from the priorities of the Clinton administration?

2. How were these priorities conveyed to the intelligence Community? Did the intelligence Community propose any changes in priority with regard to counterterrorism or al-Qa’ida? What were they?

3. Prior to September 11, who at the National Security Council and the U.S. government played a leading role in setting counterterrorism policy? Who else was involved in this process? Please describe the process, the participants and the fora.

4. Prior to September 11, did Congress support the NSC’s counterterrorism efforts? Did Congress oppose NSC priorities related to terrorism in any way? Please provide details of both, as appropriate.

5. Was Richard Clarke, the National Coordinator for counterterrorism, included all in Principals’ meetings related to terrorism after January 2002? If not, why not? How was it determined who would be involved in such meetings? What was his role in counterterrorism policy and intelligence prioritization after January 2002?

6. During the transition from the Clinton administration, did former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger or other senior Clinton NSC officials provide any advice, information, warning, or guidance requiring policy, priorities, or threats from al-Qa’ida and Bin Ladin? If so, what was the advice, information, warning, or guidance?

7. Prior to September 11, was the Administration engaged in a review of counterterrorism policy? What issues were identified for change? What stage were plans in? What changes in the role of the intelligence Community, if any, were planned? What happened to the review after the September 11 attacks?

8. When the new Administration came into office, was it aware that Usama bin Ladin had declared war on the United States in 1998? Who provided this information, and how was it provided? What was the impact of that fact on the Administration’s national security priorities? How did it affect the intelligence Community’s posture?

9. Prior to September 11, did the President or other senior officials in the administration make any public statements or give any speeches on the subject of the threat of terrorism, or Usama bin Ladin’s terrorist network in particular? If so, please make copies available to the (Joint Inquiry Staff)?


1. Prior to September 11, did the Intelligence Community come to the new Administration with any requests for additional counterterrorism resources, e.g. additional funding? Who made the request, and what was the nature of the proposal?

2. Did the Intelligence Community ask the Administration for more resources to fight Usama bin Ladin and al-Qa’ida? Who made this request?

3. Did the Intelligence Community ever cite a lack of resources as the basis for not acting? If so, provide details and the NSC response.

4. When the DCI, Director of NSA, and FBI Director requested more counterterrorism resources, what was the stated justification for their requests?

5. What was the NSC’s response to each specific Intelligence Community request for any increases in resources for counterterrorism? For al-Qa’ida?

Agency responsiveness and support for policy makers

1. What specific strengths did you observe in intelligence collection, analysis, and reporting on Bin Ladin, al-Qa’ida or terrorism in general prior to September 11? What specific weaknesses? Please provide specific examples of each.

2. What was the quality of intelligence received by the NSC? Did the NSC make any efforts to improve this quality?

3. With respect to Intelligence Community counterterrorism efforts prior
to September 11, how responsive were the CIA, the FBI, NSA, and DIA?

•  Did they provide the President and the National Security Council with the information needed to make informed decisions?
 •  Did the agencies use their authority aggressively? Did they cite limits or a lack of authority as a basis for no action?
 •  Did they shift resources appropriately in response to NSC direction?
 •  Did the NSC provide any specific tasking to Intelligence Community agencies to which they did not respond? Please provide specific examples.


Threat to the homeland

1. Prior to September 11, including especially spring/summer 2001, what information did the Intelligence Community provide to the National Security Council, orally or in writing, indicating the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the United States?

2. Prior to September 11, what information did the Intelligence Community provide to the National Security Council on al-Qa’ida activities and infrastructure inside the United States?

3. Prior to September 11, did the National Security Council ever consider alerting the American people to the internal threat from al-Qa’ida? What happened?

4. Did the National Security Council ever consider enhancing U.S. border controls, e.g., by strengthening watchlist programs, alerting the FAA or the airlines, or inspecting cargo containers on a larger scale? If so, what happened?

5. Prior to September 11, what was the National Security council’s view regarding how well postured the FBI was with respect to combating terrorist groups inside the United States? What steps were taken to improve the FBI, if any?

6. Prior to September 11, did the Intelligence Community provide the NSC with any information regarding the possibility that al-Qa’ida members would use airplanes as weapons or hijack airplanes in the United States? What did the NSC do in response to this information?

Foreign governments

1. Prior to September 11, which foreign governments were most and least helpful regarding counterterrorism? How were they helpful or not helpful in each case?

2. Prior to September 11, were the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan supportive of U.S. counterterrorism efforts? How responsive were European allies? What priority was counterterrorism cooperation in Saudi Arabia relative to military operations against Iraq, the Middle East peace negotiations, and other concerns?

3. Did Intelligence Community agencies ask for NSC assistance in getting foreign governments to take action against terrorist cells? Did the NSC take any specific actions to support the Intelligence Community? What did the NSC do? Did the NSC ask or instruct the State Department or the Department of Defense to assist the intelligence Community in this regard?

4. Prior to September 11, was there any discussion of increasing information sharing and/or counterterrorism cooperation with the Sudan?

Use of Force/Overt and Covert

1. Prior to September 11, did the National Security Council consider the use of military force against al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan? How? In what form? Why was it not pursued? Was there sufficient intelligence to support military options? Was their tasking to gain further intelligence to support military operations?

2. Prior to September 11, did the National Security Council issue any tasking to the CIA or the U.S. military to develop plans involving the covert or overt use of force?

3. Prior to September 11, did the National Security Council ever review the CIA’s authorities to conduct covert action against Bin Ladin or al-Qa’ida? What problems were identified regarding existing authorities, [-----------]? Were there any proposals to change those authorities before September 11th? What steps were taken?

4. Prior to September 11, was the unarmed Predator flown in Afghanistan after the Bush Administration came into office? Were proposals made to the NSC to fly it? Which participants favored flying it? If it was not flown, why not?

5. Did the National Security Council support the development of the armed Predator? Did any administration official try to expedite the process? Were any discussions held on this issue at the NSC? Who participated?

6. Did you consider [------------]? Why or why not? What impact did you expect?

7. Why was there no military response to the attack on the USS Cole? Was this considered?


1. What recommendations would you make to improve the intelligence community’s performance?


(Downloaded from http://www.911independentcommission.org/rice3182004.html, 31 July 2007.)


The Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story



The Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11, 2001.

... An outline in simple talking points ...

Version of May 22, 2006: This overview is in development. If you use the
search function with key words, you will discover that 911Truth.org is home to articles backing virtually every point made below. Much of the basic research is available at the Complete 9/11 Timeline (hosted by cooperativeresearch.org), the 9/11 Reading Room (911readingroom.org), and the Spitzer petition and complaint (Justicefor911.org). For physical evidence discussion, see Point 7.


1) AWOL Chain of Command

a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.

b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.


2) Air Defense Failures

a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.

b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.

c. Was there an air defense standdown?


3) Pentagon Strike

How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation's capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames

a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.

b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue?


There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

5) Flight 93

Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?



6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted?

How many flights were diverted?


7) Demolition Hypothesis

What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)


8) What did officials know? How did they know it?

a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.

b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.

c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

9) Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers

a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.

b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another a coincidence.


10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11

A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O''Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

11) Insider Trading

a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.

b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.

c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

12) Who were the perpetrators?

a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.

b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.

c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspects,0,1825231.story

THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006


13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?

a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department''s translation of it is fraudulent.

b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dyalisis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?

c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?

d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "data base" (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up

a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.

b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).

c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.

d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

15) Poisoning New York

The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.


16) Disposing of the Crime Scene

The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)


17) Anthrax

Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax - which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations - were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?


18) The Stonewall

a. Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.

b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.

c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

19) A Record of Official Lies

a. "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.

b. "Iraq was connected to 9/11" - The most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all, with the most disastrous impact.


20) Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection

a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda.")

b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.

c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.


21) Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:

a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.

b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."

c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."

22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations

The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission''s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn''t the government produce these men and put them to trial?

23) Spitzer Redux

a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (

b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell''s) role in keeping "Able Danger" entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.


24) NIST Omissions

After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

25) Radio Silence

The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola''s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC - once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.


26) The Legal Catch-22

a. Hush Money - Accepting victims'' compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.

b. Judge Hallerstein - Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).

27) Saudi Connections

a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the "Bin Ladin Airlift" during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)

b. The issue of Ptech.


28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters

The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the "9/11 Truth Statement," and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?



29) "The Great Game"

The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush''s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.


30) The Need for a "New Pearl Harbor"

Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the "Project for a New American Century," and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change." After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.


31) Perpetual "War on Terror"

9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.


32) Attacking the Constitution

a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.

b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.


33) Legal Trillions

9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

34) Plundered Trillions?

On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.


35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?

Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?


36) Resource Wars

a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?


37) The "Little Game"

Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?



38) "Al-CIA-da?"

The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Laden. (See also point 13d.)

39) Historical Precedents for "Synthetic Terror"

a. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the "cause for war," created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for "reasons of state."
b. Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved "Project Northwoods" plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?

40) Secret Government

a. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.

b. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.





Ground Zero aftermath movements:
- Justice for the air-poisoning cover-up (
- "Radio Silence" (
- Skyscraper Safety (

Election fraud and black box voting, 2000 to 2004. (nov9truth.org)

Lies to justify the invasion of Iraq. (afterdowningstreet.org)

Use of depleted uranium and its multi-generational consequences on human health and the environment.

Longstanding development of contingency plans for civil disturbance and military rule in the USA (See, "The War at Home")

Oklahoma City Truth movement. (okctruth.org)

Whether you call it "Globalization" or "The New World Order" - An unsustainable system of permanent growth ultimately requires warfare, fraud, and mass manipulation.


"But an inside job would involve thousands of people! How could they keep a secret?" Counter-arguments, red herrings, speculations and false information.

Selected essays, books and websites that make the case for 9/11 as inside job. (See

Demanding a real investigation of the September crimes - Not just a patriotic duty, but a matter of survival.


(Downloaded from http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646, 31 July 2007.)


Critical Mass Is Only 5% of a Population


When 5% of a group is "on" to something, the rest follow suit.  Science has identified that with species there exists an interconnected morphogenesis -- a kind of field effect that links the consciousness and behavior of its members.  Experiments have shown that as a behavioral adaptation is taken on by individuals within a species, the entire group adopts the behavior when a threshold of those individuals is reached.


Extrapolated, this is known as "critical mass."  Theoretically, when 5% of Americans realize what happened on September 11th, the rest will fall in step.  You, reading this, are part of the critical mass.  As a narrowcaster, you can spread the information and create more critical mass.