Among 9/11 truth activists, there is little disagreement about what happened at the World Trade Center and at Shanksville. Although it’s not possible to know all the details of what transpired until there is an independent, impartial investigation, there is wide agreement among 9/11 researchers that World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition and that the hole in the ground that was presented to us as the crash site of flight 93 in Shanksville does not contain the remnants of an airplane.
But when it comes to the Pentagon, the truth community has yet to reach a consensus, and 9/11 forums are filled with bitter arguments from proponents of one view or another. It is assumed by most savvy 9/11 activists that the truth movement has been infiltrated by intelligence agents tasked with crippling activists in any way possible, and that many of the most strident arguments come, not from sincere researchers, but from disinformation agents intent on spreading confusion and discord. These agents are in a position to know the truth about what happened and can be expected to mount vigorous arguments against that truth, the better to keep the movement divided and to prevent a clear, cogent message about the false flag attack at the Pentagon from reaching the masses.
To many activists, the Pentagon attack stands as the single most incriminating feature of 9/11. The official conspiracy theory (OCT) would have us believe that the world’s only superpower, with the most powerful military that has ever existed, was unable to defend its own headquarters 51 minutes after the north WTC tower had been hit, 34 minutes after the south WTC tower had been hit, and 41 minutes after the FAA knew that there was an emergency aboard flight 77 (the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon). Regarding flight 77, Wikipedia states:
“By 08:56, the flight was turned around, and the transponder had been disabled. The FAA was aware at this point that there was an emergency aboard the plane. By this time, American Airlines Flight 11 had already crashed into the World Trade Center, and United Airlines Flight 175 was known to have been hijacked and within minutes of also striking the World Trade center.”
Where was America’s air defense during the 41 minutes after it was known that flight 77 was hijacked and before the Pentagon was attacked? In highly incriminating testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta stated that while he was in the bunker with Dick Cheney:
“There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’”
A few minutes later, the Pentagon exploded in flames, killing 125 unsuspecting workers in the building. No evacuation order had been given.
Norman Mineta’s testimony was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Given these facts, plus many other anomalies about the OCT, it is no surprise that millions of people have concluded that the government is lying about what happened at the Pentagon. With the scene of attack completely controlled by the military, and with all video of the attack confiscated from nearby businesses by the FBI within minutes of the attack, for years 9/11 researchers speculated about what had actually transpired at the Pentagon, with little hard evidence to guide them.
Frustrated with idle conjecture, two men from southern California, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, joined forces to form Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). They traveled to the Pentagon and sought out eyewitnesses who saw the plane approach the Pentagon. They interviewed each eyewitness, on camera, at the exact location where he had been standing on the morning of 9/11 when he saw the plane, and had each eyewitness draw the plane’s flight path on a map and sign it.
A pattern began to emerge, and the more witnesses CIT interviewed, the clearer the pattern became: the plane had not taken the path claimed by the government, and the path that it did take proves that the plane did not hit the building.
CIT interviewed three Pentagon police officers (Officer William Lagasse, Officer Chadwick Brooks and Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr.); five Arlington National Cemetery workers (Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton Sr. and George Aman); auto mechanic Edward Paik; Citgo gas station attendant Robert Turcios; air traffic controller Sean Boger (who was at the Pentagon Heliport at the time of the attack); Terry Morin, a project manager for Sparta (saw the plane from the Navy Annex); courier Levi Stephens (saw the plane from the Pentagon’s south parking lot); and Maria de La Cerda, a career musician with the Army band, who saw the plane from Arlington National Cemetery.
Every one of these people clearly recalls seeing the plane take a path that disagrees with the government’s story. None of them report seeing the plane fly south of the Citgo station, where it would have had to have been to have caused the damage at the Pentagon.
One witness, Roosevelt Roberts Jr., saw the plane after the explosion, banking low over the parking lot.
There is a zone of destruction heading towards the Pentagon, and into the building, that corresponds with a south side flight path. Five light poles were destroyed, and the damage in the building lines up perfectly with those five light poles.
Under most circumstances, physical evidence would trump eyewitness testimony. But in this case, the crime scene was controlled by the primary suspect, tainting the credibility of the evidence under their control. In addition, there are many anomalies with the physical evidence.
Right from the beginning, questions arose. Where was the plane debris? Photos taken immediately after the attack show no wings, tail or fuselage. No luggage or bodies. No damage to the pristine green lawn, even though the Boeing 757 was supposedly piloted into the first floor of the Pentagon at 530 mph by rookie pilot Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a small Cessna. The damage to the building is inconsistent with the crash of an airliner with a 44 foot tall tail and 125 foot wingspan, with unbroken panes of glass where the tail section should have hit.
Even the downed light poles are suspicious. Compared to a light pole that was knocked down by wind, and has a jagged edge where it broke at the base, the five downed light poles on 9/11 appear to have been cut, neatly and cleanly.
On top of this suspicious crash scene, we now have 14 eyewitnesses who have stated unequivocally on camera that the plane was not where it would have needed to be to down the light poles and hit the Pentagon.
CIT is not the only group concluding that the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a group of 200 aviation professionals who all agree that, according to the data released by the government, the government story is not correct.
In August 2006, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released the Flight Data Recorder data for flight 77. According to Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the last recorded altitude for the plane (one second before the alleged impact) shows an altitude of 480 feet above sea level. The top of the Pentagon is 112 feet above sea level. Given this data, the plane cleared the building with 368 feet to spare. The NTSB has repeatedly refused to comment on this.
For the contingent within the 9/11 truth movement that is convinced that a plane did hit the Pentagon, the most compelling evidence comes from the dozens of witnesses who believe they saw the plane hit the building. Six of these witnesses are editors or reporters for USA Today, and all claim to have been on the same quarter mile stretch of Rt. 27, heading the same way at the moment of the attack, late to work at the USA Today building in Rosslyn, three miles away.
In a ten minute clip available on Google video called “The USA Today Parade,” CIT has demonstrated that the Pentagon is not visible for most of that quarter mile stretch of Rt. 27. With video taken in a car driving that same route, it is clear that the Pentagon only becomes visible at the point at which the plane would have been over or behind the car. For much of the route, the Pentagon is obscured by large, bushy trees. CIT interviewed alleged witness to the Pentagon impact and USA Today editor Joel Sucherman on camera in his office. Sucherman insists that he saw the Pentagon at a location which CIT’s video clearly shows does not have a view of the Pentagon.
USA Today is owned by the Gannett company, which also owns Army Times, Air Force Times, Marine Corps Times and Navy Times.
In the 9/11 truth movement, CIT’s work has been controversial. They are banned from posting on the largest 9/11 truth forum, 911blogger.com. Recent threads demonstrate that 911blogger has a pronounced preference for the “yes, a plane hit the Pentagon” version of events, with frequent anonymous contributors angrily defending that point of view.
The primary criticism of CIT’s work is that all of their witnesses believe the plane impacted the building. As I wrote in my story about CIT in the April 2009 Rock Creek Free Press:
“All of CIT’s witnesses also believe that the plane they saw hit the Pentagon, although this cannot be possible. This fact has been used to dismiss CIT’s work as irrelevant, but it’s not a compelling argument.
“Less than an hour earlier, America had been treated to the sight of the south tower of the World Trade Center being hit by a plane and exploding into a huge fireball. Most people were aware that an attack was underway. If they saw a jet heading directly towards the Pentagon, and next saw a massive fireball, it is doubtful that one person in a thousand would question whether the plane had crashed and caused the fireball. To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives pre-planted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre 9/11 world, and only slightly less rare now.”
For those who actually saw the plane fly over the building, there was a convenient cover story: media reports of a second plane that came along 30 seconds after the first. Anyone who saw a plane still flying after the fireball would most likely conclude that they had seen that second plane.
The attack at the Pentagon is best understood as a gigantic magic show. How many of us have ever seen a fireball exploding hundreds of feet in diameter? I am sure that if I were to see one, my eyes would be riveted on it and for at least a few moments I’d be completely unaware of anything else in my environment. This is the essence of the magician’s trade – with flourishes and fanfare, he makes you look where he wants you to look, so you never see him slip the card behind his ear or up his sleeve. With the news media batting clean-up, only witnesses that confirmed the OCT were given airtime, and any doubters who were interviewed were simply edited out of the evening newscast.
In an effort to hold media and government officials responsible for their evidence, CIT has produced a new film, National Security Alert, which is available as a free download at citizeninvestigationteam.com. This video compresses all of the CIT interviews into a concise 80 minutes (sans music) that summarizes their evidence clearly and soberly. Their site will also contain a section where citizens can record which officials have received a copy of the DVD, and their response (or lack thereof).
CIT will be showing excerpts of National Security Alert and addressing the implications of their findings at a free conference in Arlington, VA called Deconstructing the Pentagon Attack. The conference will also feature Shelton Lankford, Lt. Col. USMC (retired), a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions, 10,000 hours of flight time, and a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross. As of publication, attendance by Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth is unconfirmed.
Held at the NRECA Conference Center at 4301 Wilson Blvd, in Arlington, the event will run from 10 am to 2:30 pm on Saturday, July 11, and is sponsored by The Wisdom Fund. Both the conference and parking are free.
* Sheila Casey is a DC based journalist. Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice and Common Dreams. She blogs at http://www.sheilacasey.com
The USA Today Parade (featuring Joel Sucherman & Mike Walter):
"In this presentation we bring you to Route 27/Washington Blvd, the highway directly in front of the Pentagon, to show you exactly what any witnesses on this tiny stretch of highway would have been able to see on 9/11.
We feature our exclusive interview with USA Today editor Joel Sucherman and highlight details regarding former USA Today reporter/current WUSA morning news anchor Mike Walter's account. The suspicious and unlikely coincidence of the high number of USA Today employees concentrated in this .16 of a mile area is scrutinized in detail."
I have a very important message for your attention today concerning our movement and an attempt to bring it down.
Barry Zwicker, author of Towers Of Deception and producer of numerous outstanding and informative 9/11 truth videos and articles weighs in on the compelling Pentagon evidence presented by the Citizens Investigation Team (CIT)and he addresses the controversy in some circles of the 9/11 truth movement about this vital evidence.
For over two years now CIT has been struggling to get their evidence recognized by the larger truth community only to have run into staunch resistance and a concerted disinformation campaign from a few (mainly the owners of911Bloggerand Truthaction) in the truth movement.
911Blogger has recently purged (Stalin style) a large number of truthers from it's blog simply for vocally supporting CIT's work.
They have also mass deleted numerous comments supportive of CIT from discussion threads about this issue so that now a completely false impression has been created about the support and strength of this evidence and a false impression has been created about the true numbers of the opposition which are in reality very small.
Any truth site engaging in mass purges and essentially engaging in book burning should give all in the truth movement serious concern.
Mr. Zwicker explains his reasons for CIT in this video and talks about the shadowy disinformation effort going on to suppress it. Thank you Barry!
For anyone unfamiliar with CIT's evidence consider viewing their presentation calledNational Security Alertto be vitally important for your ongoing education about the 9/11 false flag attack.
Also voicing your opposition to 911Blogger and Truthaction directly about their extreme suppression and disinformation tactics would be appreciated.
Please watch Barry's report at the link below and get involved taking on those who spread disinformation and misinformation within our movement.
"It's no exaggeration to state that the findings of the Citizen Investigation Team concerning what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 are reliable, undeniable, conclusive, and of immense historical importance.
The evidence now shows, well past reasonable doubt, what happened: it was a detonation of explosives within the building, timed to coincide with a flyover by a large jet plane, thus producing the clever illusion that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, and that is the heart of the official 9/11 Pentagon lie.
Primary credit for dispelling this illusion must go to CIT. The team members, with only truth-seeking as their motive, and with few resources, succeeded in finding 13 eyewitnesses, whom they interviewed fairly and transparently.
The heavy convergence of honest reports by these eyewitnesses, and other compelling evidence, can be seen in CIT's highly revealing DVD "National Security Alert." The evidence fails entirely to support the official story's alleged flight path of alleged Flight 77. The evidence does, on the all-important other hand, support a flyover flight path.
To add insult to insult, the same perpetrators of the events of 9/11 at the Pentagon have assigned disinformation specialists to attack the honest citizen detectives of CIT. This suggests, to me at least, that hidden behind and within the dark and treasonous false flag deception carried out at the Pentagon on 9/11 are probably even darker secrets.
To me, two most important questions now, almost nine years after the events, urgently call out for investigation. First, who are those behind the vicious attempts to discredit the work of the Citizen Investigation Team? Second, what are the motives of the would-be discreditors and those behind them? And I say "attempts" - because careful examination of the arguments of CIT's tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable - in fact as flimsy as the official story they try to defend.
So, twin tasks lie ahead for honest citizens of all countries. First, to continue to learn more about all the events of 9/11, and the false flag operation of 9/11. Second, to learn more about -- and unmask for all to see who are willing to see -- the cadre of disinformation agents who are in the business of attempting to mislead and confuse honest authentic people everywhere about 9/11. Arguably, no single group is being targeted more toxically than the honest citizen detectives of CIT. This is a signal tribute to the historic importance of CIT's work -- work that must be supported unflaggingly.
-- Barrie Zwicker, author, Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11 and producer of The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw.
Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad has once again stated that the September 11 attacks were a staged event, rejecting claims that his comments are a publicity stunt.
“What do I gain from a publicity stunt? I am merely going by a public statement. I am not going to be a Prime Minister anymore unless you (pointing to a journalist) want me to …” the former Malaysian prime minister told reporters on Friday.
After watching a three-hour video of the attack on the World Trade Center buildings, Mohamad, had suggested earlier in his blog that the twin towers had collapsed “demolition style.”Later on Friday, Mahathir also called on local television stations to show the three-hour video.“It sounds logical to me. Until today, you cannot even find scraps of the plane that crashed into the World Trade Centre and there is no picture of the other plane, which was supposed to crash.”
“The way the tower came crashing down was also funny. People who saw it were also not ordinary people. They were professional engineers and what they say is quite credible.”“I wish some television stations would consent to show the video as it is not long and only three hours.
You can then see what I saw.”
Mahathir also said some people were afraid of saying anything critical about the governments of powerful countries or accusing them of doing something wrong.
“But the government of powerful countries said lies to go to war,” he added.
“I have great respect for the Arabs but for them to hijack four planes is not very Arab. Just imagine the amount of planning that would be involved.”
Rejecting claims that he was being insensitive to the victims, Mahathir stressed that he was “being more sensitive to the victims” as he was saying the attacks were carried out “deliberately.”
The former Malaysian prime minister also said that his views about how 9/11/2001 attacks were carried out would not affect Malaysia’s chances of attracting foreign investment.
“I have said this many times even when I was the prime minister. But we still have the foreign direct investment. However, we cannot rely on foreign direct investments alone. We must build on our own system,” he said.
One of several burning questions surrounding the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 was: “Where did the sulfur come from that melted some of the structural steel members from the building so much that they looked more like “Swiss cheese”?
Sulfur reduces the melting point of iron by producing a eutectic mixture. The New York Times called these pieces of melted steel “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”
FEMA documented the “intergranular melting, rapid oxidation, and sulfidation” of the steel members in Appendix C of their May 2002 Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) Report, yet offered no explanation for this phenomena which required temperatures far in excess of that which office fires or jet fuel could have provided.
Some government officials have attempted to explain the issue away by alleging that the sulfur came from normal building materials like gypsum wallboard.
But gypsum wallboard has been used for a hundred years to protect steel structural members and has never “attacked” it before. Independent scientists have found evidence that the sulfur most likely came from thermate.
Sulfur is added to thermite (an incendiary used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter) to make thermate.
Scientists and engineers have urged the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to perform experiments to determine the source of the sulfur. But despite spending over $20,000,000 NIST failed to do any experiments or provide a working theory.
Enter Jonathan Cole, P.E., Civil Engineer, who has three keys to success:
A desire to know the truth
A lot of determination
And a big back yard
He wanted to know if normal building materials, including wallboard, diesel fuel, and aluminum, could release the sulfur needed to attack the steel.
View the dramatic video of this creative no-holds-barred backyard experiment that proves, for free, what NIST could not, or would not, for $20 million.
This collection contains television news programs recorded live from around September 11, 2001 by the non-profit Television Archive to help patrons research this important part of United States history.
These materials were available on the televisionarchive.org site from October 11, 2001 through 2003.
The Internet Archive, a non-profit library, is loaning these items to their patrons to view for strictly non-commercial research purposes.
You can view the televisionarchive.org site in the Wayback Machine - although not all of the links are intact, you can still read analysis of the events that were posted on the site.
So why has our own government stepped-up the lavish use of our tax dollars for an inept and ham-handed cover up of the crimes of 9/11? Good question.And we want some answers.
Click on the "9/11 info." link on this page and you'll get a face full of bogus and discredited science. They have even quoted the pathetic and thoroughly debunkedPopular Mechanicsas a pseudo-scientific source.
This is the "home page." Do a search in the upper right-hand corner for "9/11" and see what you get. This could be funny - except that it isn't at all.
This is their little pop-up. Check out all the links for laffs.
Sometimes a survey pops up. Do feel free to fill it out and tell 'em what you REALLY think...and it wouldn't hurt to be factual. I'd hate to see us sink to their level.
Should we be "thanking" Cass Sunstein for making this brand spankin' new Official Government Propaganda Machineat america.gov?
Cass Sunstein is currently on leave from Harvard while working in the Obama administration.
Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be."
They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of secret government payments to outside commentators, who are then held out as independent experts; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."
Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts."
This position has been criticized by some commentators, who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.
Dr. Paul Zarembka, professor of economics at the State University of New York, general editor of Research in Political Economy and Frontiers in Econometrics, and contributing editor of The Hidden History of 9-11-2001.
Along with Dr. Michael Keefer, his lecture at the University of Toronto led to the formation of a new 9/11 chapter at the university.
While many citizens believe that Senator Paul Wellstone's perfectly-timed plane crash was an accident, the evidence suggests it was an assassination instead.
The NTSB considered only accident-compatible hypotheses involving the plane, the pilots, and the weather.
This lecture systematically considers the available evidence in this case, much of which is not known to the public.
He explains why the NTSB's evidence contradicts its own conclusions and offers reasons why a more thorough and systematic investigation leads to a very different conclusion.
When the alternatives of a small bomb, a gas canister, or a directed-energy weapon are taken into account, a more disturbing conception emerges of exactly what happened to the man widely regarded as "the conscience of the Senate."
But at least Dr. David Ray Griffin was briefly on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC Show on Aug. 9,2006.
Griffin hold his own against the really irritating, judgemental and narrow minded interviewer.
By contrast, here's another interview that allowed more time to speak and the interviewer actually listened to the answers:
In this 20 minute Satellite TV interview by Canada's feisty Randall Mark of The Standard, Richard Gage, AIA (founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) lays out all the evidence for the controlled demolition of the 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11. The next day Vancouver 9/11 Truth had to turn away 50 people in this standing room only venue of 300 at the famous Public Library.
It's a study in frustration for the 9/11 Truth Movement. There is plenty of evidence...but how can we force someone to examine it?
This took place on 5/26/2005. On 7/22/2005, then Representative Cynthia McKinney held the 9/11 Congressional Briefing. Apparently Lee couldn't make it.
Lee Hamilton Confirms Norman Mineta's Testimony? He does a great job of not answering the question:
The editor of this blog would like Lee Hamilton to explain why contradictory evidence was chosen over Norman Mineta's testimony and other corroborating evidence that Dick Cheney allowed orders on an incoming aircraft towards the Pentagon prior to the Pentagon being hit.
Also, why didn't they interview the white house aide that was speaking to Cheney and find out where and to whom the aide was passing on Cheney's orders?
This is a very short clip that explains some of the problems the families had in believing the identities of the hijackers, and the problems they had with the FBI's ineptitude, and unwillingness to answer questions.
Remember all the cellphone calls allegedly made on September 11, 2001?
In the first 18 min of the English language version, UWO Professor, A.K. Dewdney takes a Japanese film crew aloft in a Cessna loaded with cellphones and prove that none work above 8000 feet.
It's investigative, it's entertaining and a program such as this has sorely been missing so far in North America. This should not be!
Below, archeologists examine the remnants of a centuries old wooden ship at the WTC site in lower Manhatttan in NYC on July 15, 2010.
The decayed hull of the ship was unearthed at the WTC construction site, providing a glimpse into the history of Manhattan, archeologists said. The ship likely dated back at least 200 years when part of the river was filled in with trash, debris and wooden beams to expand land mass of a fast-growing Manhattan.
NEW YORK (AP).- The ship was buried as junk two centuries ago — landfill to expand a bustling little island of commerce called Manhattan. When it re-emerged this week, surrounded by skyscrapers, it was an instant treasure that popped up from the mud near ground zero.
A 32-foot piece of the vessel was discovered in soil 20 feet under street level, amid noisy bulldozers excavating a parking garage for the future World Trade Center. Near the site of so many grim finds — Sept. 11 victims' remains, twisted steel — this one was as unexpected as it was thrilling.
There were bombs in the lower floors of the World Trade Center buildings. Listen to an eye witness that was there on the scene tell how he pulled an injured man out of the basement:
On September 12, 2001, Peter Jennings interviews Marlene Cruz, a carpenter injured in one of the pre-collapse explosions in the WTC-sub-basement level B long before the planes hit the towers.
She was the first casualty of 9/11 admitted at Bellevue Hospital.
Cruz is a living witness whose testimony proves that pre-planted explosives were used to weaken the foundations of the towers as part of a well-planned controlled demolition.
When a controlled demolition implosion is being carried out on tall buildings, there are often strategic pre-collapse explosions to weaken and fracture the basement sub-structure; effectively creating a cavity into which the building contents will fall.
This was essential for the WTC twin towers because of the 110 stories worth of debris that came crashing down. The resulting demolition pile was so minimal because the volume of the upper floors were thrown into the deep basements below.
Despite hundreds of eyewitness reports of explosions throughout the Twin Towers by doomed victims, survivors, emergency service personnel, reporters, and bystanders, the 9/11 Commission Report contains virtually no mention of them and entirely ignores them in its conclusions.
This Skillcraft Electric Wall Clock, which hung in the Pentagon Helipad Fire Station, was knocked to the ground by the impact of the explosion at the Pentagon.
By Barbara Honegger * The San Francisco Chronicle commemorated the 100th anniversary of California’s Great 1906 Earthuake with a series of front-page articles featuring a single icon—a charred clock frozen in time at 5:12 a.m. -- the exact moment that “The Big One” hit.1
A century after that devastating event, this stopped-clock image serves as both the ultimate evidence and historic symbol that “captures it all.”
Today, 100 years later, a series of Pentagon clocks frozen in time at the exact moment of the violent event there on the morning of September 11, 2001 also “capture it all” and are the ultimate evidence shattering the Official Lie of what happened that terrible morning – and who was really responsible.
The Pentagon was first attacked shortly after 9:30 a.m. – well before 9:37:46, when the Official Lie says a plane hit the building from the outside The Pentagon was first attacked much earlier than the 9/11 Commission and official cover story claim.
The Pentagon and mainstream media first reported 9:43 as the time of alleged Flight 77 impact (some reports, reportedly also quoting official sources, were as late as 9:48 and 9:47). Over time, the time given by officials for the claimed outside impact on the building moved earlier and earlier, finally down to 9:37 (as of the time of this writing), but has never come close to the actual time of the first violent event at the Pentagon—shortly after 9:30 a.m. Clearly, if the official story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at almost 9:38 were true, Flight 77 could not have been the source of massive damage to the west side of the building which occurred between five and right minutes earlier.
Converging Lines of Evidence of a 9:30-to- 9:32 a.m. Violent Event at the Pentagon on September 11, well before the Official Story says anything hit the building:
Multiple standard-issue, battery- and/or electric-operated wall clocks on the walls of the area of the Pentagon attacked on 9/11—including one in the heliport just outside the west wedge—were stopped between 9:30 and 9:32-1/2 by a violent event, almost certainly a bomb or bombs inside the building and/or in a truck or construction trailer parked right outside the west face. The first Associated Press report, in fact, stated that the Pentagon had been damaged by a “booby trapped truck.” The Navy posted the stopped heliport clock on an official website and another of the stopped clocks was in the 9/11 display at the Smithsonian Institution.2
These are just some of the west-section Pentagon clocks – as well as an inside-the-building victim’s wrist watch (see below) – that were stopped between 9:30 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.
April Gallop, an Army employee with a Top Secret clearance, was at her desk in the Army administrative offices in the west section of the Pentagon on 9/11, the area of the building most heavily destroyed and with the most casualties, when what she said sounded and felt “like a bomb” went off.
“Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb,” Gallop told the author in an under-oath videotaped interview.2A “There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel.” In those two hours of under-oath videotaped testimony, Gallop states that the explosion went off at the precise instant she hit the ‘power on’ button on her computer in the Army administrative area, to which she had just returned that morning after months of pregnancy and childbirth leave, and that the explosion stopped her wrist watch just after 9:30 a.m. 2B She has kept the stopped wrist watch in a safe deposit box as evidence of the exact moment of the initial explosion.
The FAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration] Timeline document “Executive Summary—Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis––September 11, 2001” includes: “0932: ATC (Air Traffic Control) AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon.”3 The time is the critical fact here, not the claimed cause, which was taken from the official story and not the result of any ATC eyewitnesses.
Denmark’s soon-to-be Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller was in a building in Washington, D.C. on 9/11 from which he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his wrist watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.4
On August 27, 2002, then White House Counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave an audiotaped Secretary of the Navy lecture at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., a DoD educational institution, in which he clearly and explicitly states that “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”. A tape of this segment of his talk was played at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence at American University in Washington, D.C. in July 2005, and is on the public record.
The Pentagon was attacked by bomb(s) between 9:30 and 9:32 a.m., possibly followed by an impact from an airborne object significantly smaller than Flight 77, a Boeing 757.
We have already seen that Army employee April Gallop, whose watch was stopped by the violent event at the Pentagon shortly after 9:30, says that her military training and experience led her to immediately determine the source of the initial explosion was a bomb.
I have interviewed an Army auditor from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, who was on temporary duty assignment at the Pentagon before, on and after 9/11. He was in the Army financial management spaces only minutes before the Pentagon explosion on the morning of 9/11.
He had just returned to his temporary office on the ground floor of the adjacent south side of the Pentagon by the cafeteria when he heard an explosion and felt the building shake. Immediately afterwards, he said, hundreds of panicked Pentagon personnel ran by him down the corridor just outside his office and out the South Entrance, yelling “Bombs!” and “A bomb went off!” The witness has requested that his name not be used in this summary, but is willing to testify to a grand jury or independent official investigation.
This Army financial management/audit area is part of, or contiguous to, the Army personnel offices, which was one of two main west section offices heavily destroyed in the Pentagon attack, the other being the Naval Command Center.
The day before 9/11, September 10, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held a press conference at which he acknowledged that the Pentagon was “missing”—could not account for and needed to “find”—$2.3 Trillion dollars (other reports said $2.6 Trillion). Were the auditors who could “follow the money,” and the computers whose data could help them do it, intentionally targeted? It is worth noting that the Pentagon’s top financial officer at the time, Dov Zakheim, who also acknowledged the “missing” trillions, had a company that specializes in aircraft remote- control technology.
As remnants found in the Pentagon wreckage have been identified as the front-hub assembly of the front compressor of a JT8D turbojet engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior jet fighter,5 and as Air Force A-3 Sky Warriors—normally piloted planes—were secretly retrofitted to be remote-controlled drones and fitted with missiles in a highly compartmented operation at an airport near Ft. Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport in Colorado in the months before 9/11,6 the question further arises as to whether Pentagon auditors and their computerized data were intentionally targeted on 9/11.
The Ft. Monmouth Army auditor and his two colleagues were also eyewitnesses to multiple teams of bomb- sniffing dogs and their K-9 handlers in camouflage uniform at the Pentagon metro station just outside the Pentagon at approximately 7:30 am on 9/11. He said that K-9 bomb squads had not been at the Pentagon metro stop before 9/11, or since, but only that day.
Since K-9 dog squads don’t usually search for airliners, but bombs, a bomb attack was clearly anticipated. Ms. Gallop said she also saw the bomb sniffing K-9 teams that morning, from the top of the Pentagon metro stop looking down.
Survivor eyewitnesses from inside the west section of the Pentagon reported that the blast caused its windows first to expand outwards, and then inwards.7
Multiple witnesses said they smelled cordite after the initial explosion at the Pentagon, an explosive which has a distinct and very different smell from that of burning jet fuel.8 And as we have already noted, Ms. Gallop said there was no smell of jet fuel inside the most damaged section of the building shortly after the first violent event that stopped her watch there shortly after 9:30.
Even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told Sam Donaldson in an ABC News interview shortly after 9/11 that he first thought a bomb had gone off in the building. Donaldson: “What did you think it was?” Rumsfeld: “A bomb? I had no idea...”
It is important to note that bomb explosion(s) at 9:32 am on the ground floor of the west section of the Pentagon are not inconsistent with there having also been a later, or even near-simultaneous, impact by some airborne object -- a piloted plane, unmanned drone, or missile -- into the same or nearby section of the building, which may have been the cause of the collapse of the west wall section approximately 20 minutes after the initial violent event.
Indeed, if a heat-seeking missile hit the building after the bomb(s) went off, the heat from the explosion(s) would become the target for the missile. Recall that the A-3 Sky Warrior planes were retrofitted shortly before 9/11, not only enabling them to be remotely controlled but also fitted with missiles. The round- shaped exit hole in the inner wall of the “C” Ring is evidence that a missile or a piloted or pilot-less remote- controlled plane significantly smaller than Flight 77 also struck the building subsequent to bombs going off and penetrated the inside of the third ring, as bomb detonations would not have resulted in such a near-symmetrical round-shaped opening.
I have interviewed the then Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations on 9/11, Robert Andrews—the top civilian official in charge of special operations under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld—a former Green Beret whose office was on the second floor of the south section of the Pentagon, adjacent to the west section.
While drawing the path that he took that morning on a sketch of the Pentagon, he revealed the following:
Immediately after the second World Trade Center attack of 9:03 am, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld left his office on the Potomac side of the Pentagon and went (merely) across the hall on the same floor to his Executive Support Center (ESC), which is set up for teleconferencing.
There, he joined the teleconference of top government officials run by Richard Clarke out of the White House Situation Room media room. Clarke, in his book Against All Enemies, confirms that Rumsfeld was among the first officials on this teleconference shortly after the second WTC tower was hit.
Clarke’s account and Andrews’ confirmation of it are completely at odds with the official cover story and the 9/11 Commission, which claim that no one could locate Secretary Rumsfeld until approximately 10:30 am when he walked into the National Military Command Center (NMCC). The fact that Rumsfeld, the military’s top civilian official, was on Clarke’s teleconference with the top official of the FAA, Director Jane Garvey, also puts the complete lie to the official cover story that Air Force interceptors weren’t scrambled in time because the military and FAA “couldn’t talk each other” on 9/11.
The top-most officials of the Pentagon and FAA were talking to one another constantly on Clarke’s teleconference from as early as 9:15. This taped Clarke teleconference is the “Butterfield tape” of 9/11.
[During the 1970s Watergate scandal, secretly-made tapes of President Nixon’s Oval Office conversations revealed by Alexander Butterfield were the “smoking guns” which forced Nixon to resign or face certain impeachment and trial in the Senate.]
Immediately after the second WTC tower was struck at 9:03 am, Andrews and his aide left his office and ran as fast as they could down to the Secretary of Defense’s West section Counterterrorism Center (CTC), arriving at approximately 9:10. While he and his aide were in the CTC, a violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall off the ceiling and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read approximately 9:35 am but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32.
He and his aide then immediately evacuated the CTC with the goal of joining Rumsfeld in his Executive Support Center (ESC) across the hall from Rumsfeld’s main office. He said that Rumsfeld was already on the White House teleconference when they arrived. En route to Rumsfeld’s ESC, Andrews said when he and his aide entered the corridor on the inside ring of the west section, “we had to walk over dead bodies” to get to the inner courtyard. (Note: This is two rings further in towards the center from the inner most hole made by whatever allegedly impacted the Pentagon that morning.)
Once in the inner courtyard, Andrews and his aide ran as fast as they could to Rumsfeld’s Executive Support Center, where he joined Rumsfeld as his special operations/counterterrorism adviser during Clarke’s White House teleconference. Andrews also said that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke with President Bush while in the Pentagon Executive Support Center. Whether this was via the teleconference or by phone or other means was not stated. The fact that Rumsfeld personally communicated with Bush on 9/11 while Rumsfeld was in his Pentagon ESC was published on an official DoD web site.9
I have written communications from a former U.S. military helicopter pilot and current executive director of one of the US’s premier aviation societies who personally knows and communicates regularly with the highest-ranking first responders at the WTC on 9/11, that the New York City Fire Department -- presumably its Fire Chief, who reported to then mayor Rudolph Giuliani -- ordered the doors to the roofs of the WTC towers locked, which blocked the only avenue of escape for victims above the plane impact floors, ensuring their horrific deaths; that at least one of the two New York Police Department helicopters seen hovering near the burning towers on television footage that morning, and probably both, was equipped with a winch and jump seat designed for the rescue of victims and in fact was the same helicopter and crew that had rescued victims from the burning WTC1 in 1993, and that these Police Department helicopters were ordered by the Fire Department not to try to rescue victims from the towers, even though there were heliports on the roofs and the winch and jump seat could have been dropped outside the windows on the sides of the towers where victims were waiting to be rescued; and that the Fire Department also explicitly refused the help of large numbers of military helicopters, whose pilots spontaneously converged on the New York area only to be ordered to wait at a nearby base. 9A
WTC janitor William “Willy” Rodriguez, the last non-emergency response person to leave the WTC alive on 9/11, has testified that he was in the first basement level of the WTC when an immense explosion went off below him in the yet- deeper subbasement level(s) of the building a few seconds before the plane hit the tower high above.10 As Robert Andrews revealed that the west side basement level of the Pentagon was damaged at approximately 9:32 am and as we know that the cause of the 9:32 Pentagon attack was not an impact event but explosives, there are thus eye- and ear witness reports of bombs going off in both the Pentagon and the WTC underground level(s) before both buildings were hit by anything from the outside.
As no “outside” terrorist, al Qaeda or otherwise, could have had access to either the Pentagon or the sustained advance access needed to pre-place explosives inside the WTC, only domestic insiders could have pre-placed the explosives in both the Pentagon and the WTC. Further, because the WTC1 deep-basement explosions(s) experienced by Willy Rodriguez happened before the tower was hit by a plane; as any incoming plane not controlled by the same party that triggered the sub-basement detonation(s) could have veered off from the building at the last second, ruining the plane- impact-as-cover-story for the later building collapse; and as the sub-basement explosions were necessary for the actual later collapse of the buildings by controlled demolition, the same domestic U.S. insiders had to have controlled both the sub-basement detonations and the incoming plane(s).
Thus, even if al Qaeda hijackers were on the incoming planes, they were not in final control of the impact of the planes into the buildings, which had to have been 100 percent guaranteed by domestic U.S. insider controllers to ensure that, once the WTC1 sub-basement explosions went off, the plane did not veer off and miss the building and ruin the plane-impact-and-fires cover story for the building collapse. This fact is critical, as it may take jurisdiction for the mass murders at the WTC out of the hands from the Bush Administration’s FBI, which oversees crimes committed in the air, as a cogent legal argument can be made that the real crime of controlling the plane into the towers was committed on the ground, in a terrestrial bldg. or vehicle, where its true controllers almost certainly resided.
If so, this would place the crime of the WTC mass murders squarely with the State of New York, as murder is a State crime and multiple/mass murders are the sum of individual State crimes.
Because the controllers of the timing of the basement level explosives had to have also been the controllers of the final approach of the planes, and the former was arguably, and provably with legal discovery and subpoena power, on the ground and not in the air, a Manhattan grand jury can be given the case and pull jurisdiction for the Bush-Cheney Reichstag Fire out of their federal hands.
Because the real modus operandi at the Pentagon and WTC are so similar, it is logical to deduce that the same domestic-US terrorists were responsible for pre-placing and detonating the bombs—both inside the WTC and inside the Pentagon. That is, a single group of US-domestic conspirators—not al Qaeda or any other outside terrorists—must have planned both the WTC and Pentagon attacks and controlled both the approaching planes and the inside-the-building explosions in real time on 9/11.
In addition to the already legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon -- i.e. the small hole in the west side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for the plane’s fuselage, let alone wing width; no damage to the lawn where Flight 77 allegedly struck and skidded before hitting the building; wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77, a Boeing 757; Pentagon requests to TV media on the morning of 9/11 not to take up-close images, etc. -- there is also official evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the building:
In the Air Force’s own account of the events of 9/11, Air War Over America, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11, although too late, Gen. Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack there that morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.
This fighter jet—not Flight 77— is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller’s screen making a steep, high-speed 270- to 330-degree descent before disappearing from the radar.
[When a plane flies low enough to go undetected, usually at or below 500 feet, it is said to be flying “under the radar.”] Note: The Pilotsfor911truth website and their “Pandora’s Black Box” video have determined from official data released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that the true altitude/height of the plane represented by the blip was 476 feet – way to high to have hit the Pentagon at all, let alone the ground floor, but, significantly, in just the height range to been seen by controllers to have just gone off radar and be said to have crashed.
Military pilots—like the one sent by Gen. Arnold on 9/11 to report on the Pentagon’s damage— are trained to fly at approx. 500 feet above ground in order to evade radar detection. In fact, when the Air Traffic Controller responsible for the plane and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 330-degree maneuver (originally claimed to be a 270-degree maneuver, since updated) on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremely difficult feat was a US military aircraft, and said so at the time.
It almost certainly was.
Thus, the likely reason the Pentagon has refused to lower the current official time for “Flight 77” impact, 9:37, to 9:32 am—the actual time of the first explosions there—is that they decided to pretend the blip represented by Arnold’s surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was “Flight 77.” As the official cover story claims that the alleged 9:37 impact was the only Pentagon attack that morning, yet by the time Arnold’s surveillance jet arrived on the scene the violent event had already happened, the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the earlier 9:32 time without revealing an attack on the building prior to the alleged impact.
It is significant that the The 9/11 Commission Report ignores the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to its own commission and did this only for the testimony of Secretary Mineta. The clear reason for this blatant and targeted censorship is that Mineta’s eyewitness testimony is extremely dangerous to the official cover story.
The portion of Mineta’s testimony that is particularly dangerous is his claim that Vice President Cheney, in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) beneath the White House since before Mineta arrived in the PEOC at 9:20, insisted to an incredulous “young man” that “the orders (given earlier by Cheney to this same individual) still stand” when the man told Cheney that the presumed plane they had been tracking as a blip on a screen was 50, then 30, and finally just 10 miles from Washington—orders which could only have been not to shoot down the plane.
Otherwise there would have been no reason for the agent to ask Cheney if they “still” stood, despite the plane’s being almost upon the capital where Cheney himself was. This is critical because of the timing that can be inferred from Mineta’s testimony: As Mineta arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 am, and as Mineta estimated the “still stand?” interaction between Cheney and the agent happened 5 to 6 minutes after that, or about 9:25, it can be inferred based on the officially given speed of the plane represented by the blip of 540 mph that whatever that fast-approaching blip represented, it arrived in the vicinity of the Pentagon at approximately 9:32—nowhere close to the original official cover story time of 9:43, or even the six-minute-earlier time the Pentagon finally settled on for an alleged impact time of 9:37.
All of this also happened at or about 9:32 (from The 9/11 Timeline by Paul Thompson at www.HistoryCommons):
• After an inexplicable delay during which they knew that both WTC towers had been attacked, the Secret Service suddenly acts as if the 9/11 attacks are “real,” rushing President Bush out of the library at the Florida school where he had been allowed to continue to read to children as much as 10 minutes after being told the second New York tower had been hit.
• Firefighters are suddenly ordered out of WTC 1 in New York City.
• The New York Stock Exchange is ordered closed.
• The takeover of Flight 93 reportedly begins with the stabbing of a flight attendant and one of the alleged hijackers announces that there is a bomb on board, picked up by air traffic controllers.
Other relevant interviews:
The author has interviewed the famous “lone taxi driver” whose cab is the only car visible still parked on I-395 above the Pentagon lawn looking down at the west face after the other cars have left the freeway. This taxi can be seen in overhead photos taken on the morning of 9/11 and viewable on the Internet. The driver said his was the last car allowed onto that section of I-395 before police put up a barricade and that he decided not to immediately leave the scene like the others “because I realized this was history and I wanted to see for myself.”
He stated that he saw no evidence of a plane having impacted the building nor any visible plane pieces on the lawn at the time he arrived, which was after the first violent event had occurred at the building, as black smoke was already streaming up and to the right from inside-the- building fires. The taxi cab driver drew a diagram of what he saw that morning while overlooking the Pentagon’s west face from I-395, which the author has retained.
The author has interviewed a Navy public affairs officer who was assigned to the Naval Command Center on 9/11, one of the two major Pentagon west section areas destroyed that morning, the other being the Army Financial Management/Audit area as mentioned earlier.
This officer was not in the building that morning but was quickly assigned to be the deputy public affairs officer at the underground “back-up Pentagon” location in Pennsylvania close to the Maryland border, called Site R.
This eyewitness Navy officer inside Site R said Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and later Vice President Cheney were flown to the Site R underground bunker in response to Richard Clarke’s officially declaring “Continuity of Government/Continuity of Operations” (COG/COOP) on the morning of 9/11. This is confirmed in Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, in which he reports that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld chose Wolfowitz to be the designated COG/COOP official at Site R in his stead.
Perhaps significantly, the ‘crash’ site of Flight 93 is not far from Site R and Camp David, which early reports on the morning of 9/11, presumably taken from official sources, said may have been the flight’s intended target; and the airspace around Camp David, like around Washington, D.C., is a standing ‘shoot down’ area. Additional information about Site R, on and after 9/11, can be found in James Bamford’s book, A Pretext for War. On February 4, 2004, the author interviewed Air Force General Ralph Eberhart, Commander of NORAD on 9/11.
To the author’s knowledge, Gen. Eberhart has granted no other interview since the events of September 11. Before asking questions, Gen. Eberhart was given copies of all mainstream press articles published as of that date on the subject of the confusion on 9/11 of his NORAD Northeast Sector (NEADS) personnel running NORAD’s “Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior” emergency response war game exercises that morning. As of the date of the interview, therefore, the then head of NORAD was made aware of the initial confusion by his own NEADS “game” players on 9/11 between incoming exercise reports and incoming reports of actual hijacks.
The author first asked Gen. Eberhart if there was any connection between NORAD’s “Vigilant Guardian/ Vigilant Warrior” exercise being run on 9/11 and the plane-crashing-into-tower emergency response exercise simultaneously being held at National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) headquarters outside Washington, D.C.12/first cite He replied, “No.”
This response was surprising, as a large percentage of NRO personnel are from his own agency, the Air Force. He was asked for reconfirmation, to which he again said, “No.” Laying the ground for the next question, the author mentioned that NEADS’ “game” director Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins had said that she was confused as to whether initial reports of the hijacked planes on the morning of 9/11 were “real world” or “part of the game.”
This, the author noted, showed that the NORAD exercises that morning had to have been on a hijack scenario at least similar to the actual attacks, as otherwise there would have been no grounds for confusion. After considering this for a moment, Gen. Eberhart refused to answer any further questions and abruptly ended the interview. Significantly, subsequent to the initial publication of this white paper, NORAD officials have confirmed that their ‘exercise’ on the morning of 9/11 did, indeed, include a hijack scenario, as originally first inferred and published by the author – see the book Touching History, published for the seventh anniversary of 9/11.
In addition to the already well known and officially acknowledged evidence of Bush Administration foreknowledge of the broad outlines of the September 11 attacks—advance warnings from the intelligence agencies of as many as 11 foreign countries and the content of the now-famous August 6, 2001 presidential daily brief (whose 10-page attachment still has not been made public), etc.—there is strong evidence that Bush administration insiders had near perfect—if not complete—advance knowledge of both the details and the date of the September 11 attack:
(Note: That Bush Administration insiders had advance knowledge of the date and details of an “outside” attack is not inconsistent with these insiders having facilitated and even orchestrated the attacks. That is, the plot behind the attacks of September 11 is similar to that of the Reichstag fire, through which Hitler rapidly consolidated power. Like the Nazi-facilitated Reichstag fire, there was a real though highly-unlikely-to-succeed “outside” plot about which Administration insiders gained advance intelligence. They then secretly protected and enabled this plot to ensure that it not only succeeded, but succeeded spectacularly as the psychological operation needed to justify the entire subsequent Bush-Cheney global and domestic agenda.)
1) Shortly after September 11, Newsweek reported that before 9/11, the Bush Administration initiated a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court surveillance/tap of “up to 20” suspected al Qaeda-linked terrorists then in the US, but that then FISA Court Chief Justice Royce Lamberth subsequently ordered the then- already-ongoing surveillance stopped. This can only mean one thing—that the Bush Justice Dept./FBI/NSA initiated the tap before asking the FISA Court for a warrant for it, as with the now-famous post-9/11 NSA taps initiated by the Bush administration without first applying for FISA warrants.
As “up to 20” is a clever way of saying “19” without making the link to 9/11 explicit, the Bush Administration Justice Dept/FBI/NSA almost certainly initiated surveillance of all 19, or close to all 19, of the soon-to-be alleged 9/11 hijackers before 9/11. Though Judge Lamberth ordered the surveillance ended once the administration filed the formal warrant application, there is evidence that the Bush administration ignored his order to cease the tap and continued the surveillance of the alleged 9/11 hijackers up to and including the day of 9/11.
Zacarias Moussaoui—the only person indicted by the Bush Administration for anything even related to 9/11—has stated in court filings that both he “and my (al Qaeda) brothers” then in the US were surveilled by the Bush administration before 9/11 and that the Bush administration knows he can prove it.
How could this be the case? If Moussaoui was one of the “up to 20” al Qaeda-linked terrorist suspects they surveilled before 9/11 without an advance FISA warrant as reported by Newsweek, then Moussaoui was also one of the “up to 20” whose taps Judge Lamberth ordered stopped. Moussaoui, after all, was originally named as the “20th hijacker” of the 9/11 plot.
Amazingly, the FISA Act requires that, if the FISA Court rejects a surveillance initiated before a warrant has been applied for, as in this case, the court has to inform the “target” of the surveillance and give him the government’s stated reason for the tap in the surveillance application. Moussaoui says that he can “prove” the Bush administration/FBI initiated surveillance on him before 9/11 because, it can be deduced, the FISA Court itself told him so after Lamberth ordered his––and those of the other “up to 20”––surveillance ended.
If this is the case, it opens the very real possibility that the FISA Court likewise informed most or all 19 of the “up to 20”alleged 9/11 hijackers before 9/11 that they were being surveilled by the Bush Administration—and the reason for such surveillance.
This also throws new light on the claims by the Pentagon’s then-secret data mining task force, “Able Danger,” to have tracked lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and at least four of the other 19 hijackers beginning in January, 2000, when Atta actually did enter the country according to Daniel Hopsicker in his book, Welcome to Terrorland.
The FBI falsely claimed, and still falsely claims, that Atta did not enter the US until the summer of 2000, six months later. The likely reason for this intentional lie about when Atta first entered the country is what Atta is known to have done while inside the US between January and the Summer of 2000. Hopsicker reveals that, among other activities, Atta visited Portland, Maine, in March, 2000, and perhaps even earlier.
An abiding “mystery” of the official cover story is why Atta drove to Portland, Maine on September 10, the day before 9/11, and then flew from Portland to Boston early on the morning of September 11. The answer to this “mystery,” which the FBI clearly already knows, is the link between what Atta was doing in Portland before the administration admits he was even in the country, as well as what he was doing there the day before 9/11 and early on the morning of 9/11.
This may all have something to do with the fact that the CIA reportedly runs secret flights out of an airport in Portland, Maine, and that “rendition” detainees have said they were flown out of the country on special jets after first stopping at Portland’s International Jet Port.12
2) The FBI’s top bin Laden/al Qaeda hunter until shortly before 9/11, John O’Neill, “happened” to be at the same hotel in the same town near Tarragona, Spain in mid-July 2001 just before lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and 9/11 plot “coordinator” Ramzi Binalshibh. Some Bush administration officials now also believe that 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) met there for what the 9/11 Commission calls “the Final 9/11 Planning Meeting.”
This cannot be—and is not—a coincidence. O’Neill, who was in close contact with German intelligence—recall that Atta led the “German cell” for the 9/11 attacks—and Spanish intelligence, had clearly been alerted to the upcoming meeting and was at the hotel to surveil/tap/bug the room where the meeting was about to be held. O’Neill and his agency, the Bush administration’s FBI, thus knew every detail, or nearly every detail, of the planned 9/11 plot at least two months in advance.
Perhaps just as significantly, European media reported that bin Laden was in an American hospital in Dubai incapacitated for surgery during precisely this same mid-July, 2001, period of the Spanish “final 9/11 Planning Meeting.” Reportedly, bin Laden was visited in the hospital by the area’s then CIA station chief.
The question naturally arises as to whether bin Laden was telephoned by Atta, Binalshibh, and perhaps also KSM, or visa versa, while the latter were at the “Final 9/11 Planning Meeting” in the hotel that O’Neill had pre-bugged. If so, then O’Neill, the FBI, and the highest levels of the Bush Administration—including O’Neill’s then boss, Attorney General Ashcroft, who suddenly stopped flying commercial aircraft about this time—knew not only every detail of the 9/11 plot as of that date, but almost certainly recorded all the key “outside” conspirators plotting their “final plans” including possibly bin Laden himself, on tape—clearly another “Butterfield” tape to be demanded by subpoena.
As noted above, on 9/11 itself the US military was conducting NORAD/Air Force emergency response exercises on scenarios involving multiple hijacks, and the NRO was conducting an emergency response exercise on the scenario of a plane crashing into one of the towers at its headquarters just outside Washington, D.C.11— many NRO personnel being from the Air Force and CIA.
It is next to impossible for this to have been the case unless the exercises, also referred to as war games, were intentionally scripted to mirror what had been learned from the above-mentioned detailed advance intelligence. That is, the purpose of the war games held on 9/11 was to practice how to defend against the very attacks that John O’Neill’s Tarragona meeting surveillance, the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” data-mining tracking, and the FBI’s FISA-warrant-less surveillance of the “up to 20” (“19”?) suspected al Qaeda terrorists had already revealed. You don’t practice something in a multi-million-dollar set of exercises that you “can’t imagine.” The date for the actual attacks—September 11—was then chosen to coincide with the Pentagon’s exercises, which in turn mirrored the real attack plans (see below).
Perhaps the most burning data point to prove Bush administration complicity in 9/11 is the fact that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta took to the mid-July “final 9/11 planning meeting” in Spain the information that “the date has been set” (i.e. set by someone else other than Atta), and that he, Atta, didn’t yet know it, but would “know it” in five to six weeks, or by late August, 2001.13 Atta was clearly waiting to learn the date of “his own” attack.
This last piece of the puzzle fell into place during the first phase of Zacarias Moussaoui’s sentencing trial, in the 58- page transcript of 9/11”mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogation “testimony” read into the trial record by the Bush administration prosecution. In this KSM transcript, it is revealed that bin Laden and KSM “allowed Atta to choose” both the final targets for the attacks and the attack date.”14
From this, therefore, we know that neither bin Laden nor “mastermind” KSM nor “coordinator” Binalshibh set the September 11 attack date. However, from what Atta said to Binalshibh—and probably also KSM and even possibly bin Laden by phone link—at the “Final Planning Meeting” in Spain, we also know that neither did Atta. Atta was waiting to learn the date of his “own” attack five to six weeks after the mid-July “final 9/11 planning meeting,” and that date did not come from any of his al Qaeda superiors. It must be the case then, despite KSM’s claim that he “let” Atta choose the date, that none of the top “outside” terrorist conspirators set the date for the September 11 attacks, including Atta.
The key and central fact of the entire 9/11 plot is that the attack date Atta was “waiting for” was the date of the Bush administration’s planned war games, which, in a vicious circle, were scripted to mirror the content of Atta’s attack plan gleaned via advance intelligence obtained from O’Neill’s surveillance of the “final planning meeting” near Tarragona, the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” tracking of Atta, and the FBI’s warrantless surveillance of Atta and other of the about-to-be alleged hijackers. Atta was thus the sole individual to whom the date the Bush administration finally chose for its war games – 9/11 -- was leaked as soon as it was selected and he bought his one-way ticket as soon as he learned it, in late August, 2001, just as he had predicted at the “final planning meeting.”
The No. 1 Bush administration conspirator, therefore, is whoever gave the administration’s own war game scenario details and date – 9/11 -- to Mohamed Atta.
Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, then head of Pakistan’s military intelligence agency ISI, is a prime suspect for the middleman who laundered this No. 1 Bush administration conspirator’s insider war game information to Atta. On the morning of 9/11 he was having breakfast with future CIA Director Porter J. Goss and Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired the joint House/Senate “investigation” of the 9/11 attacks, and had met with CIA Director George Tenet and with top officials at the Pentagon, about to conduct the war games, in the few days leading up to 9/11.
He is most likely the person who was told the date and details of the Pentagon’s emergency response exercises and communicated them, directly or via an intermediary, to Atta, as Ahmed also approved wiring $100,000 to Atta shortly before 9/11. Atta then confirmed 9/11 as the date for the war games—which was the date of the attacks—in his now-famous NSA-intercepted call with KSM of September 10, in which he related “The Match is about to begin. Zero hour is tomorrow.”
“Match” is a way of saying “exercise” or “war game.” This critical September 10 intercept, by the way, was almost certainly made without an advance FISA warrant, putting the lie to now CIA Director and then NSA Director Gen. Michael Hayden’s patently false claim that the “first” warrantless taps were initiated in defensive response to 9/11, and thus came after the attacks.
Another abiding “mystery” of September 11 is why Gen. Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on 9/11, claimed to the 9/11 Commission that on the morning of 9/11 NORAD was conducting, among others, a preplanned “Soviet-era” emergency response exercise15 in which US fighter jets were to defend against Russian nuclear bombers.
After all, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist ten years before. He didn’t say “Russian,” he said “Soviet.” This is very strange until one discovers that, despite repeated official and media claims that September 11 was “completely unique” and that the skies over America had “never before” been cleared of all commercial and private civilian aircraft, NORAD had conducted another emergency response exercise 40 years earlier, which completely cleared the skies over the mainland US.
This was on October 14, 1961, in a war game called “Sky Shield II,” which was based on a scenario of how to defend against an air attack by Soviet bombers on New York City.16 The main difference between the 1961 exercise and September 11 is that the clearing of the skies was announced in advance to the public in “Sky Shield.”
This original Soviet-era exercise, which included 1,800 US and 15 Canadian military planes and was billed as “the greatest exercise ever conducted by Western air-defense forces,” is mentioned in the Air Force’s own account of the events of September 11, Air War Over America. In fact, Gen. Larry Arnold, NORAD’s commander for the continental US on 9/11 directly under Eberhart who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled to belatedly meet the hijack threat, made a point of including the eerily similar1961 Air Force war game in the book.
Not only did both the 1961 and September 11 NORAD “Soviet-era” war game scenarios include attacks on New York City; in the 1961 exercise, US military planes played the role of Soviet attack bombers. That is, the US military pre-scripted both the defense and the “attack” by its own planes pretending to be Soviet aircraft. If Gen. Eberhart’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission is correct, NORAD may have been conducting a “Soviet-era” exercise much like the one in 1961, on 9/11.
In this light, it is significant that mainstream press stories contain intriguing reports that point to the possibility that there were two American Airlines “Flight 11s,” leaving from two different gates at Boston Logan airport within a few minutes of one another on 9/11, as well as emerging evidence of other of the hijacked 9/11 flight numbers possibly being “twinned,”17 or duplicated.
The question thus naturally arises, were these “twin” planes US military planes “playing” hijacked airliner “attackers,” similar to the 1961 scenario except substituting commandeered airliners for Soviet bombers? And could the 9/11 exercise have included a “trigger” event to clear the skies over the mainland US so that a realistic test of US air defenses could be conducted without interference from the thousands of civilian aircraft normally in the air?
Key quotes from New York Times articles during the 1961 NORAD exercise are eerily similar to stories appearing on 9/11 [text in parentheses and italics added]: “It is not so much the fear of collisions with military aircraft that has caused civilian planes to be ordered out of the skies, as it is the knowledge that inadequate [civilian FAA] electronic flight controls will be available during the exercise to guide them.
Strategic Air Command (SAC) bombers, playing the role of the marauding forces, will seek to foul communications and radar. They will drop tinsel-like pieces of metal called “chaff” overhead [like the myriad small pieces of metal scrap found on the Pentagon lawn and Shanksville, Pennsylvania “crash” site on 9/11?]...that will throw radarscopes [including the FAA’s] into a confusion of false signals.”
“All the bomber missions were laid out ahead of time and fed into the NORAD computer”; “An automated shorthand running display of the entire battle was provided at NORAD combat center and in similar centers at Strategic Air Command headquarters [where President Bush was taken on 9/11] and in the Pentagon [which was attacked on 9/11]”; “A fight plan for every aircraft [private, commercial and military] is fed into the computer’s memory beforehand. When a plane shows on the radarscope, a console operator picks up an aluminum electronic gun, points it at the blip, and squeezes the trigger.
That brings the flight to the computer’s attention. If the flight [plan] is filed in its memory, the computer automatically replies, ‘Yes, I am aware of that [plane].’ It does this by marking the flight with an F for Friendly. While the computer compares the flight with its memorized data, it marks the flight P for Pending. Finally, it may mark it H for Hostile. ‘We have two minutes to identify a flight [as Friendly] before we scramble [interceptor jets]...to make a visual identification of an uncertain aircraft or to attack it.’;
‘We do not train [in exercises like the 1961 ‘Sky Shield II, or on 9/11] with Hostile symbology [showing on screens]; therefore, the Strategic Air Command’s bombers playing the role of the attacking [Soviet Russian] force [on October 14, 1961] were marked K, for Faker.’”; and “There are seventeen units of Army Air Defense Artillery with ground-to-air anti-aircraft missiles near New York [in 1961; how many more were there on 9/11, 40 years later, when none were used?]”
The 1961 war game was directed by then NORAD commander Air Force Gen. Laurence Sherman Kuter from his combat operations center at NORAD’s Colorado Springs headquarters, which in the mid-1960s moved to Cheyenne Mountain, Gen. Eberhart’s command center on 9/11. It may also be significant that the Air Force’s war games simulation center is at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, which Gen. Kuter had earlier commanded and where lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta received training.
The Pentagon’s “Able Danger” data miners claim that “Department of Defense lawyers”—almost certainly from the National Security Agency, then headed by Gen. Hayden, an officer in the Air Force, the same service that planned the 9/11 war games—blocked planned meetings with the FBI at which they wanted to tell the FBI that they had “tracked” Atta and other of the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11 and ask the FBI to initiate additional surveillance on them.
The fact that the FBI did initiate exactly such a surveillance of the “up to 20 Al Qaeda linked terrorist suspects” before 9/11 is strong evidence that, despite its current claims to the contrary, the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” team did communicate what they learned from tracking Atta and the others to the FBI before 9/11, and that the FBI then initiated FISA-warrant-less surveillances of Atta and others subsequently ordered stopped by then Chief FISA Court Judge Lamberth—all prior to 9/11.
The fact that initially-suspected “20th 9/11 hijacker” Moussaoui officially filed claims that he “and my brothers” were surveilled before 9/11 is further evidence that the FBI continued to watch all or most of the 9/11 hijackers right up until the attacks, despite Lamberth’s order to cease and desist.
FBI Headquarters supervisors David Frasca and his deputy Maltbie refused 70–– seventy––urgent requests by Moussaoui’s FBI interrogator for either a FISA Court warrant or an “ordinary” criminal warrant to get into Moussaoui’s computer and surveil anyone mentioned therein. Doing so would have clearly stopped the plot, as Moussaoui now claims to have personally known 17—almost all—of the alleged 19 hijackers.18
In addition to all the evidence that plane-impacts-plus-fire was the carefully planned cover story for the cause of collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7, as well as the west façade of the Pentagon, both of which were initially hit by inside-the-buildings bombs, not planes, the other overwhelming line of evidence for 9/11 being an “Inside Job” is the anthrax attacks.
Any evidence linking 9/11 to the anthrax letters -- dated September 11 but sent in mid- October and only to Democratic leaders in Congress, no Republicans -- is direct evidence of an inside job because that particular type of anthrax is known to have been of the highly controlled “Ames strain” developed by the US Army at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, and at the University of Iowa in Ames, Iowa.
It was also high-spore-count, military-grade weaponized anthrax refined according to a trade secret reportedly held by William Patrick, former Ft. Detrick bioweapons expert, mentor of Steven Hatfill, the only “person of interest” stalked by the FBI as a suspect in the still “unsolved” anthrax case, and the close friend and colleague of Bush Administration bio-counterterrorism expert Jerry Hauer, a signer of the PNAC manifesto calling for “a new Pearl Harbor.”
On September 11, this same Jerry Hauer personally delivered anti-anthrax Cipro to Vice President Cheney’s staff at the White House. Why? The conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a suit against Vice President Cheney and other Bush Administration officials demanding to know why Cipro was delivered to the executive mansion–– and only to the executive mansion—on the day of the attacks.
So far the response has been deafening silence. On September 10, the day before 9/11, FEMA and other emergency response personnel arrived in New York City for a counter-bioterrorism exercise called “Tripod II” claimed by the Bush administration to have been scheduled to begin September 12.
There is reason to believe that the bio-agent this drill was to practice defending against was anthrax, as Jerry Hauer was also a major planner of the New York City exercise. And there is also a strong possibility the true start date for the exercise was September 11, as many “exercise” personnel were already in place in New York City on September 10.
As the Air Force’s war game scenario had just “come to life” in real attacks on 9/11, were Hauer and Cheney worried that the same thing might be about to happen with their counter-bioterrorism “exercise” Tripod II? Is this why the anti-anthrax drug Cipro was distributed to the White House, “just in case”?
If so, it would be strong evidence that Tripod II was on the scenario of defending New York City against an anthrax attack. Was the “vector,” or delivery vehicle, for that emergency response exercise scenario anthrax attack to have been by air via hijacked plane(s)?
Notably, in their book on bioterrorism, Germs, Judith Miller and William Broad claim, apparently from inside sources, that Ramzi Yousef’s plans for the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 included explosively pushing large quantities of cyanide out into New York City. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the “mastermind” of 9/11, is Ramzi Yousef’s uncle.
Finally, former New York City mayor Rudolf Giuliani testified to the 9/11 Commission that when WTC7, the location of his emergency operations center, collapsed on 9/11, he moved those operations to the command and control center set up on Pier 92 for the “Tripod II” bio-terrorism exercise and that it worked even better than the original.
Giuliani told the 9/11 Commission, “The reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill. It had hundreds of people there—from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State [Dept.], from the [New York] State Emergency Management Office—and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack.
So that was going be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the (9/11 and subsequent) search and rescue effort was completed.”
Conclusion
Covert elements of the US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the access to plant explosives inside its own most heavily defended world headquarters, the Pentagon.
The US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the access to plant the explosives Willy Rodriguez heard and felt go off deep in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center. The US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC2, and in WTC7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11.
The US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had access to the sulfur-enhanced military-grade thermite (thermate) detected in the WTC needed to melt the steel found molten deep in its basements weeks later. The US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, would have chosen the least populated and most reinforced section of the Pentagon––its newly upgraded west wedge—to strike, minimizing casualties.
Real terrorists would have maximized them. Real terrorists also would have also maximized casualties at the World Trade Center by placing explosives so as to allow the building to fall haphazardly on other buildings and streets around it, not bring it down neatly by controlled demolition into their own footprints, which minimizes casualties.
A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, steep, high-speed 270- to 330-degree dive towards the Pentagon that Dulles Air Traffic Controllers were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens that morning. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the “Friendly” signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building.
Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system on 9/11. Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had access to the weaponized, military-grade US Army “Ames strain’ anthrax contained in letters mailed only to Democratic Congressional leaders.
It is absurd to believe that al Qaeda would target only Democrats, especially as the US leadership at the time of the attacks was Republican. When he received the anthrax letter dated September 11, then Senate Democratic leader Thomas Daschle was calling for a Congressional investigation of 9/11 and had already been warned off from “looking too closely at” 9/11 by personal calls from both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
When he received his anthrax letter, another Democratic leader, Senator Patrick Leahy, was leading the Congressional resistance to the PATRIOT Act, a premeditated assault on Americans’ privacy and civil liberties justified by “al Qaeda’s” attack clearly drafted by the Bush Administration well before 9/11 and “in the can” awaiting its “New Pearl Harbor” trigger event. And who in the U.S. military, intelligence and military contractor chains of command and U.S. civilian leadership are among the prime suspects for these acts of High Treason?
First and foremost are the signers of the pre-9/11 Project for a New American Century (PNAC) manifesto calling for “a new Pearl Harbor” to catalyze its global domination agenda:
!) Vice President Dick Cheney;
2) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz;
3) Richard Perle, then head of Secretary Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board;
4) Jerry Hauer, one of the government’s top bio-terrorism experts who reportedly took anti-anthrax Cipro to the White House on 9/11 http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml.
Hauer had been director of NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), whose personnel were moved to a New York pier on 9/11 just before its offices were destroyed by pre-placed controlled demolition charges. A central player in scripting the bio/chem terrorism attack scenario for the Sept.
10/11/12 TRIPOD II exercise in NYC, Hauer is also an expert in the response to building collapses (New York Times, July 27, 1999). It was Hauer who insisted, despite the 1993 terrorist attack on WTC1, that Giuliani still locate his Office of Emergency Management, from which a response to another terrorist attack would have to be orchestrated, in WTC7 next door http://truthmovecom.blogspot.com/2008/07/jerome-hauer-911- suspect-awaiting.html, and also Hauer who zealously pushed the ‘bin Laden did it and planes-and-fires brought down the Towers’ official story on CBS News on 9/11 in the immediate aftermath of the attacks before anyone without inside knowledge could have possibly determined the actual cause of the collapses, taking pains to state that explosives were not involved, when they were.
The OEM opened on the 23rd floor of WTC7 in June 1999, where Hauer, its director, had his office. Hauer was also managing director of Kroll Associates before and on 9/11, the company that provided ‘security’ for the World Trade Center, including all three buildings brought down by controlled demolition that morning, and thus had complete access to pre-place the explosive charges he adamantly insisted on national TV on 9/11 were not involved.
Hauer became a National Security adviser to the National Institutes of Health on Sept. 10, the very day TRIPOD II personnel arrived in New York City, from which new NIH post he managed the Bush Administration’s ‘response’ to the imminent anthrax attacks and the initial cover up of the inside job anthrax killers.
5) Gary Bauer, the right-wing ‘family values’ zealot who ‘happened’ to be one of the ‘witnesses’ to immediately claim publicly to have seen ‘Flight 77 hit the Pentagon’, proven by the evidence to be a physical impossibility; and then National Security Council Middle East adviser Zalmay Khalizad, soon to be the first US Ambassador to Afghanistan after 9/11 and then US Ambassador to Iraq – the very two countries whose invasions were rationalized as retaliation for the 9/11 attacks.
During the Cold War, Khalizad was reportedly a liaison to then CIA “bag man” Osama bin Laden in the CIA-Pakistani ISI covert war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the crucible from which al Qaeda emerged. ‘Al Qaeda’, in fact, was originally the CIA-ISI list of anti-Soviet foreign fighters in Afghanistan.
Another key suspect is Air Force General William Hayden, now Director of the CIA and then head of the National Security Agency (NSA), which tapped the calls of lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the day before 9/11, and surely on many other occasions before 9/11 as well—all almost certainly without FISA warrants as required by law.
These pre-9/11 warrant-less NSA taps put the lie to President Bush’s claim that he initiated the program of warrant-less NSA taps of al Qaeda suspects because of—and thus only after—9/11. Yet another key suspect is Army Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin, the radical Christian fundamentalist Special Operations commando recently proposed to head the Army’s Special Operations Command. Yet another is the Pentagon’s POP2 office, which reportedly plans and scripts “false flag” operations—attacks orchestrated by the US military but made to appear perpetrated by an outside enemy to justify US military “retaliation.”
Yet another suspect is Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Iran expert Lawrence “Larry” Franklin, who was “loaned” to Perle and Wolfowitz’s neocon co-conspirator Douglas Feith and arrested for passing national security secrets to Israeli operatives at a meeting of top American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) personnel. Franklin also was and is an officer in the Air Force Reserves, which directed NORAD’s “Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior” wargame exercises on 9/11.
Scrutiny should also be leveled at the scriptwriters for the NORAD and NRO emergency response exercises planned for and held on 9/11, especially members of their lead “White Teams,” which set the content and then oversee both “Red Team attackers” and “Blue Team defenders” on the actual day of an exercise, in this case on 9/11 itself.
And every one of the as-yet-to-be-identified “top Pentagon officials” who on Sept. 10, the day before 9/11, according to Newsweek, suddenly cancelled their already-booked flights for September 11.19 Also National Military Command Center (NMCC) commander Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield, who on that same day, September 10, asked his deputy, Navy Capt. Charles Leidig to take over for him the next morning between 8:30 and 10:30 – precisely the time window of the “game” whose details and date had been given to Atta. Further investigation should be directed at the (government) “agency” the 9/11 Commission revealed, without identifying it by name (probably the CIA), took out the vast majority of the put options on American Airlines, United Airlines, Boeing and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in the few days before 9/11.
Also, Michael Chertoff, US Attorney for the District of New Jersey during the first 1993 attack on the World Trade Center who, as a private attorney, represented Egyptian-born US resident Magdy Elamir, under investigation for illegally diverting millions of dollars and whose brother, Mohammed Elamir, funded arms smugglers linked to al Qaeda.20 Significantly, Mohamed Atta’s name in his country of birth, Egypt, was also Mohamed Elamir. In other words, the very man President Bush put in charge of the entire 9/11 “investigation” and who is now Director of Homeland Security -- the top official charged with defending the U.S. mainland from an attack by al Qaeda -- may have himself been directly involved with Al Qaeda and even with Mohamed Atta.
And FBI headquarters supervisor David Frasca and his deputy Michael Maltbie, who ignored 70 pleas by Zacarias Moussaoui’s FBI interrogator to let him investigate the contents of Moussaoui’s computer before 9/11.
Attention should especially be directed to Phillip Zelikow, NSC adviser along with Zalmay Khalizad to then NSC Adviser Condoleezza Rice before and on 9/11. Zelikow both orchestrated The 9/11 Commission Report cover up of the administration’s inside job and, at Rice’s personal request, rewrote the Bush administration’s official national strategic plan draft to better match the global domination agenda of the pre-9/11 PNAC manifesto.
Zelikow specializes in political mythologies, clearly the most important qualification for his selection as executive director of the Official Myth of Sept. 11 – The 9/11 Commission Report. Only someone in the inner circle of the actual criminal conspiracy would be trusted with this mission.
These are just some of the names being knitted into the scroll of the September 11 Truth Revolution.
Notes:
1) The clock stopped at the moment the Great Earthquake hit San Francisco on April 18, 1906 is at http://sfgate.com/greatquake/ . 2) The clock at the Pentagon heliport just outside the west section, frozen at 9:31:40 am by the violent event at the Pentagon, was posted on an official Navy web site at: http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2480Pentagonclock_BBC. Note that whoever took this official Navy photo placed the clock in front of a poster of the controversial Marine Corps part-helicopter/part-fixed-wing plane The Osprey, perhaps thereby suggesting what may have struck the building (after the inside explosions went off), if anything did. Though the Osprey officially existed only in prototype at the time, a prototype Osprey would be unique in that its military IFF transponder would have given off a ‘friendly’ signal and it could have approached the Pentagon helipad in its helicopter mode and changed over into fixed-wing plane mode at the last second, taking defenses off guard. Yet another stopped Pentagon clock is -- or was -- in the September 11 exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution, originally posted at http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=19 . The author was informed that, after this white paper was published on the Internet, the clock was removed from the Smithsonian 9/11 exhibit but is still in storage there.
2A) Videotaped under-oath testimony of April Gallop to the author, Irvine, California, March 2007, approx. two hours.
2B) April Gallop’s watch, which was stopped just after 9:30 by the explosion that happened at the precise moment she hit the ‘power on’ button on her computer on the morning of 9/11, is evidence that the actual time of the initial explosive violent at the Pentagon was closer to 9:30 than 9:32. As the information about Gallop’s watch was obtained after the first version of this article was published, despite this, the author has retained the shorthand reference to the average time of stoppage of the Pentagon wall clocks and April Gallop’s watch as 9:32 for simplicity of discussion.
3) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) timeline document “Executive Summary Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis, September 11, 2001.”
4) Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller interview with Denmark Radio P3, September 12, 2001, 6:15 am Denmark time. “...I saw smoke and fire rising from the Pentagon at 9:32...My first impression was that a bomb had been detonated at the Pentagon.” The audio of this radio interview is in the 9/11 video documentary “Bomberne som Forsvandt” by Danish researcher Henrik Melvang, available at www.unmask.dk and at www.bombsinsidewtc.dk. See also the 9/11 timeline by European researcher Jose Garcia in Reality, Truth and Evil Facts, Questions and Perspectives on September 11, 2001, Temple Lodge Publications, 2005.
5) The 9/11 Conspiracy, Catfeet Press/Open Court, James Fetzer, editor, 2006, chapter by Prof. James Fetzer; and photos of a JT8D turbojet engine and the remnant found at the Pentagon at http://www.simmeringfrogs.com/articles/jt8d.html.
6) Report by two civilian defense contractor employees at “Secret Global Hawk Refit for Sky Warrior,” http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml.
7) 9/11 -- Coup Against America: The Pentagon Analysis, compilation of Pentagon eyewitness reports, photos and analyses with hundreds of references, by Pete Tiradera, 2006, available from petertiradera@yahoo.com.
8) Pentagon eyewitness Don Perkal to MSNBC: “Even before stepping outside, I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had gone off somewhere.” Also eyewitness account of AmTrak electrical engineer Samuel Danner who was at the site and said he smelled cordite (American Free Press, July 7, 2006, reporting based on audio report by Republic Broadcasting Network, summary at http://www.total911.info/2006/07/pentagon-eyewitness-ids-global-hawk.html).
9) Author interview with former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, Monterey, California; summary posted on Naval Postgraduate School web site www.nps.navy.mil, subsequently changed to www.nps.edu. Article no longer posted; hard copy available from the author. 9A) Personal communication to the author by Rhett Flater, Executive Director of the American Helicopter Society.
10) Videotaped testimony of William (“Willy”) Rodriguez, former World Trade Center janitor and the last person to leave the WTC alive on September 11, in the 9/11 documentary “Loose Change,” second edition”, text in parentheses added: “All of a sudden we hear ‘Boom!’ in the basement. I thought it was a generator that blew up, and I said to myself, ‘Oh, my God, I think it was a generator. And I was going to verbalize it, and when I finished saying that in my mind I heard (another, second) ‘Boom!’ right on the top (above), pretty far away. And so it was a difference (in space and time) between coming from the basement and coming from the top...and a person comes running into the office (in the first basement level, from a deeper basement level) saying ‘Explosion!’...and he said ‘(it was from) The elevators!’ And there were many (deep basement WTC1) explosions.”
11) “Agency (NRO) Planned Exercise on September 11 Built Around a Plane Crashing into a Building,” Associated Press, August 22, 2002; by Jonathan Lumpkin; “They Scrambled Jets, but It was a Race They Couldn’t Win,” Syracuse Post- Standard, January 20, 2002, by Hart Seely; “Rome Staff’s Efforts on 9/11 Earn Praise, Commission Says Military Did the Best It Could with the Information It Had,” Syracuse Post-Standard, June 18, 2004, by Hart Seely; Complete 9/11 Military Exercises Timeline, Cooperative Research, at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before-9/11=militaryExercises; Crossing the Rubicon, by Michael Ruppert, Chapter 19: “Wargames and High Tech: Paralyzing the System to Pull Off the Attacks” and Chapter 20: “Q&A: Many Asked, Some Answered––and a Golden Moment,” New Society Publishers, 2004. In the Acknowledgements to Rubicon, p. xi, Ruppert credits the author with what he refers to as “the Holy Grail of 9/11 research” (p. 336): Thanks to Barbara Honegger, who kept hammering on the wargames until we all paid notice... you showed me the most important lead I needed to put it all together.”
12) “Detainee’s Suit Gains Support from Jet’s Log,” New York Times, March 30, 2005, p. A1. Key excerpt, text in parentheses added: “Mr. Arar (a “rendered” detainee) says he followed the (Gulfstream jet) plane’s movements on a map displayed on a video screen (inside the plane), watching it as he traveled to Dulles Airport outside Washington, to a Maine Airport he believed was in Portland (Maine), to Rome, and finally to Amman, Jordan, where he was blindfolded and driven to Syria.” Though the FAA claims its records show a plane on that date making the other stops but landing in Bangor, not Portland, Maine, the detainee’s account may be accurate, as only Portland’s airport is labeled an “International Jet Port,” specializing in landings and takeoffs of just such private, corporate and government jets.
13) Ironically, at the final hearing of the Kean Commission, where its report was released to the press and public, commissioner John Lehman responded to the question, What if anything remained unknown, by noting that the Commission still wasn’t clear as to “how Atta chose the date for the attacks.”
14) Summary interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, claimed “mastermind” of the September 11 attack plot, read into the Zacarias Moussaoui sentencing trial record by the prosecution on March 27, 2006; the full text is part of the court proceedings transcript for that date available through Exemplaris.com .
15) The 9/11 Commission Report, note 116, p. 458, at http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf. Key excerpt: “On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union.” 16) Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission, by Leslie Filson, US Air Force account of the events of September 11, p. 66. Also “Civilian Planes to be Grounded 12 Hours Today in Defense Test,” New York Times, October 14, 1961, pp. 1 and 4; “Civilian Planes Halted 12 Hours in Defense Test: Joint Maneuvers Fill Air Over Canada and US with Military Craft, Cities ‘Hit’ by Bombers,” New York Times, October 15, 1961, pp. 1 and 46; “Computer is Key to Area Defense: Ever-Alert Device in (New) Jersey Joins in Air Exercises,” New York Times, October 15, 1961, p. 46; and “US-Canada Test of Air Defense Rated a Success: President Receives a Report on Maneuvers, Search is Pushed for Missing B-52,” New York Times, October 16, 1961, pp. 1 and 16.
17) For example, see “Flight 11: The Twin Flight”, by “Woody Box” at http://new.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=04/03/14/212247, and “Flight 11 and Flight 93 ‘Survived’” at http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=858.
18) “Moussaoui, Undermining Case, Now Ties Himself to 9/11 Plot,” New York Times, March 28, 2006, pp. A1 and A14.
19) Newsweek, September 24, 2001. 20) “Michael Chertoff—Where All the Questions Should Start,” January 12, 2005, http://allspinzone.blogspot.com/ .
* Barbara Honegger, M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist with the Naval Postgraduate School (1995-present), DoD’s graduate science, technology and national security affairs university.
This White Paper, as all of Honegger’s research publications and presentations on September 11, are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement. Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White House Policy Analyst (1981-83); was the pioneering Irangate author and whistleblower on the October Surprise (October Surprise (Tudor, 1989) and in the Iran-Contra expose documentary film “Cover-Up”); and was called as a researcher-witness at both the October 23, 2004 and August 27, 2005 Los Angeles Citizens 9/11 Grand Jury hearings held at Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles, Calif. Some of the information and analysis contained in this evidence summary was presented at the L.A. Citizens Grand Jury hearings and at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence conference held at American University in Washington, D.C. in July 2005.
World 9/11 truth authority Prof. David Ray Griffin has included the core finding of this white paper – evidence for inside-the-building bombs at the Pentagon on 9/11, paralleling the already-well-known inside-the-bldg. explosives at the WTC that morning – in his latest and most definitive expose book on Sept. 11 The New Pearl Harbor Revisited (Chapter 2, ‘Reports of Bombs’). In a previous book, Griffin said that any serious reinvestigation of 9/11 should include the information and analysis contained in this White Paper. Honegger’s two-hour under-oath videotaped interview/testimony of key Pentagon eyewitness April Gallop formed the basis for a critical new 9/11 lawsuit filed in Manhattan on Dec. 15, 2008.
"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." (Elie Wiesel) CONTACT NH TRUTH at: SeeNewEvidence (at) gmail (dot) com
Questioning the official story of 9/11 is an act of responsible citizenship.
We all know the official story of September 11th: four jetliners were hijacked by groups of four and five Arabic men armed with box cutters, who proceeded to fly three of the four jets into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
Subsequently the World Trade Center Towers, weakened by the impacts and fires, collapsed into piles of rubble. The FBI had compiled a list of hijackers within three days, and it was so obvious that Osama bin Laden had masterminded the operation from caves in Afghanistan, that there was no need to seriously investigate the crime or produce evidence. The "retaliatory" attack on the Taliban would soon commence.
Is this story true?
We don't think so.
Its central assumptions have never been tested by an official government body whose members lack obvious conflicts of interest. There are numerous red flags in the official story, which requires a long series of highly improbable coincidences.
Questioning the official story is an act of responsible citizenship.
