Journal of Psychohistory: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11

By Matt Everett
Journal of Psychohistory, Volume 32, No. 3, Winter 2005, pp. 202-238

At the beginning of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld promised: "What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict. It will be of a force and scope and scale that has been beyond what has been seen before." The invasion that ensued was, like all wars, destructive and resulted in the loss of thousands of lives. Yet Baghdad fell in a mere three weeks, and just six weeks after the invasion commenced, President Bush announced: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Despite the death and destruction, it was hardly a war of a 'force,' 'scope' and 'scale' beyond what had been seen before.

However, before it began, there were indications that some people wanted a far more destructive war than that which ensued. For example, ridiculous as it may now sound, it was suggested that Britain and America might use nuclear weapons against Iraq. As The Guardian reported at the time:

"From last year's US defence review and the testimony of the Defence Secretary, Geoffrey Hoon ... it was clear that a major change in the US and UK nuclear policy was taking place. For the first time, Britain and America were contemplating using nuclear weapons against an enemy using only chemical or biological weapons. Referring to 'states of concern', and Saddam Hussein in particular, Mr Hoon []: 'They can be absolutely confident that in the right conditions we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons.'" [1]

A month before the invasion, Hoon repeated his warning: "Saddam can be absolutely confident that in the right conditions we would be willing to use nuclear weapons." [2] As investigative journalist John Pilger points out: "No British minister has ever made such an outright threat." [3]

Thankfully, the invasion passed without our resorting to nuclear weapons. But it seemed the desire for a bigger conflict remained, with attempts beginning almost immediately to find a new, more formidable enemy. In particular, Iran and Syria seemed next on the list for 'liberation.' At a press conference in July 2003, President Bush issued a stern warning to both countries, accusing them of harboring terrorists. "This behaviour is completely unacceptable," he said, "and states that continue to harbour terrorists will be held completely accountable." [4] Three months later, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton told journalists: "There is awareness of the threat posed by Iran and consensus that threat has to be eliminated." [5] Yet these warnings failed to capture much public interest.

Instead, there was a growing interest around the investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001. Previously, the press had largely ignored the work of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, better known as the "9-11 Commission." When it held its second public hearings in May 2003 on the key issue of air defense, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times failed to write any articles about it. [6] Suddenly though, in March 2004 the Commission became the center of attention when former White House security expert Richard Clarke publicly testified before it and criticized the Bush administration for failing to address terrorism when it first came into office.

Since then, the 9/11 Commission remained a major news story and the book of its final report became an instant bestseller. However, the mass media were still overlooking the fact that increasing numbers of people were seriously questioning the entire official account of 9/11. More and more books had been released around the world giving evidence of possible U.S. government complicity in the attacks.

Polls suggested that millions of people were suspicious: A Zogby poll in late August 2004 found 49 per cent of New York City residents and 41 per cent of New York citizens overall agreed that "some leaders in the U.S. Government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action." [7] A survey three months earlier found 63 per cent of Canadians believed the U.S. Government had "prior knowledge of the plans for the events of September 11th, and failed to take appropriate action to stop them." [8] A July 2003 poll had found almost a fifth of Germans believed the U.S. Government, or elements within it, were responsible for organizing the attacks. [9]

With attempts at identifying a new 'external enemy' so far failing, I believe it is possible that, instead, this growing suspicion around 9/11 will develop into an unprecedented public scandal. But what are these suspicions about? Are they simply the result of rumour and 'urban legend,' or could some of the disturbing allegations now being made be found true in the future? In this article, I will examine some of the arguments put forward by 9/11 skeptics, along with supporting evidence. Then I will examine some of the psychohistorical evidence that shows why we could be heading for a major scandal over the events of 9/11.

Until the controversy around 9/11 is brought into the open and investigated properly, it is up to individuals to draw their own conclusions. However, in my opinion, the volume of evidence now gathered is enough to suggest a massive scandal is a real possibility. The implications of this would be extraordinary. As one of the most prominent 9/11 skeptics, former German government minister Andreas von Bülow, says: "If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars." [10]

DONALD RUMSFELD ON 9/11

As U.S. secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld was on 9/11 second in the military chain-of-command behind the president. Yet details of what he did during the attacks are sketchy and from what we currently know, he did nothing in response to the crisis until it was too late to make a difference.

According to Rumsfeld, on the morning of September 11 he was hosting a breakfast meeting at the Pentagon for some members of Congress. He told them that "sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department." [11]

Soon after, someone walked in and gave him a note saying a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Yet Rumsfeld apparently was not moved to take action. "[W]e adjourned the meeting, and I went in to get my CIA briefing," he has said. [12] Whilst in his office with the CIA briefer, Rumsfeld says he was told of the second plane hitting the WTC. Yet he went ahead with a meeting in his private dining room at the Pentagon with his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz and U.S. Representative Christopher Cox, to discuss how to win votes for Bush's defense plan.

During this meeting, Rumsfeld was apparently oblivious to the fact that an airplane was heading towards Washington. However, he made another prediction: "let me tell you, I've been around the block a few times," he told Representative Cox. "There will be another event." For emphasis, he repeated: "There will be another event." [13] Just minutes later the Pentagon was hit.

Rumsfeld says: "I went outside to determine what had happened. I was not there long because I was back in the Pentagon with a crisis action team shortly before or after 10:00 a.m. On my return from the crash site and before going to the executive support center, I had one or more calls in my office, one of which was with the president." [14] Rumsfeld didn't enter the National Military Command Center within the Pentagon though until 10.30. Brigadier General Montague Winfield says: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find him." [15] As the 9/11 Commission conclude: "The Secretary of Defense did not enter the chain of command until the morning's key events were over." [16] Nor is Rumsfeld on the record as having given any orders that morning.

Yet, according to military procedure, if the Federal Aviation Administration were to notify the National Military Command Center of a hijacking, with the exception of "immediate responses" the NMCC was required to "forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." [17] Of course, 9/11 would easily come under the heading of "immediate responses." All the same, Rumsfeld has yet to be asked whether he was contacted in line with this military procedure and, if so, what did he do in response?

Interestingly, since 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld has made statements suggesting why he may have wanted an event like 9/11 to occur. For example, in a televised interview two years after the attacks, he described how he thinks about what a senior leader in the Gulf told him, that maybe 9/11 was "a blessing in disguise," and a "wake-up call" for the world to deal with the growing threat of terrorism. Rumsfeld said he agreed with this, that 9/11 was indeed a 'wake-up call.' [18] He wrote a similar thing in his prepared testimony to the 9/11 Commission:

"Think about what has been done since the September 11th attacks: two state sponsors of terrorism have been removed from power, a 90-nation coalition has been formed which is cooperating on a number of levels… All of these actions are putting pressure on terrorist networks. Taken together, they represent a collective effort that is unprecedented. [19]

DICK CHENEY ON 9/11

Based upon mainstream accounts, Vice President Cheney's actions during the attacks appear less suspicious than those of Bush and Rumsfeld. However, there are some odd contradictions in the reports of what he did. On the morning of September 11, before learning about the attacks, Dick Cheney was in his office in the White House. According to the 9/11 Commission, just before 9 a.m. he was preparing for a meeting when his assistant "told him to turn on his television because a plane had struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center." [20]

Cheney subsequently saw the second aircraft hitting the South Tower. Then, "just before 9:36," the Secret Service ordered the evacuation of the vice president and agents took him down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, the bunker below the East Wing of the White House. "The Vice President entered the underground tunnel leading to the shelter at 9:37." [21]

However, according to White House photographer David Bohrer who was present at the time, this evacuation occurred just after 9 a.m. [22] Furthermore, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta described before the 9/11 Commission how a young man had come into the PEOC to inform the vice president of the approach towards Washington of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. According to Mineta, this occurred around 9:25 or 9:26. [23]

This suggests that the report of Cheney only reaching the underground tunnel leading to the shelter at 9:37 is incorrect. If Cheney were in fact evacuated soon after 9, why would it later be claimed this took place about half an hour later? One possibility is that it was to make the failure of the Secret Service to evacuate President Bush from his location that morning appear less suspicious. (See below.) Alternatively, if Michael Ruppert's allegations about the vice president's involvement in the attacks are correct, then this claim could simply be an attempt to conceal his complicity.

Soon after 9:15, Cheney spoke over the phone with the president, who was at a school in Florida that morning. Also, "sometime before 10:10 to 10:15," he reportedly phoned the president to discuss the rules of engagement for the combat air patrol above Washington. Supposedly, he recommended the president authorize the military to shoot down any civilian airliners that might be under the control of hijackers. Bush later recalled his response being "You bet." [24]

The president also emphasized in his private meeting with the 9/11 Commission that he had authorized the shootdown of hijacked aircraft. [25] This is an important point, because the shooting down of a wayward aircraft before it crashed into a populated area could save many lives.

Yet, according to the 9/11 Commission, "there is no documentary evidence for this call." [26] Newsweek adds: "Nor did the real-time notes taken by two others in the room, Cheney's chief of staff, 'Scooter' Libby -- who is known for his meticulous record-keeping -- or Cheney's wife, Lynne, reflect that such a phone call between Bush and Cheney occurred or that such a major decision as shooting down a U.S. airliner was discussed." [27]

According to Newsweek, some of the Commission's staff were highly skeptical of Cheney's account, with one well-informed source claiming some of them "flat out didn't believe the call ever took place." [28] All the same, whether or not Bush authorized him to do so, "by the time Cheney issued his shoot-down order, between 10:10 and 10:15 a.m., United Flight 93, the last plane-turned-missile on 9/11, had already crashed in Pennsylvania (at 10:03 a.m.)." [29]

Furthermore, it appears that Cheney -- along with Bush -- was reluctant for 9/11 to be investigated: When then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle appeared on NBC's Meet the Press in May 2002, he said Cheney had, on January 24 that year, urged him not to investigate the events of September 11.

Daschle added that four days later Bush made the same request. When the program's moderator Tim Russert asked: "It wasn't, 'Let's not have a national commission, but let's have the intelligence committees look into this,' it was 'No investigation by anyone, period'?" Daschle replied: "That's correct." He added that the request had been repeated on "other dates following." [30]

GEORGE W. BUSH ON 9/11

September 11, 2001 was the most important day of George W. Bush's life. As American president he was commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces. His actions were crucial. According to the 9/11 Commission, the only people that day with authority to order the shooting down of a civilian plane if, say, it were heading towards a populated area (like the World Trade Center or the Pentagon) were the president or the secretary of defense. [31] I have already shown that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was apparently 'out of the loop' during the attacks. What then did Commander in Chief Bush do?

Before examining this question, it is important to recognise that the U.S. president does not travel alone. He takes with him an entire staff, including members of the Secret Service, who are responsible for his safety. The president's travelling entourage have the best communications equipment in the world. They have contact with, or can easily reach, the cabinet, the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon, the FAA and other Secret Service agents. [32] We might therefore assume George Bush would have been one of the first people informed of the extraordinary chain of events unfolding on September 11.

Furthermore, Bush's location for that morning was made public four days previously, on September 7: He would be in Sarasota, Florida, to "continue his focus on reading and education." [33] We might assume then that once it was recognised that America was under attack, the president would have been considered a potential target and immediate action would have been taken to protect him and ensure the safety of all around him.

Yet, despite the horrifying sequence of events in progress, Bush continued with his pre-planned visit to the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, where he listened to a class full of children reading. He remained at the school until around 9:35 a.m. [34] -- nearly 50 minutes after the first plane hit the WTC and over half an hour after the second plane hit. Incredibly, the president's support team, including the Secret Service, allowed this.

According to Philip Melanson, an expert on the Secret Service, Bush should have been removed from the school immediately after Flight 175 hit the second WTC tower. Melanson says: "With an unfolding terrorist attack, the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible, which clearly is not a school. You're safer in that presidential limo, which is bombproof and blastproof and bulletproof." [35]

Furthermore, considering the president's responsibilities as commander in chief, Melanson adds that Bush's limousine had key advantages: "In the presidential limo, the communications system is almost duplicative of the White House -- he can do almost anything from there but he can't do much sitting in a school." [36]

Bush was informed of the second plane hitting the WTC when, around 9:05, his Chief of Staff Andrew Card came across the classroom and reportedly whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." [37] According to the 9/11 Commission: "The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis." [38]

Furthermore, "The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door." [39] Yet this inaction could have had disastrous consequences. In the words of 9/11 researchers Allan Wood and Paul Thompson: "Why hasn't Bush's security staff been criticized for their completely inexplicable decision to stay at the school? And why didn't Bush's concern for the children extend to not making them and the rest of the 200 or so people at the school terrorist targets?" [40]

As the reporter Gail Sheehy concludes, the final report of the 9/11 Commission shows that on the morning of September 11, "the president and the other top officials in charge of the systems to defend the country from attack were, in essence, missing in action: They did not communicate, did not coordinate a response to the catastrophe, and in some cases did not even get involved in discussions about the attacks until after all of the hijacked planes had crashed." [41]

With the best communications in the world available to him, we might assume Bush would have been one of the first people informed of the hijackings and the first plane hitting the WTC. Yet according to official accounts, he remained oblivious even whilst millions of people saw what had happened on television. Strangely, there have been at least seven different accounts of when and from whom Bush first heard of Flight 11 crashing into the WTC. [42] As Allan Wood and Paul Thompson note, Bush's own recollections only add to the confusion:

"Less than two months after the attacks, Bush made the preposterous claim that he had watched the first attack as it happened on live television…. On December 4, 2001, Bush was asked: "How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?" [As reported on CNN,] Bush replied, "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on…. I said, it must have been a horrible accident." [43]

Yet, as Wood and Thompson point out, "There was no film footage of the first attack until at least the following day." They continue: "It's doubly strange why his advisors didn't correct him or -- at the very least -- stop him from repeating the same story only four weeks later. On January 5, 2002, Bush stated: "Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida ... and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on." [44]

On the morning of 9/11, Bush promised that he had "ordered that the full resources of the federal government go ... to conduct a full-scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks who committed this act." [45] Yet it appears more like he has tried to hinder investigations. As Salon reported in June 2003:

"The White House long opposed the formation of a blue-ribbon Sept. 11 commission, some say, and even now that panel is underfunded and struggling to build momentum. And, they say, the administration is suppressing a 900-page congressional study, possibly out of fear that the findings will be politically damaging to Bush.

"We've been fighting for nearly 21 months -- fighting the administration, the White House," says Monica Gabrielle. Her husband, Richard, an insurance broker who worked for Aon Corp. on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center's Tower 2, died during the attacks. "As soon as we started looking for answers we were blocked, put off and ignored at every stop of the way. We were shocked. The White House is just blocking everything."

Another 9/11 family advocate ... was more blunt: "Bush has done everything in his power to squelch this [9/11] commission and prevent it from happening." [46]

After opposing the creation of the 9/11 Commission, the White House wanted to limit any appearance by the president to just one hour spent with two of the commissioners. A compromise was met such that George Bush did eventually meet with the Commission on April 29, 2004, but only under stringent conditions. Bush had to have Dick Cheney at his side, testifying at the same time; testimony was given in private and not under oath; no press coverage was allowed; and no recordings or transcripts were made of what they said. [47]

Further suspicion had been raised just over two weeks earlier, when the White House was forced to release a daily intelligence briefing given to the president whilst on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, five weeks before 9/11.

The briefing was titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US," and stated: "FBI information ... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York…. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives." [48] Despite receiving this, according to the New York Times, "Bush broke off from work early and spent most of that day fishing." [49]

What is also interesting is that several key members of the Bush administration, including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, had been members of a neoconservative think-tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). In September 2000, PNAC wrote a report called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, which they hoped would be "a road map for the nation's immediate and future defense plans." In it they complained: "The post-Cold War world will not remain a relatively peaceful place if we continue to neglect foreign and defense matters."

However, they added: "serious attention, careful thought, and the willingness to devote adequate resources to maintaining America's military strength can make the world safer and American strategic interests more secure now and in the future." [50] They stated that to "preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades" America would need to undergo a "military transformation." [51] However, they wrote, this transformation would be "a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." [52] One year later, 9/11 happened. As George W. Bush wrote in his diary that night: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." [53]

After this catastrophic, catalyzing event, actions proposed by the Project for the New American Century soon came into force. As John Pilger wrote of PNAC:

"[In 2000] it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is. [54] Furthermore, during his 2000 election campaign and after, Bush repeatedly promised a budget surplus, except in the event of a recession, war or a national emergency. In the days after 9/11, he said to his budget director: "Lucky me. I hit the trifecta." [55] (A 'trifecta' is a kind of bet that requires picking the top three finishers in a race.)

With so much suspicious evidence, one lawyer, Stanley Hilton -- a former aide to Senator Bob Dole -- has filed a $7 billion suit on behalf of the families of 14 victims of the 9/11 attacks, alleging that Bush, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld and others, actually ordered 9/11 to happen for political gain. Hilton says he has incriminating documents and witnesses showing this. Calling it "the biggest act of treason and mass murder in American history," he claims that 9/11 was a 'decoy operation': "You make the people focus on the decoy to avoid looking at the real criminals. So they are focusing on these so-called nineteen hijackers and saying, 'Oh, it must have been these Arabs.' When, in fact, the guilty person is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- sitting in the Oval Office." [56]

I have already discussed White House attempts to prevent or hinder any official inquiry into 9/11. But another less known example, where there has been a lack of investigation and a suppression of important evidence relating to 9/11, is in the unlikely situation of the retirement community that is Venice, in southwestern Florida.

THE MOHAMED ATTA MYTH

Of the four alleged 9/11 suicide-pilots, three had been in attendance at two flight schools at the tiny airport in Venice, Florida: Huffman Aviation and Florida Flight Training. Both were owned by Dutch men who purchased the schools within months of each other, in 1999. Soon after they took over, the schools began training unprecedented numbers of Arab flight students. [57] Yet Huffman Aviation and Florida Flight Training, along with the dubious characters who ran them, have so far avoided any serious investigation or media attention.

One man who has tried to make up for this is investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker, who spent two years following the attacks in Venice, examining the training of the alleged hijackers. He reports his findings in his book Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida. As well as describing evidence of large-scale illegal activity going on in and around the Venice Airport, this book casts serious doubt upon the official account of who the hijackers really were.

We have all heard how these 19 alleged hijackers were Islamic extremists. Yet evidence uncovered by Hopsicker, particularly regarding alleged ringleader Mohamed Atta, depicts unlikely personalities and lifestyles for a bunch of religious fanatics. For example, almost totally ignored by the mainstream press is that Atta had an American girlfriend for over two months whilst in Venice, with whom he would go out clubbing almost every night.

At the time, this attractive young woman -- Amanda Keller -- had spiky pink hair and was working as a 'lingerie model' for an escort service called Fantasies & Lace. Atta is known to have been a heavy drinker who snorted cocaine. Local newspapers reported how in February 2001, along with Keller, he went on a three-day binge of drinking and drug taking in Key West. [58]

Just days before 9/11, Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi (another of the alleged suicide-pilots) spent the evening drinking heavily at a bar in Fort Lauderdale. The bar's manager later told reporters that the men "got wasted," drinking "Stolichnaya and orange juice, and Captain Morgan's spiced rum and Coke." Bartender Patricia Idrissi concurred, saying: "Atta drank Stoli vodka for three straight hours…. They were wasted." [59]

Amanda Keller describes a typical night out at a club with Atta: "Marwan [al-Shehhi] was in the reggae room drinking with a bunch of women at the bar, there were a lot of women around him, and he was just flaunting money." As Hopsicker points out: "It's one thing to hear Atta described as living it up with wine, women and song. But Marwan flaunting money at the bar pretty much puts the lie to the 'Islamic fundamentalist' tag." [60]

Hopsicker suggests that, rather than being a fundamentalist Muslim, Mohamed Atta better fits the profile of a member of Arab society's privileged elite and also a spy. Amongst many oddities contradicting the 'fundamentalist' label is the fact that his e-mail list included the names of several employees of U.S. defense contractors. [61] More alarming, he and as many as six of the other alleged 9/11 hijackers appear to have trained at U.S. military bases. Hopsicker writes:

"On the Saturday following the Tuesday attack, the Los Angeles Times broke the story in a long article on their front page. 'A defense official said two of the hijackers were former Saudi fighter pilots, 'reported the paper, 'who had studied in exchange programs at the Defense Language School at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.'"

The story went wide the next day, Sunday, September 15th. Newsweek, the Washington Post and the Miami Herald all reported as many as seven of the terrorist hijackers in the September 11th attacks received training at secure U.S. Military installations.

"Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola. Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base," the Washington Post reported.

"In addition, a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, while men with the same names as two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively," the Post said. [62]

Newsweek detailed how U.S. Military facilities routinely trained pilots for other countries: "A former Navy pilot told NEWSWEEK that during his years on the base, 'we always, always, always trained other countries' pilots…. Whoever the country du jour is, that's whose pilots we train.' Candidates begin with 'an officer's equivalent of boot camp,' he said. 'Then they would put them through flight training.'" [63]

Hopsicker explains how this crucial story came to be dismissed:

"Someone was going to have to answer ... for a lot."

"But Atta is a fairly common surname in the Middle East," the Post quoted Laila Alquatami of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee as saying, and the suspected hijacker's first name is "probably the No. 1 name that is given to babies, in honor of the prophet Mohamed."

The Boston Globe reported the Pentagon's denial: "Some of the FBI suspects had names similar to those used by foreign alumni of U.S. Military courses," said the Air Force in a statement. "Discrepancies in their biographical data ... indicate we are probably not talking about the same people."

How easy was it to tell the Pentagon was lying? Think about it. It is neither plausible nor logical that the reports were false because of seven separate cases of mistaken identity. One or two, maybe. But seven? [64]

None of the newspapers retracted the story, yet it disappeared. One person who sought answers was Senator Bill Nelson, who faxed Attorney General John Ashcroft, demanding to know if the story was really true. However:

"The Senator has still not received a reply, we heard from his spokesman, when we called his office eleven months later. In the wake of those reports, we asked about the Pensacola Naval Air Station but we never got a definitive answer from the Justice Department," stated the Senator's press spokesman. "So we asked the FBI for an answer 'if and when' they could provide us one. Their response to date has been that they are trying to sort through something complicated and difficult." [65]

Deciding to investigate for himself, Hopsicker phoned the Pentagon and spoke with the public information officer who helped write and disseminate their original denial of the story:

"Biographically, they're not the same people," she explained patiently, using the same language contained in the Air Force's press release. "Some of the ages are twenty years off." … Was she saying that the age of the 'Mohamed Atta' who had attended the Air Force's International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base was different than that of 'terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta?'

Not exactly, she admitted. She could not confirm that -- in this specific instance -- they had different ages. What she could do was once again deny that the International Officer's School attendee named Mohamed Atta had been the Mohamed Atta who piloted a passenger plane into the World Trade Center.

However, she could offer no specifics for her assertion, and repeatedly declined requests for biographical details about the Mohamed Atta who had trained at Maxwell Air Force Base. [66]

After Hopsicker's persistent questioning, she finally said in exasperation: "I do not have the authority to tell you who attended which schools." Hopsicker reflects: "It was hard to read this as anything other than a back-handed confirmation. When she said that she didn't have the authority, the clear implication was that someone else does… Somewhere in the Defense Dept. a list exists with the names of Sept. 11 terrorists who received training at U.S. Military facilities. She just didn't have the authority to release it." [67] Furthermore, Hopsicker spoke to a woman who works at the Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama:

"I have a girlfriend who recognized Mohamed Atta. She met him at a party at the Officer's Club," she told us. "The reason she swears it was him here is because she didn't just meet him and say hello. After she met him she went around and introduced him to the people that were with her. So she knows it was him."

Saudis were a highly visible presence at Maxwell Air Force Base, she said. "There were a lot of them living in an upscale complex in Montgomery. They had to get all of them out of here. "They were all gone the day after the attack." [68]

Despite it being a key 9/11 crime scene, there has been a surprising absence of investigations into the goings on in Venice, Florida. In fact, to the contrary, "the FBI's full attention seemed to have been engaged -- not in investigating what had happened -- but in suppressing evidence and even intimidating the witnesses who had seen and heard things that fly in the face of the 'official story.'" [69]

For example, Mohamed Atta's former girlfriend Amanda Keller says that even after she left Venice, the FBI called on her every other day for several months, telling her not to talk to anybody. Similarly, a woman called Stephanie Frederickson who lived next-door to Atta and Keller in Venice reported how she and other residents at the same apartment building were harassed and intimidated by FBI agents, to prevent them from talking to reporters.

According to Frederickson: "The question [the FBI] asked was always the same. You aren't saying anything to anybody, are you? At first, right after the attack, they told me I must have been mistaken in my identification. Or they would insinuate that I was lying. Finally they stopped trying to get me to change my story, and just stopped by once a week to make sure I hadn't been talking to anyone. [70]

What is more, the FBI arrived in Venice just hours after the 9/11 attacks. A former manager from Huffman Aviation said: "They were outside my house four hours after the attack." He added: "My phones have been bugged, they still are…. How did the FBI get here so soon? Ask yourself: How'd they got here so soon?" [71]

Within 24 hours of the attacks, records from Huffman Aviation, where Atta and al-Shehhi attended, were escorted aboard a C-130 cargo plane to Washington by Florida governor and brother of the president Jeb Bush. Similarly, according to a sergeant with the Venice police, the FBI took all their files and flew them to Washington with Jeb Bush aboard. (Presumably this was on the same flight as the Huffman records.) Hopsicker notes: "The important point was that taking files was a lot different than copying them. The FBI wasn't taking any chances." [72] He concludes: "There is a demonstrable, provable, and massive federally-supervised cover-up in place in Florida." [73]

As this and my previous evidence shows, there are countless unanswered questions about 9/11 that at some point are going to have to be properly examined. Even an investigation into just a few of these questions, such as those around the war games on 9/11, could be enough to start a major scandal. However, as numerous writers and independent researchers have found, there are so many suspicious circumstances that the truth could be very different to what we have been led to believe.

Human rights lawyer Richard Falk has written: "There are so many gaping holes in the official accounts of 9/11 that no plausible coherent narrative remains, and until now we have been staggering forward as if the truth about these traumatic events no longer mattered." [74] But if the mainstream press start investigating properly, it could lead to a completely unprecedented '9/11 scandal.'

PSYCHOHISTORICAL REASONS BEHIND 9/11 AND ENSUING WARS

There are in fact specific psychohistorical reasons I have identified why there could be a major 9/11 scandal in the future. I detail some of these in my previous article, "Killer Women Group-Fantasies and the 9/11 Controversy," in which I examined signs of the current public mood in Britain and America. [75] My evidence suggested both countries are in a state of particularly high anxiety and will need some kind of large crisis to make us all feel better. But with no new 'external enemy' having been found, I suggested we might instead be veering towards 'regicidal solution' -- where we somehow 'sacrifice' our own leaders. But what is the cause of the current public anxiety? And why have our leaders been unable to find a new 'external enemy' to invade?

Lloyd deMause describes how wars have generally occurred after periods of increased prosperity and social progress, especially when accompanied by more personal freedom. He has found that increased wealth and social change causes many individuals anxiety and discomfort:

"That personal achievement and prosperity often make individuals feel sinful and unworthy of their success is a commonplace observation of psychotherapy ever since Freud's first case studies of people 'ruined by success.' Yet no one seems to have noticed that feelings of sinfulness are usually prominent in the shared emotional life of nations after long periods of peace, prosperity, and social progress, particularly if they are accompanied by more personal and sexual freedom." [76]

As deMause points out: "wars between great powers occur during periods of economic expansion, while stagnation hinders their outbreak." [77] Furthermore, "Wars not only occurred far more frequently after prosperous periods, but were longer and bigger after prosperity, 'six to twenty times bigger as indicated by battle fatalities." [78]

DeMause has found recurrent images of guilt and poison blood in the media, following periods of prosperity and progress. The progress and increased wealth are felt to have "polluted the national bloodstream with sinful excess, making men 'soft' and 'feminine,' a frightful condition that can only be cleansed by a blood-shedding purification." [79]

DeMause continues: "Wars have often been thought of as purifying the nation's polluted blood by virtue of a sacrificial rite identical to the rites of human sacrifice so common in early historical periods, when the blood of those sacrificed was believed to renew all the people. War, said those preparing for the bloody Finnish Civil War, purges guilt-producing material prosperity through the blood of soldiers sacrificed on the battlefield." [80]

So, in the case of the 1991 Gulf War, once it was over: "The sacrificial ritual had been carried out. The nation had been cleansed of its emotional pollution. The President's popularity rating rose to 91 percent, the highest of any American leader in history. The stock market soared. The country had been united by slaughter as it had never been by any positive achievement. We felt cleansed, purified, as though we had been reborn." [81]

To summarize then, periods of growth and prosperity cause much discomfort to many people: feelings of guilt, sinfulness, being 'soft' or 'feminine,' etc. And one way that nations frequently relieve these unpleasant feelings is by going to war.

The 1990s and the beginning of the new millennium certainly rank as a period of prosperity and change. Along with increasing wealth and social change, we have experienced a technological revolution, with cheaper and increasingly powerful home computers, DVD players, digital cameras, and many other previously unavailable gadgets. One writer recently concluded: "We live in the freest, happiest, least bigoted, healthiest, most peaceful and longest-lived era in human history... [W]e are richer and have the power to alter and control our environment in ways that would have seemed like magic 200 years ago." [82]

Considering deMause's observations about wars correlating with change and economic growth, it seems the conditions have been right for a particularly large war to occur. Although we have had recent wars in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), these have been small in comparison to some key wars of the 20th century. For example, the Vietnam War lasted many years, from the 1960s through to the early 70s.

During this conflict, the U.S. used weapons of mass destruction, spraying South Vietnam with a deadly chemical called 'Agent Orange,' which causes fetal death, congenital defects and cancer. [83] Several million Southeast Asians were killed, along with around 58,000 American soldiers. The recent attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq pale in comparison. So surely we'll need a bigger war than either of these, considering all the prosperity and change of the last decade. However, as I said at the start of this article, following the 2003 Iraq invasion attempts by Britain and America to find a new, more formidable enemy to attack have so far failed.

I believe the reason for this is because there are now larger than ever numbers of people opposing war. This in turn, I believe, is thanks to improvements in childrearing during the latter half of the 20th century. For years, psychohistorians have observed a steady evolution in childrearing that is now more rapid than ever before. Lloyd deMause writes:

"Progress in childrearing evolution may be extremely uneven, but the trends are nonetheless unmistakable. The overall direction is from projection to empathy, from discipline to self-regulation, from hitting to explaining, from incest to love, from rejection to overcontrol and then to independence... Just the sheer cost of raising a child in dollars has been going up. The families I know in my section of Manhattan easily devote over half of their spare time and half their income to their children. Compare this to the small fraction of parents' time and money given over to children in earlier centuries with children even spending most of their lives working for adults in various ways and one can begin to comprehend the overall direction of childrearing evolution." [84]

Similarly, in 1998 psychohistorian Robert McFarland wrote: "Improvements in parenting practices can now be measured in decades rather than in centuries. Since Sweden banned hitting children in 1979, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Austria have followed." [85] And whereas in 1992 over 90 per cent of American parents hit their young children, by 1999 this had dropped to 57 per cent. [86]

Due to this steady 'evolution of childhood,' the average level of childrearing experienced by today's young adults in developed countries will have been better than that experienced by previous generations. Consequently there are now more and more people in the higher 'psychoclasses': individuals who, due to their more loving childhoods, have a higher level of psychological health. These individuals will be more able to enjoy their increased prosperity and the new technology that has become available over recent years, along with any increased personal freedoms. As a result, they will have less, if any, desire for war.

This relationship between childhood experience and support for, or opposition to war, has been found by, amongst others, political psychologist Michael Milburn. Milburn says:

"We found that, particularly for males who had never had any psychotherapy, when they reported a high level of childhood punishment, they were significantly more likely to endorse a range of punitive public policies like ... support for the use of military force... [T]he higher level of punitiveness among political conservatives is really strongly associated with experiences, generally, of harsh punishment from childhood. It's not just going to be that they were spanked; there's a whole family climate, and punishment is just going to be one of those indicators of that." [87]

If a person who experiences a severe and punitive childhood is likely to grow up into the kind of adult who favours the use of military force, we might logically assume the opposite is true: Individuals who had better childhoods will be less supportive of wars. Lloyd deMause confirms this, describing his observations of young adults today who have experienced far more loving childhoods:

"[These individuals] are far more empathic and therefore more concerned about others than we ever were, and this has made them far more activist in their lives in trying to make a difference and change the world for the better, mostly involving themselves in local activities rather than global political changes. They lack all need for nationalism, wars, and other grandiose projects, and in the organizations they start are genuinely nonauthoritarian. There is no question that if the world could treat children with helping-mode parenting, wars and other self-destructive social conditions we still suffer from in the twenty-first century will be cured." [88]

With the gradual improvement in the average level of childrearing over recent decades (in developed countries at least), we would expect a corresponding decrease in support for war. This was clearly evidenced by the unprecedented level of opposition to the 2003 Iraq invasion. In London, for example, on Saturday February 15, 2003, an estimated one to two million people marched in protest against the imminent invasion: the largest public demonstration ever to occur in Britain. The following month, 400,000 marched through London, the biggest protest in Britain against a war during wartime. [89]

Weeks before the war started, Tony Blair suffered the biggest Commons revolt of his premiership when 199 MPs rejected his direction over Iraq. As the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy, observed: "Despite investing masses of political and parliamentary capital, the government has still failed to persuade a third of the House of Commons." [90]

According to leading political scholar and critic of American foreign policy Noam Chomsky, in an interview around this time: "There's never been a time that I can think of when there's been such massive opposition to a war before it was even started... Even in the United States there is overwhelming opposition to the war and the corresponding decline in the leadership that is driving the war." [91]

Chomsky points out how even our governments are aware of this new reluctance towards war and have had to modify their actions accordingly: "[W]hen any administration comes into office the first thing it does is have a worldwide intelligence assessment -- 'What's the state of the world?' -- provided by the intelligence services...

When the first Bush administration came in 1989, parts of their intelligence assessment were leaked, and they're very revealing about what happened in the subsequent 10 years about precisely these questions. The parts that were leaked said that it was about military confrontations with much weaker enemies, recognising they were the only kind we were going to be willing to face, or even exist. So in confrontations with much weaker enemies the United States must win 'decisively and rapidly' because otherwise popular support will erode, because it's understood to be very thin. Not like the 1960s when the government could fight a long, brutal war for years and years practically destroying a country without any protest. Not now." [92]

Although the peace movement failed to prevent the Iraq invasion, when the war began it seemed they had made a significant difference. As Jonathan Freedland wrote in The Guardian:

"The campaign began not with 'shock and awe' but a subtler knife, aimed at the surgical decapitation of Saddam Hussein and his regime. One night's bombing of Baghdad lasted no more than an hour... There could be a stack of explanations for that initial deployment of the short, sharp blow... But there may be another motive for the initial preference for short-and-sweet over shock-and-awe. The US might have wanted to avoid a wave of worldwide revulsion. A series of tight, well-aimed strikes at the regime would have confounded the global fear of colossal Iraqi civilian casualties. It's as if Washington had heard the peace movement's objection to this war--that too many innocents would die--and was attempting to heed it." [93]

Freedland continues: "[P]erhaps the clearest proof of the anti-war camp's efforts came from our own prime minister: 'I know this course of action has produced deep divisions of opinion in our country,' he said, just seconds into his own TV message to the nation. No leader wants to go into a war admitting such a thing. But Blair had no choice. As with much else, the peace movement has changed the landscape for this conflict--and the men of war are having to deal with it." [94]

What peace activists may well have achieved is the prevention of further invasions of 'axis of evil' countries. As Lindsey German of the Stop the War Coalition said, "does anyone think Tony Blair can ever stand up in parliament again and say the words, 'trust me'? As they talk up targeting Iran and Syria, do you think anyone will ever believe this government when they say we've got the intelligence to prove it?" [95]

Maybe the improvements in childrearing over recent decades that account for this unprecedented opposition to war, will also mean there are now enough people less afraid to challenge authority and face unpleasant truths, so as to help bring about a 9/11 scandal. Compare this to, say, the truth about the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. We now know that President Franklin Roosevelt and his top military advisers knew in advance that Japan was planning a 'surprise attack' on America. Japanese radio messages had been intercepted and it was known when and where they would attack the U.S.

Despite this foreknowledge, Roosevelt allowed the attack to go ahead so as to create a pretext for America to join World War II. Yet these facts only became more widely known in 2000, with the release of Robert B. Stinnett's book Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. [96] Robert McFarland points out: "While it was 58 years before Stinnett's book made the facts about Pearl Harbor widely known, two important books about 9/11 came out within a year... Since these books came out quickly, we are apparently more willing to look at bad news than we were in 1941." [97]

While a 9/11 scandal would be a sufficiently large public crisis to help ease the particularly high level of public anxiety ('growth panic') among the lower psychoclasses, unlike a massive war it ought also be acceptable to the more peaceful higher psychoclass individuals. If we do have such a scandal, the emotional effect will undoubtedly be intense. Consider how the general public would feel if people start openly accusing some within the Bush administration of complicity in the 9/11 attacks. How would Americans feel who had voted for these men, trusted and respected them? I can imagine many people finding such events devastating.

What if security camera footage of the attack on the Pentagon had to be made public at some point and it showed something other than a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon? [98] Surely millions of people would feel horrified. The full implications of a 9/11 scandal would be colossal. It would be the emotional equivalent of a massive war. So maybe instead of the war "of a force and scope and scale that has been beyond what has been seen before," that Donald Rumsfeld promised back in 2003, there is going to be a scandal of a "scope and scale" that is "beyond what has been seen before."

FOOTNOTES:

1 David Hearst, "Nato directionless on nuclear policy." The Guardian, January 19, 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,871128,00.html
2 "UK restates nuclear threat." BBC News, February 2, 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2717939.stm
3 John Pilger, "John Pilger investigates US plans for mini-nukes." New Statesman, August 18, 2003.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0815-06.htm
4 Duncan Campbell, "Bush in new threat to Iran and Syria." The Guardian, July 22, 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/22/usa.duncancampbell1
5 Richard Norton-Taylor, "US hawk warns Iran threat must be eliminated." The Guardian, October 10, 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/10/iran.richardnortontaylor
6 From Paul Thompson, "The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11." Center for Cooperative Research. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense
7 "Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and 'Consciously Failed' To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals." Zogby International, August 30, 2004. Online at: http://zogby.com/news/2004/08/30/half-of-new-yorkers-believe-us-leaders-had-foreknowledge...
8 Antonia Zerbisias, "Poking holes in the official story of 9/11." Toronto Star, May 26, 2004.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0528-09.htm
9 Michael Gavin, "September 11 conspiracy claims find large readership." Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 5, 2003.
10 Quoted in Kate Connolly, "German Sept 11 theory stokes anti-US feeling." The Telegraph, November 20, 2003.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1447232/German-Sept-11-theory...
11 From "Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Larry King." Larry King Live, CNN, December 5, 2001. Transcript at: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2603
12 Ibid.
13 From "Chairman Cox's Statement on the Terrorist Attack on America." September 11, 2001. Online at: http://web.archive.org/web/20020817051201/http://cox.house.gov/html/release.cfm?id=33
14 From "Day One Transcript: 9/11 Commission Hearing." Washington Post, March 23, 2004. Online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17798-2004Mar23
15 From "'The Pentagon Goes to War': National Military Command Center: A look at 9/11 at the Pentagon's National Military Command Center." American Morning With Paula Zahn, CNN, September 4, 2002. Transcript here, and "9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings," ABC News, September 11, 2002. Transcript at: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/attack/abcnews091102_jenningsinterviews.html
16 The 9/11 Commission Report: The Full Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Executive Summary. 2004, p. 15. Online at: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm
17 See Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CJCSI 3610.01A, June 1, 2001. Online at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf. Due to the fact that this new procedure was introduced just three months before 9/11, several individuals have questioned whether this new instruction, requiring secretary of defense approval in responding to hijackings, was introduced deliberately so as to hinder the interception of the hijacked planes on 9/11. However, this requirement was not new: The previous instruction for dealing with hijackings, dated July 31, 1997, also required approval from the defense secretary. See: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf
18 The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS, September 10, 2003. Transcript at:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/rumsfeld_09-10.html
19 "Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld Prepared for Delivery to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." March 23, 2004, p. 21. Online at: http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/rumsfeld_statement.pdf
20 The 9/11 Commission Report: The Full Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton, 2004, p. 35.
21 The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 39-40.
22 "Sept. 11 Scramble." ABC News, September 14, 2002.
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/sept11_moments_2.html
23 "9/11 Commission Hearing." May 23, 2003. Transcript at: http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.pdf
24 Dan Balz and Bob Woodward, "America's Chaotic Road to War." Washington Post, January 27, 2002.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26.html
25 The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 40.
26 Ibid., p. 41.
27 Daniel Klaidman and Michael Hirsh, "Who Was Really In Charge?" Newsweek, June 28, 2004.
http://www.newsweek.com/2004/06/27/who-was-really-in-charge.html
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Meet the Press, NBC, May 26, 2002. Transcript online at: http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/911/Daschle.htm
31 The 9/11 Commission states: "Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense)." From The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 17. Previous news reports had said the president was the only person with the authority to order the shooting down of a civilian plane. See Jamie McIntyre, "Pentagon never considered downing Stewart's Learjet." CNN, October 26, 1999. http://edition.cnn.com/US/9910/26/shootdown/ Kevin Dennehy, "'I Thought It Was the Start of World War III'." Cape Cod Times, August 21, 2002.
32 From Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, "Guilty for 9-11, Part 3: Bush in the Open." The Emperor's New Clothes, January 18, 2002, revised September 12, 2003. http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm
33 "Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer." September 7, 2001. Online at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010907-1.html#week
34 From Allan Wood and Paul Thompson, "An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11." Center for Cooperative Research, May 9, 2003.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday
35 Quoted in Susan Taylor Martin, "Of fact, fiction: Bush on 9/11." St. Petersburg Times, July 4, 2004.
36 Ibid.
37 The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 38.
38 Ibid., p. 38.
39 Ibid., p. 39.
40 From Allan Wood and Paul Thompson, "An Interesting Day."
41 Gail Sheehy, "Who's in Charge Here?" Mother Jones, July 22, 2004.
42 See Allan Wood and Paul Thompson, "An Interesting Day."
43 CNN Transcript of President Bush's town meeting in Orlando, Florida on December 4, 2001.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html
44 Transcript on White House website of President Bush's comments at a town hall forum in Ontario, California on January 5, 2002
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html
45 "Remarks by the President After Two Planes Crash Into World Trade Center." September 11, 2001. Online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911.html
46 Eric Boehlert, "Bush's 9/11 coverup?" Salon, June 18, 2003.
47 From Julian Borger, "Bush to face tough questions on 9/11." The Guardian, April 29, 2004; "Hiding in the White House." The Boston Globe, April 30, 2004.
48 This briefing is available online at: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf
49 Frank Rich, "Thanks for the Heads-Up." New York Times, May 25, 2002.
50 The Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. September 2000, p. iii.
51 Ibid., p. 50.
52 Ibid., p. 51.
53 Dan Balz and Bob Woodward, "America's Chaotic Road to War."
54 John Pilger, "Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W. Bush said what America needed was 'a new Pearl Harbor'. Its published aims have come alarmingly true." New Statesman, December 16, 2002.
55 "Remarks By Office Of Management And Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. At Conference Board Annual Meeting." October 16, 2001. Online at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/daniels_conference_board_speech10-16-01.html
56 From "Alex Jones Interviews Stanley Hilton." The Alex Jones Show, September 10, 2004. Transcript at: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/hilton_interview.htm
57 From: Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida. Eugene: The MadCow Press, 2004, pp. 171-182.
58 Ibid., pp. 68-69.
59 Ibid., p. 81.
60 Ibid., p. 284.
61 Ibid., p. 105.
62 Ibid., pp. 135-136.
63 George Wehrfritz, Catharine Skipp and John Barry, "Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases." Newsweek, September 15, 2001.
http://www.newsweek.com/2001/09/14/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-at-u-s-bases.html
64 Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to Terrorland, pp. 136-137.
65 Ibid., p. 138.
66 Ibid., p. 139.
67 Ibid., p. 140.
68 Ibid., p. 141.
69 Ibid., p. 301.
70 Ibid., pp. 62-63.
71 Ibid., p. 150.
72 Ibid., p. 31.
73 Ibid., p. 301.
74 From his forward to David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor, p. vii.
75 Matt Everett, "Killer Women Group-Fantasies and the 9/11 Controversy." Journal of Psychohistory 32(1): 2-39.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2004-16371-001
76 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations. New York: Karnac, 2002, p. 17
77 Ibid., p. 159.
78 Ibid., p. 141.
79 Ibid, p. 51.
80 Ibid., p. 52.
81 Ibid., p. 38
82 Michael Hanlon, "There's no time like the present." The Spectator. August 7, 2004.
83 See John Pilger, "Nuclear war, courtesy of Nato." The Guardian, May 4, 1999; John Pilger, "Blair is a coward." Daily Mirror, January 29, 2003.
84 From Lloyd deMause, "Childhood and Cultural Evolution." Psychohistory Web site. http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln07evolution.html
85 Robert B. McFarland, "Improvements in Parenting are Real." Journal of Psychohistory 25(3):237.
86 Tracy L. Dietz, "Disciplining Children: Characteristics Associated With the Use of Corporal Punishment." Child Abuse & Neglect 24(2000): 1529, 1536. Quoted in Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 339.
87 Brian Braiker, "See No Evil: A political psychologist explains the roles denial, emotion and childhood punishment play in politics." Newsweek Web site, May 13, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4972441/site/newsweek/
88 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 430.
89 Carmel Brown, "Weapon of mass democracy." The Guardian, September 26, 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/26/politics.antiwar
90 Matthew Tempest, "Labour Mps revolt over Iraq." The Guardian, February 26, 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/feb/26/foreignpolicy.uk2
91 Matthew Tempest, "Full transcript: Noam Chomsky on the anti-war movement." The Guardian, February 4, 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/feb/04/interviews.iraq
92 Ibid.
93 Jonathan Freedland, "Peaceniks lost the war but changed the shape of the battle." The Guardian, March 22, 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/22/iraq.antiwar
94 Ibid.
95 Quoted in Carmel Brown, "Weapon of mass democracy."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/26/politics.antiwar
96 Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. London: The Free Press, 2000.
97 Robert B. McFarland, "A Psychohistorical Comparison of the Pearl Harbor and September 11 Attacks." Journal of Psychohistory 31(1):75.
98 The Pentagon has many dozens of videos of the 9/11 Pentagon hit, yet has refused to release all but a few of these videos which are decidedly unconvincing as to what it was that hit the building.

"Last Man Out" Makes Shocking 9/11 Disclosure

“There was a huge explosion in the basement—several seconds before the plane hit the tower!”

Article by Richard Roepke:

William “Willy” Rodriguez is the 9/11 hero who helped save hundreds of lives, and the last person to escape alive from the World Trade Center (WTC) Towers.

Inasmuch as the thrust of this narrative is meant to be about the honor, nobleness, and benevolence of heroism, be forewarned.

In its effort to reveal the essential goodness that resides in the hearts of most human beings, it also inexorably exposes the vilest evil that festers in the minds of a few.

Once past the heroism, this story begins to slice through the slimy underbelly of a vile, pathological beast that controls our lives, and gives us glimpses of the innards of this creature that grins gleefully at our gullibility and simple innocence while trampling on our most basic human rights.

This story is a wake-up call to the citizens of planet Earth.

Decorated Hero

Employed at the WTC for 19 years as a maintenance worker, Rodriguez was responsible for the upkeep and safety of the stairwells within the 110-storey North Tower. On the morning of 9/11, Rodriguez was the only person at the WTC site with the master key to the North Tower stairwell doors. [NB: For fire containment purposes, only doors on every fourth level were normally left unlocked.]

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, Rodriguez personally rescued fifteen injured persons from the WTC by leading—often carrying—them to safety. Having evacuated the injured from the basement levels, he rushed back into the tower and led firefighters up the stairwells. Unlocking doors to various floors as they ascended, he aided in the successful evacuation of unknown hundreds of survivors.

At great risk to his own life, Rodriguez re-entered the structure three times, and even rescued people trapped between floors in elevator cars by lowering ladders down into shafts. Having helped lead everyone he could find to safety, he finally decided to exit the building.

Rodriguez is believed to be the last person to leave the collapsing North Tower alive.

He survived the building's collapse by diving beneath a fire truck, where he lay trapped, completely buried in a mountain of dust and rubble for over two hours. Barely able to breathe, he thought he would “die for sure” under that truck where he was literally entombed.

An agnostic, he prayed for the first time in his adult life. As he now unshakably believes, God does listen to heartfelt prayers, and miracles do happen.

A policeman who had been standing across the street had caught a fleeting glimpse of Rodriguez as he leapt under the truck a split second before the tower collapsed in an avalanche of debris.

It was this officer who later returned with help believing that the man under that truck might still be alive.

Rodriguez has been spiritually transformed by this experience and has embraced his faith again with deep reverence.

For his outstanding heroism during America’s desperate hour, William Rodriguez received a special commendation for valor from President George W. Bush at a special White House ceremony.

And that is the extent of the official story as it pertains to William Rodriguez’s involvement relating to rescue efforts following the 9/11 attacks.

But, as you shall see, his incredible heroism was but the tip of the 9/11 iceberg.

“Bombs! Bombs!”

Heroism and accolades aside, what is truly incredible about Rodriguez’s story is a shocking fact that has been concealed from public knowledge, and remains largely unknown to this day.

Rodriguez and a handful of co-workers who were down in the basement at the time of the attack, actually heard and felt huge explosions beneath their feet in the lower basement levels.

While this anomaly in itself should have been cause for serious investigation, it is the timing of these explosions that is extremely troubling:

They occurred several seconds before the first airplane impacted the tower.

The first of these explosions, which occurred about 7-8 seconds before the plane struck the tower was so powerful it literally threw Rodriguez upwards, clean off the floor, as parts of the false ceiling collapsed onto and around him.

Rodriguez heard and felt at least three explosions going off down in the basement levels within seconds of each other.

Absolute pandemonium broke out, with screams of “Bombs! Bombs!” rising above the din as terrified workers scattered in all directions, frantically seeking ways to escape.

[NB: There were a total of six basement levels. Level-2, immediately below Rodriguez’s position and the apparent location of the first explosion, was a “Mechanical Floor”—a restricted access area.]

But the “bombs” were by no means confined to the basement levels.

During his subsequent rescue efforts on the upper floors, Rodriguez claims he heard explosions going off “all over the building.”

Felipe David, a colleague, who was working at the far end of basement Level-1 across from Rodriguez, fell victim to the second explosion. David was walking towards a supply room when the entire wall suddenly exploded in front of him.

Burned beyond recognition, David managed to stagger towards Rodriguez when Willy took one look at the man and froze.

The skin on his face had almost completely peeled away exposing raw, pink flesh, and the burnt skin of his outstretched arms was hanging horrifically, “like sheets of loose cloth.”

David was the first casualty whose life Rodriguez saved by carrying him up to paramedics at street level, after which he returned to the basement in spite of police orders.

The 9/11 Commission Hearing

At the closed-door 9/11 Commission hearing, Rodriguez testified under oath that explosions were going off in the basement of the North Tower before the first plane impacted the building.

He explained in great detail to the Commissioners the numerous cases of serious injuries he had personally witnessed that were caused by these explosions.

He even provided the panel with a list of firsthand witnesses to the explosions, people who were ready to testify under oath.

One of the individuals Rodriguez recommended the panel summon was his friend and fellow employee, John Mongello.

Mongello was in the lobby of the neighboring South Tower when the first aircraft plowed into the North Tower where Rodriguez was located.

It would be another sixteen minutes before the second aircraft would rip into the one Mongello was in.

Yet, within a minute of the first plane hitting the North Tower, an elevator in the South Tower exploded to smithereens right before his eyes!

Mongello and others were literally blown backwards by the blast, as people—many, horribly burned—began to run willy-nilly shrieking in pain, shock, and sheer terror. Thick, black smoke could be seen billowing out of the now exposed elevator shaft, and the pungent smell of “gunpowder” was very evident.

Again, just as with the North Tower, this explosion occurred inside a building that had not yet been struck by a plane!

How could a plane crashing into the North Tower possibly have caused elevators in the South Tower to explode?

The esteemed 9/11 Commission never bothered to ask.

Worse, and to his utter disbelief, Rodriguez later discovered that his statements were completely omitted from the official record. As a result, not one word of this decorated hero’s startling testimony appeared in the much-ballyhooed 9/11 Commission Report, a document that continues to be touted as “the most detailed, definitive study of the events of 9/11.”

Furthermore, Rodriguez was told, quite emphatically, not to speak about the explosions to others until “further investigations” had been carried out. As the world knows, this has yet to happen.

As a result of much public pressure, the Commission’s investigation records were finally made public—seven years later, in January 2009.

Rodriguez was stunned to find that his testimony was among those marked "restricted,” and thus inaccessible to the public. His crucial evidence remains restricted to this day.

Waking Up

Naturally, Rodriguez was flabbergasted by the Commission’s clearly suspect actions, but anger at the subterfuge was soon eclipsed by his far deeper anxiety.

The bombs.

He was convinced beyond a doubt there were explosives planted within the Towers. The official explanation—jet fuel, which is simply kerosene—made no sense at all.

Besides, he had overheard many exchanges on firemen’s two-way radios that day that confirmed virtually all the jet fuel had burned off, and the few remaining scattered fires looked like they could easily be knocked out.

He was convinced the explosions he had seen, felt, and heard that day were not caused by kerosene.

They were caused by deliberately positioned explosives.

What cemented his belief and reinforced it even further was something he saw on television the next day:

WTC building 7 collapsing into its footprint like a house of cards. In a matter of seconds. [1]

He had walked by that building numerous times. WTC7 was a 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper that was located a few hundred feet away from the Towers, and a plane had not even struck it. But, just like the Twin Towers, it, too, it suddenly collapsed into its own footprint.

The first thought that struck him was, “That building was a fortress. How could it just have fallen like that?”

Having experienced the explosions in the North Tower firsthand, and then having seen footage of Building 7 collapse in freefall, there were no doubts whatsoever left in his mind:

All three buildings were purposely demolished with explosives.

[NB: In regard to WTC7, the 9/11 Commission Report, again, mentioned absolutely nothing about this 47-story skyscraper’s sudden and unbelievable collapse. Nor did it mention a word about the numerous eyewitness accounts of multiple explosions within that building. Not one word. It was completely ignored.]

As to who might have planted the explosives, he was at a loss. He couldn’t conceive how the alleged terrorists could have pulled it off; they couldn’t possibly have gained access to these buildings. He was convinced there had to have been other players involved—insiders.

He found such a prospect not only ominous in the extreme, but also disorienting and confusing on many levels. Suddenly, nothing seemed to make sense. Only one thought consumed him: Who were the killers?

Strange Recollections

Having worked at the WTC for close upon two decades, he obviously was very familiar with its general layout. The North Tower, in particular, was nigh a second home to him. An extremely affable fellow, Rodriguez had many friends in the WTC community. His days almost invariably began with breakfast with co-workers at the employees’ cafeteria at Windows On The World, the elegant restaurant on the 107th floor.

Especially following the 1993 bombing, security in the towers was extremely tight. That was glaringly obvious wherever he went. So how did the culprits manage to gain access?

He started to look into the security company in charge of the WTC complex, Securacom, and was more than a little surprised by the identities of two of its top executives.

President George W. Bush's brother Marvin Bush and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were both principals of the company. Further, he found this very same company was in charge of security at Dulles airport and United Airlines—both central to the attacks.

Brushing this curious connection aside as coincidence, he began to wonder about the practical difficulties the perpetrators would have encountered in gaining access to the buildings. He tried to recall having seen any suspicious people, or strange occurrences.

Pieces began to slowly come together.

He recalled seeing small teams of men in white “HazMat” coveralls busily moving about the building in the weeks preceding the attacks. Their presence didn’t strike him as particularly odd at the time, except for the fact that they used the stairwells almost exclusively and avoided using the service elevators. But he now began to wonder about these men’s real identities and true purpose.

One particularly bizarre incident snapped into focus, one that was so frightening he recalls it made his “hair stand up.”

A few weeks prior to the attacks, he was working in a stairwell on the 34th floor, which he knew to be completely vacant. Suddenly, he heard the strangest sound—one he’d never heard inside the tower in his nearly twenty years there.

It was a powerful, ominous, “rumbling” sound of something extremely heavy being rolled about. It sounded like a “huge metal dumpster on steel wheels, containing something extremely heavy—tons—being rolled around” a floor that he knew to have been totally empty—devoid even of furniture.

Yet, Rodriguez categorically maintains there was “someone” on that floor moving some monstrous contraption about.

Oddly, he admits to having been gripped by intense fear at the time, but he was having difficulty verbalizing to me the exact nature of his apprehension. While this didn’t strike me as having been a particularly inauspicious occurrence, it was clear he had been deeply affected by it. He immediately reported the incident to the main office, but was reassured it was a vacant floor.

Rodriguez was emphatic that he felt so frightened by this incident he didn’t dare open the door to look inside because he literally feared for his life.

He intuitively sensed grave danger behind that door, and did his best to avoid the 34th floor thereafter.

[NB: It is worth considering that long-term occupancy (and thus control) of a whole floor would have granted occupants virtually unlimited and unobstructed access from all sides to the entire 47-column central core of the tower via the elevator shafts. By sequentially disabling individual elevators for ‘servicing,’ the occupants would have had clear access to the entire 1,350-ft central load-bearing core—from the topmost floor right down the 6th level basement sitting on bedrock.]

Willy does not strike me as a man who can be frightened very easily, and this one anecdote has always intrigued me. The emotions I saw in his eyes, and his body language as he was describing the event were real. I was left with no doubt that what he experienced that day was extremely frightening and deeply impressionable.

Man on a Mission

I first met Willy in 2004 when he was touring the country with millionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter. Walter had recently awoken to 9/11 truth, and was an indomitable firebrand.

Frenziedly mass-producing DVDs, organizing public events and seminars, and doing everything he possibly could to get the message out to the world, he was a one-man tour de force on his own mission of truth.

Such was his fervor, he once even stood in lone protest outside the White House bearing a placard that read, “9/11 was an inside job.” I recall being greatly impressed by the spectacle of such a wealthy, successful man willingly facing scorn and ridicule by going that far out on a limb in the service of a cause as incendiary as 9/11. Quite a guy, Jimmy.

Walter, seeing in Rodriguez the clear mark of authenticity, drive, and commitment, soon took Willy under his wing. Once the two teamed up, Rodriguez was telling his extraordinary story at various public gatherings that Walter was helping organize.

Willy had been “advised” by officials to keep to himself his “different” views on the events of that day, but that wasn’t about to stop him. His deeply traumatic experience and the shocking anomalies he had witnessed simply would not allow him to keep from asking the kind of questions most found exceedingly “uncomfortable”—even outrageously ‘unpatriotic.’

Dalliance with Politics

The White House ceremony had all but guaranteed his meteoric rise to stardom as a national hero. However, his newfound celebrity status would soon have its concomitant obligations.

More than a few high-ranking officials had advised him of the “sensitivity” of the times, and told him in no uncertain terms that it would be unwise for him to pursue his disquieting inquiries into “unfounded theories.”

It was proving to be “very embarrassing.”

Ironically, at the same time, there was also tremendous support and encouragement being lavished by these very same officials, soliciting his participation on an altogether different agenda: To promote “patriotic unity” and emphasize to the nation the dire need for America to strike back hard at the ‘enemy.’

And things actually got rather intoxicating for a while.

Rodriguez the hero was soon inveigled with promises of political office in the Hispanic community, and carrots of all kinds were dangled before him.

He found the attempts to win him over by various Republican power-players to be almost overwhelming. The heady publicity had suddenly thrust him on the national stage, and he was deemed by Party strategists to be the ideal Republican candidate to woo the more than 30 million Hispanic voters in the country.

Charismatic, articulate, good-looking, fluently bi-lingual and a national hero to boot, he was a natural—the perfect political candidate.

Before joining the WTC staff, Rodriguez had worked for ten years as an aide to New York Governor Mario Cuomo, helping organize press conferences for high-level policy-making events, so he even had the basic political training already under his belt. [He also possessed stage panache to boot. An avid amateur magician, he had worked in his younger days as an assistant to The Amazing Randi.]

The Republican Party even made arrangements to send him to train for political office, and offered Rodriguez millions of dollars in campaign financing to run on the national Hispanic platform. For a brief while he was a rising star with stellar prospects.

But this titillating new potential career also carried with it a huge price—one, he soon discovered, that was in tension with his probity, and sense of righteousness and duty.

It didn’t take him long to decide. He refused to be seduced into concealing a truth he believed the world absolutely needed to know.

There was no doubt in Rodriguez’s mind that the official narrative re 9/11 was far from true. He believed it was his patriotic duty to alert his fellow Americans to what actually happened that terrible day. “I had to choose whether to tell the truth, or play their game,” he told me. “I couldn’t get myself to play their game.”

Tempting as the alternatives were, the forces of truth had prevailed.

Celebrity No More

That pivotal decision caused all Republican encouragement and offers of political support to evaporate.

The decorated 9/11 hero was now quite suddenly not only a Party pariah, but also persona non grata in the halls of high power.

By taking his courageous stand, Rodriguez had unwittingly assumed a very dangerous role, one that would pose a direct threat to powers that lay behind the veneer of party politics.

He had just signed his own political death warrant.

Naturally, the muzzled media didn’t appear willing to report any of what Rodriguez had to say. As always, they felt obliged to promote whatever the propaganda ministry wanted the masses to believe.

It takes enormous courage to go against such opposition, but that’s the kind of man Willy is. He says he owes it to his many friends—more than two hundred of them—who were butchered that day by an evil shadowy group in pursuit of some diabolical geopolitical agenda.

Shocked, inconsolable and deeply disturbed to this day, he continues his campaign with extraordinary energy and an admirable sense of purpose.

When I suggested it might be time for him to throttle back a notch, he responded, “I can’t. I am driven because I have a need to find out who the real killers are. The alleged Arab hijackers couldn’t possibly have rigged all those explosives. No way.”

The Mission Goes Global

Jimmy Walter wasted no time financing a “9/11 Truth World Tour” to raise awareness about the 9/11 fraud by first taking the message across America and later around the world.

And money was no object. Not one to approach such a grand and noble undertaking with anything less that total commitment, Walter famously offered a $1 million cash reward to any engineer or scientist in the world who could prove, in an academic technical paper, that the three towers could have collapsed the way they did without explosives.

Despite massive national publicity—the million-dollar challenge was even sent to the engineering faculties of over 100 universities, as well as a host of major architectural and structural engineering firms—there were no takers.

None. Zero. The prize remains unclaimed to this day. [But is this surprising? How does one prove water isn’t wet?]

Walter’s group was comprised of a team of world-class experts: architects, engineers, pilots, firefighters, metallurgists, chemists, and psychologists, among others [2]. The group made a slew of public presentations in major cities across the US before moving on to Europe, and later, Venezuela, Singapore, Japan and elsewhere speaking to packed audiences everywhere they traveled.

Walter and Rodriguez even made private presentations to former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. They were surprised to find both these leaders were more than a little knowledgeable about the cover-up.

Willy told me that the home of Nicolas Maduro, president of the Venezuelan Assembly, was brimming with books, videos and documents about the 9/11 cover-up. Maduro, Venezuela's top legislator, intoned that he was ready to create an international investigative committee to look into the "international crime scene" that is 9/11, and that this would be structured via Chavez's government.

Walter and Rodriguez also appeared on every major Venezuelan television and radio station, both private and state-owned, and gave presentations to several universities. They were also scheduled to appear on Chavez's weekly broadcast 'Alo Presidente', but this was canceled at the last minute for unspecified reasons.

And things evidently got quite dicey during their trip. Rodriguez discovered that undercover FBI agents on the ground in Venezuela had asked the hotel where he and Walter were staying to turn over a list of names of residents. On hearing this, the Venezuelan National Assembly provided both men armed military protection for the entirety of their trip.

A Sudden Serious Setback

All of these valiant efforts by these two incredibly courageous men eventually amounted to naught. Quite unexpectedly, and inexplicably, all the energy, enthusiasm and momentum they had amassed suddenly appeared to have hit a brick wall.

They were informed, rather sheepishly by cohorts of the two leaders, that 9/11 was simply too big an issue to “rush into,” and that it would be advisable to postpone further action to allow time for “more research.”

Such is the awesome fear-inspiring power and global reach of the amorphous perpetrators of this monstrous crime.

Eventually, in utter frustration at his inability to make any real headway after over three years of tireless effort and colossal expense, and hampered by poor health, Jimmy Walter finally decided to call it a day.

That little adventure had cost Walter over $6 million of his personal money.

Jimmy’s parting words to me, in 2007, embodied a truth that continues to resonate and gain currency as the years roll by:

“Trying to outdo the mainstream media by throwing a few million bucks around is like trying to outshine the sun with a flashgun.”

It’s hardly surprising you’ve heard nothing about these men’s heroic initiatives on the local evening “news”—little more than bread and circuses, artfully packaged and insidiously seeded for consumption by the gullible, clueless masses.

Witnesses Begin to Drop Dead

It wasn’t long afterwards that Rodriguez got his next wake-up call. Kenny Johanneman, another of Willy’s close friends and former WTC colleague, had also been in the basement with him when the bombs were going off.

Willy, now working on behalf of the community of Hispanic victims, survivors and their families, had decided to contact everyone he knew who had been present at the WTC that day so he could record their personal experiences on video.

During a lengthy interview, Johanneman recounted his experience in great detail, holding back nothing. Johanneman, who had made it his personal mission to tell everyone he knew—and anyone else who’d listen—that he had seen “floors blow up in the basement before the plane hit,” appeared extremely eager (almost nervously so, Willy now recalls) to get his story on tape.

Three days after the interview, Rodriguez received the bad news.

Kenny Johanneman had suddenly “committed suicide.” Gunshot to the head.

This is frighteningly reminiscent of Barry Jennings, the former New York Housing Authority Emergency Coordinator and key 9/11 witness who suddenly died of unknown causes days before the release of NIST’s “amended” report on the collapse of WTC7.

Jennings is on record [3] stating, unequivocally and emphatically regarding Building 7, that “explosions were going off all over the place”—while the Twin Towers were still standing!

Jennings also stated during an interview that he was “stepping over bodies” in the main lobby of WTC7 as he was being led out by firemen. The lobby, he testified on video, “looked like a bomb had gone off inside it.”

Not only had no aircraft hit this building, the Twin Towers were still standing.

[NB: This is virtually identical to John Mongello’s testimony about elevators exploding in the South Tower before a plane even hit the building.]

Mr. Jennings, too, suffered a sudden and mysterious death at age 53.

Dylan Avery, a documentary producer, commissioned a private detective to investigate Jennings’ suspicious death (and the subsequent disappearance of his wife and two children). Within days the man returned Avery’s’s check to him and, giving no reason, refused to continue with the case.

The latest casualty in the long line of 9/11 expert witnesses to die under suspicious circumstances was Dutch demolition expert Danny Jawenko, president of Exposieve Demolitie BV, a leading Dutch controlled demolition company.

Having watched a video of WTC Building 7 suddenly fall at freefall speed, Mr. Jawenko had the courage to stand up and authoritatively assert [4] that he was “absolutely positive” WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

On July 18, 2011, while driving home alone in his own car, Mr. Jawenko’s vehicle suddenly accelerated, swerved off the road and crashed into a tree at high speed.

Danny Jawenko was killed instantly.

The Mission Ratchets Up

During Rodriguez’s long crusade, he also contacted the FBI, but they never followed up on his reports. [It’s almost certain they did, but were probably allowed to take it only so far.] The same holds true with the mainstream media.

CNN spent a day interviewing Rodriguez at his home, but when it was broadcast the following day it had been thoroughly edited: they glamorized the heroic rescues and the White House tamasha, of course, but wholly excised anything pertaining to the explosions. It was a total whitewash.

Some reporters have subtly warned Rodriguez to keep quiet, as his outspokenness could jeopardize his life. “You don’t know whom you’re dealing with,” one major-network insider told him. But Willy had already defiantly looked death in the face and will probably continue to tell his story, damn the torpedoes.

He says he is speaking for his friends who were forever rendered speechless, and adds, “I am living on borrowed time; I probably should be dead anyway.”

It’s probably this do-or-die attitude that has imbued Rodriguez with the guts to take his dauntless campaign as far as he has.

How gutsy is he, and how far is he willing to go?

In 2004 Rodriguez was the lead plaintiff in a RICO lawsuit filed against President George W. Bush and 155 of his henchmen, accusing them of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes.

This is hardly the behavior of a man afraid of getting whacked.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for a sensational courthouse drama with Dubya sweating it out in the hot seat. The court dismissed Rodriguez's claims against the USA, DHS, and FEMA, and gave Rodriguez until July 7, 2006 to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed with respect to the other 153 defendants. Due to a falling out with his attorney Rodriguez failed to do so, and the court dismissed the case.

But he’d be the first to tell you this was never about winning.

It was about getting the public to wake up to the facts about 9/11—the single most heinous crime and unconscionable fraud ever foisted on the inhabitants of this planet.

Preparing For The 10th Anniversary

The 9/11 Truth movement is growing almost exponentially, with literally hundreds of groups active worldwide, and more blossoming by the day.

But this took a few years to get going.

So utterly overwhelming was the initial mainstream propaganda barrage, and so raw were people’s emotions and sensitivities in the aftermath of the attacks, those who were quick to see through the fraud couldn’t even begin to think of organizing a handful of local activists, let alone a worldwide network.

Gradually—and thanks almost entirely to the Internet—lines of communication began to open across the country and around the world, helping activists to organize, communicate, build cohesion, and spread the word to the millions still asleep.

It was only a matter of time before people would become aware of the mountains of shockingly obvious evidence that’s freely available online—such as WTC7 in freefall. Common sense would then inevitably kick in and take over, helping them to pierce the veil of the official myth on their own. There is, after all, a limit to denial.

As a result of the steadfast efforts of thousand of dedicated activists, what began as a trickle is now fast reaching torrential proportions.

Reaching critical mass is no longer a distant hope. Especially given the millions waking up around the world to 9/11’s offspring—the bogus ‘war on terror’, DHS, the militarized police state, the monumental Bankster fraud—critical mass re 9/11 is now imminent, and an absolute certainty.

Thousands of activists around the world are helping spread the 9/11 message via public presentations, free DVDs, and even huge highway billboards.

All too aware of the astonishing rise in public awareness, desperate operations are currently afoot by the ‘powers that be’ to counter this worrisome trend.

Major Hollywood stars—including Robert DeNiro—have been signed up to read the fairytale script pushing the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory.’ I.e., how nineteen clueless Arabs who, without tickets or boarding passes, climbed aboard four airliners, hijacked the craft using little box-cutters, and then brilliantly outwitted the most formidable military force on the planet and its entire multi-trillion-dollar defense apparatus for almost two hours—all without a single fighter interceptor in the fearsome American arsenal so much as turning a wheel for the entire duration.

This upcoming mass-media pageant, of course, will be further bolstered by the government’s openly proclaimed—and ongoing—assault on 9/11 “conspiracy” groups.

Obama’s regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, has officially initiated a nakedly aggressive program of “cognitive infiltration,’ an insidious initiative where government agent provocateurs have been ordered to covertly penetrate 9/11 truth movements and attempt to structurally disable these organizations from within by sowing disinformation.

One can only wonder why this kind of deep sabotage would be necessary—unless these “conspiracy nuts” now poses a real and present danger to the powers that be.

But, take heart, dear reader: although truth lives a wretched life, it outlives a lie every time.

Every time.

Besides, it would take a lot more than a covert program of “cognitive infiltration”’ to dismantle 9/11 truth—that would first require rewriting the laws of physics.

On the side of Truth, we have literally thousands of professional architects, engineers, firefighters, pilots, scientists, and other similar groups comprised of professionals with impeccable credentials who are planning their own public relations initiatives.

But, in a country where 78% of its citizens get 92% of their news from television, these groups have their work cut out for them.

Despite the challenges that lie ahead, I cannot bring myself to agree with Jimmy Walter’s assessment that this would be an undertaking tantamount to “trying to outshine the sun with a flashgun.”

Rather, I would prefer to invoke the wisdom of Victor Hugo:

“No army can stop an idea whose time has come.”

The Power Of One

Meanwhile, there is one brave man packing a ‘flashgun’ who’s working wonders on his own. And he dismisses defeat as an impossibility.

I was elated to discover that Willy Rodriguez’s undiminished efforts are still in full swing, and about to reap rich rewards.

The man is on fire. He’s been reeling off interviews with major media outlets around the world at a ferocious rate, gearing up for a full-blown one-man 10th anniversary assault on the Dark Force.

Rodriguez recently mentioned some of the interviews he already has in the bag:

Yomiuri Shinbun (Japan), Arbitron (worldwide), Shanghai Morning Post (China), Express News (Pakistan), Global National News (Canada), Telemondo (Latin America), Le Point (France), RT (Russia), Radio Televicion Espanola (Spain), Reuters, and CNN (again). There are many more in the works that will be ready by 9/11/12.

[NB: Willy was quick to mention he’d learnt a bitter lesson from his last encounter with CNN—now, he rattles off his responses as seamlessly as possible to deny cutting-room butchers their “edit points!”]

Rodriguez is also polishing up a brilliant new documentary all his own, “From The Rubble,” which will also be released in time for the 10th anniversary. I watched the raw version last evening in its entirety.

It’s a brilliant bit of work—profoundly emotive, incredibly detailed, fact-filled and chockablock with riveting interviews with WTC employees, firemen, police officers, paramedics and other first-responders. These are all rescuers who were there, hands-on, in the thick of it, and witnessed the entire tragedy firsthand.

Even in its current rough state, I can unreservedly state it’s the most compelling 9/11 documentary I’ve seen to date.

Time To Give It Our All

Given the appalling trail of deaths of 9/11 witnesses over the past ten years, it would make sense that the best way to ensure the safety of surviving key witnesses like Rodriguez would, ironically, be for these individuals to continue to stay planted in the public spotlight.

Considering the serious threat these brave souls pose to the criminals at large, this might be the only strategy that could offer them a modicum of safety.

The more people who know about this brave man, and the many other men and women like him, the greater the chances of thwarting their ‘suicides’ or ‘heart attacks.’

On behalf of every one in the 9/11 Truth movement; in memory of the three thousand Americans who perished needlessly on that tragic day; and the million-plus innocents who have been slaughtered (and continue to be massacred) in distant lands on account of this fiendish fraud; it would be fitting, proper, and necessary to conclude with a message to all those who have awoken to The Big Lie, yet choose to do nothing:

Silence is complicity.

Notes:

[1] www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A (Building 7)

[2] www.ae911truth.org/ (Architects & Engineers)
patriotsquestion911.com/ (Military Leaders)
pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/ (Pilots)
firefightersfor911truth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4282 (Firefighters)
scientistsfor911truth.org/ (Scientists)

[3] www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI (Barry Jennings Interview)

[4] www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMhUTrBODtA {Danny Jawenko Interview)

SOURCE: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/931/331/Exclusive:_Last_Man_Out_Makes_Shocking_9_11_Disclosure.html=

GERMAN VIDEO: Inside 9/11 - Hijacking the air defense

This film contains a short summary of the publicly available - but still widely unnoticed - evidence for a supposed attempt to obstruct the air defense on September 11th, 2001.

"Israeli Art Students" Sub-Contracted by the CIA?

From a Post by Jon Gold



"Years ago, I took the liberty of transcribing the Chapter from Paul Thompson's "The Terror Timeline" about the Israeli Art Students.

It's important to note that a very recent news report came out about more Israeli Art Students in America.

I think this story is about Israel's possible foreknowledge of the attacks, and the question of whether or not their foreknowledge was shared with the U.S., or used in any way. I believe Justin Raimondo suggested they were sub-contracted by the CIA."

BBC Explains U.S. Created the Terrorist "Al Qaeda" Network

9/11 Truckload of Explosives Found Under George Washington Bridge

What happened to this story?

Conversation with Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader

AE911Truth's EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW - Experts Speak Out!



Tom Sullivan - Former Explosives Loader for Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI)
Tom discusses the complex process of preparing a building for controlled demolition and sites the reasons why WTC building 7 had to have been a controlled demolition.

Ron Paul is No Friend of 9/11 Truth

9/11 Continues to Make People Crazy - and Confused

But 9/11 Truth is not a joke.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

1,460 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 11,447 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.

The petition is open to everyone.

The "Official Government Story" of 9/11

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah.

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes. And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defense system the slip.

Unfazed by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet User's Manual" in the rental car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE towers to collapse completely.

Then our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two… and the world watches in awe as three steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall acceleration, for the first time in history.

Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground… only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI.

Meanwhile down in Washington…Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-Man Cessna Flying School, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing 707. Instead of flying straight down easily into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little - executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world’s most heavily defended building.

Hanjour does this all without a single shot being fired at him or ruining the nicely mowed lawn… and all at a speed just too fast to capture on any of the 80+ video cameras surrounding the Pentagon that day.

Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania, desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until that technology is developed several years later.

Following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shanksville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage, luggage or occupants… except for a single, standard issue, Muslim Terrorist's Bandana.

Further south in Florida, President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief, continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children as he shrugs off the obvious possibility that his life (and those around him) could be in imminent danger.

Meanwhile back in New York, World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the WTC buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously.

While back in Washington, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ catalyzing event they so desired in order to begin new wars and pursue their agenda of world domination.

And finally, ignoring reports of their own deaths, at least seven of the nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports. Our own media disregards this because they know that all suicide hijackers are liars.

And there you have it. It's ALL in the "Official 9/11 Commission Report" that everyone believes - but evidently doesn't bother to read.

* Adapted from the story by "AWAKEincleveland."

This is an Orange - A Little Educational Video About Building #7

A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled demolition.

A 9/11 Victim's Family Member (& Crime Scene Investigator) Asks for Help

9/11 Victim Family Member - and Crime Scene Investigator - Josef Princiotta describes some of the reasons that the official story of the events of 9/11 cannot be accepted.



For more information on Mr. Princiotta and his work, please visit his website here.

"To identify the perpetrator, first know the crime."
Josef Princiotta, Forensic Communicator

10 ways I got sucked into buying the 9/11 cover story

By Craig McKee

On Sept. 11, 2001, I was part of the majority. I believed that Osama bin Laden had led a group of Islamic fundamentalists to crash planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.



There were many things that made me accept this, but mostly it was because I believed what I saw on TV. Sure I was cynical about the media then, but to believe that they got it so wrong would be to believe they were complicit in the cover-up.

I believed that the attacks – while reprehensible – were a logical result of America’s imperialist policies around the world. It was the typical “liberal” reaction, which unfortunately still dominates how the left sees 9/11. We were all so sure that Uncle Sam was screwing everyone that the idea that someone would want revenge seemed reasonable – even inevitable.

This made me and people who agreed with me valuable dupes for the real criminals. We helped establish our view as the “left” end of the spectrum of 9/11 opinion. The “right” believed Bush’s claim that the “evil-doers” had attacked America because they hated our way of life.

Despite being fooled about 9/11, there were some things that made me immediately suspicious that morning. The main one was the incredible failure of the U.S. military to intercept any of the planes. I just couldn’t buy this. And I couldn’t figure out why no one in the media saw this as a red flag.

But even with that doubt, I didn’t seriously doubt the official story. I may have believed there were inexplicable examples of incompetence, but I didn’t put it all together. For one thing, I was still being influenced primarily by the mainstream media, which were all fully behind the bin Laden story.

In a way, it’s surprising to me I could be so naive. I’d spent much of my youth reading every book I could find about the Kennedy assassination, the Bay of Pigs, and about U.S. imperialism in Central America and elsewhere. I believed the CIA was a criminal organization, as I do now. If anyone should have seen through the “official government conspiracy theory” about 9/11, it should have been someone like me.

But the lie was so massive I couldn’t see it.

As I came to realize later, there were individual elements of the official story that were positively essential for maintaining the fake terrorist scenario. With the absence of any real journalism from the mainstream press, these factors kept my doubts from growing and kept me from seeing the big picture:

The cell phone calls: If passengers had called relatives and told them hijackings were happening, then how could it not be true? I now believe that these calls were faked. The technology exists to do it. The technology to make cell phone calls from airliners flying at 30,000+ feet at 500 miles per hour did not exist in 2001. The media failed to examine this seriously.

The Bin Laden confession tapes: Didn’t most of us take it for granted that bin Laden had taken responsibility? It turns out that there’s only video tape that has him doing so, and a close look at bin Laden’s face in that video reveals that it’s not him! Check this out for yourself. Again, the media ignored this.

The lack of questioning by the political left: The fact that there was a version of the story that I could be comfortable with – that the attacks were revenge for U.S. misdeeds – was enough to satisfy me. And the support for this view from people I admired, like Noam Chomsky, cemented the deal.

Evidence allegedly found in Mohamed Atta’s trunk: This was absolutely critical to the official story. It included a letter saying he planned to martyr himself, a Saudi passport, an international driver’s license, instructional videos teaching how to fly a Boeing airliner, and an Islamic prayer book. I never thought to question how all this incriminating evidence was so easily found. Why didn’t it make it on to the plane? Classic staged evidence. And when it came out that the hijackers had been using prostitutes and drinking heavily before Sept. 11, the whole “fundamentalist” angle crumbled.

The Pentagon was hit in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses: Obviously it was Flight 77, right? To fake this was inconceivable to me. Now the idea that an airliner hit that building is inconceivable. Media ignored the overwhelming evidence that evidence was staged and explosives were placed in the building.

It would have been too difficult to rig the towers for demolition: How, exactly, do you place explosives throughout a 110-storey office tower with no one noticing? That just seemed crazy. Now it’s the only thing that makes any sense. With no help from the media, I was unaware of the dozens of witnesses who reported massive explosions in the basements of the World Trade Center. And I was not aware that security for the buildings was being handled by a firm very closely linked to the Bush family.

I had never heard of Building 7: When a friend told me in 2007 that a third skyscraper had collapsed in New York on 9/11, I almost didn’t believe him. This revelation, more than any other, shattered by assumptions about 9/11. The facts so obviously pointed to controlled demolition that I began to doubt everything else.

Reports of government incompetence: Any media inquiry into how the attacks could have happened focused on whether the system broke down and whether the military failed to react properly. It never looked at government complicity. Neither did I.

The government would never go that far: Most people believe this still. They can’t conceive of their own government showing such disregard for human life. Especially the lives of American citizens. But if they were to look at past examples of “false-flag” operations, they might change their minds. Just looking at the plans for Operation Northwoods, a 9/11-style fraud to create a pretext to invade Cuba, would open a lot of people’s minds.

It was too big to keep secret: All it would take would be one person to spill the beans, right? This one is SO wrong. People talk all the time; if the media isn’t reporting it, how does the public find out? Howard Hunt confessed to helping kill Kennedy but this was virtually ignored by the media. David Schippers, a Washington insider who prosecuted Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial, says he was told about the entire 9/11 plot in advance by FBI agents. How much attention did this get?

Selling the official story doesn’t require that it be airtight because most people aren’t looking that closely. And with the media parroting the official line, it takes real effort for the average person to learn the truth.

Most of us won’t make the effort. Or we don’t want to know.

New WTC 7 Video Indicates Explosion at Penthouse Before Collapse

You can clearly hear the sound of an explosion at the 0:11 mark in this video. Watch the East Penthouse collapse just before the entire building goes into near free-fall collapse.

COINTELPRO 101 - The Sabotage of Legitimate Dissent

Despite the abundance of silly & schmaltzy scary music, this is an excellent overview of Cointelpro and how it affects the difficulties of telling and spreading the truth about 9/11.



Here are some basic tips for spotting and side-stepping those paid government web-goons: