Part 2 of 4
[Dr. David Ray Griffin, Author of "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"] We were also told that the bodies were able to be identified, either by their fingerprints, or by the DNA. So what kind of fire can vaporize aluminum and tempered steel, and yet leave human bodies intact?
[From "In Plane Site" by David vonKleist] On April 15, 2004, we received a news release that alerted us to a website that was entitled http://www.letsroll911.org
Phil Jayhan, the webmaster for this website, had taken the video clip that you've just seen, and slowed them down ...
and examined them frame by frame.
And what he found was astounding.
There are several different anomalies that need to be examined and questioned.
Now let's take a look at this in slow motion.
As the plane approaches the South Tower, notice carefully on the belly of the plane, there appears to be something attached ...
and just as it hits the building, there's a flash.
First of all, what is attached to the bottom of the plane that hit the South Tower?
And second of all, what is that brief flash that occurs just as the plane makes impact?
Let's take another look in super slow motion.
Now let's take another good hard look at this video footage. As the plane approaches, it is irrefutable that there is something attached to the bottom of this plane, and a distinct flash as it makes contact. Now, there are some that would say that this is a trick of light, a reflection. Well, let's keep in mind that if you hold a mirror in your hand, and reflect the sun's rays, that reflection only goes where you aim that reflection. So a reflection should only be seen from one particular angle.
Let's take a look at this event from another angle.
And now let's take a look at it again from a third angle.
And now let's take a look at it one more time from a fourth angle.
Ladies and gentlemen, you've just seen a very interesting event indeed. Not recorded by one, but recorded by four different cameras from four different angles. There can be no doubt that this is not the result of a reflection of any sort. Admittedly, what we have seen so far in this presentation is disturbing, to say the least. To find that we were not necessarily told the truth about what happened at the Pentagon on September 11th, and now, according to the clips you've just seen, and the testimony that you've just heard, there was a whole lot more to the story when Flight 175 hit the South Tower.
Well, I needed more information. I needed more evidence that showed there was something else going on on September 11th. And the only way to get more information was to go to the first plane, Flight 11, the American airliner, that hit the North Tower.
The French filmmakers, the Naudet Brothers, were in New York City doing a documentary about the New York City firefighters. And this clip is the only known footage of the first plane hitting the first tower.
Let's take another look at this videoclip, this time in slow motion.
You'll notice that as the plane approaches the tower, first of all, we're too far away to get a clear shot in any detail of the plane. So therefore, it's hard to make out whether or not there was anything attached to the bottom of this plane as was the case with Flight 175.
However, there is another similarity. Just as the plane makes impact there is a flash.
Let's look at it again, and keep in mind that as we watch this plane make impact, this flash occurs just before the plane crashes into the North Tower.
This time as we watch this clip, note the shadow rising from the lower right of the Trade Center tower, and keep in mind that the shadow won't reach the impact point before the plane and vice-versa.
This is very important, because the flash occurs before the shadow and the plane meet.
This time, let's look at this clip in reverse. You'll notice that as the plane slowly backs out of the North Tower, it has cleared the tower, and then the flash occurs ...
indicating that the flash occurred before the plane made impact on the North Tower. One more time, this videoclip showing the flash as the plane hit the North Tower.
Let's take another look at the clips that we showed you, and the testimony that was given for the plane hitting the tower.
[Man] "That was not American Airlines. That was not American Airlines."
[CNN LIVE, FLASH, OTHER WTC TOWER COLLAPSES] The entire top of the building just blew up.
[CNN LIVE, BREAKING NEWS, ATTACKS AGAINST TARGETS IN NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON] A second explosion.
[CNN BREAKING NEWS, MOMENTS AGO] And another explosion.
[CNN LIVE, AMERICA UNDER ATTACK, PART OF THE PENTAGON HAS COLLAPSED] We have a report now of a fourth explosion at the Trade Center.
[COURTESY WUSA] There has just been a huge explosion.
[CNN BREAKING NEWS, ATTACKS AGAINST TARGETS IN NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON] It almost looks like one of those implosions of buildings that you see ...
[LIVE WCBS, FOX NEWS ALERT, ONE TOWER OF WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSES] You heard a very loud blast explosion. Not clear now is why this explosion took place.
[Reporter, Live, Fox News Alert: Planes Crash Into Pentagon, Both World Trade Towers] Do you know if it was an explosion, or if it was a building collapse?
[Policeman] To me it sounded like an explosion. But it was a huge explosion.
[Man] I saw the two buildings. I think it was a bomb, because there were two of them.
[Reporter, Live, Fox News Alert: One Tower of World Trade Center Collapses] This is actually, we believe, debris from one of the planes that hit one of the towers of the World Trade Center.
The FBI is here. As you can see, they have roped this area off
They were taking photographs, and securing this area, just prior to that huge explosion that we all heard and felt.
[Firefighter] We made it at least two blocks, and we started running. Floor by floor, it started bopping out.
[Fireman 2] It was as if they had detonated, as if they had planned to take down a building: BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM.
[Ed Begley, Jr., Host] Big round of applause for Mr. Jeff King.
[Jeff King, MIT Engineer/Research Scientist.] Thank you. I studied physics at M.I.T. I did electrical engineering for about eight years. I have had quite a bit of practical engineering experience. When I first saw the collapses, I was absolutely convinced that they were not spontaneous. One of the first things that I did was to speak with one of my patients, who is a retired Army Corps of Engineers fellow, who's done a lot of demolition and construction.
I showed him some of the public source videos which are available, and he immediately pointed out that there were squibs, which represent little puffs of smoke, essentially, coming out of the buildings initially ...
which were clearly a sign of controlled demolition.
He had no opinions beyond that. But he said, without doubt, that it was controlled demolition.
That sort of set me on the path of continuing to examine it, and trying to gather as much evidence as I could. And the question I pose, "What don't we know and why don't we know it?," is sort of addressing the fact that at this point, we still do not really have a meaningful explanation for what happened to the buildings.
We have had several studies at this point, which I will go into, in trying to determine a plausible scenario for the collapse.
As of this point, none of them have presented us with anything that I think could reasonably be called a convincing and detailed account of why the collapses occurred.
And the question that's been addressed previously, the enormous destruction of physical evidence, as Chris was saying, the site was scrubbed very thoroughly.
Out of the entire mass of the buildings that were destroyed, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, who are now doing the ongoing investigation, managed to save about 240 pieces out of the entire building.
All of the rest of it was basically recycled.
The obvious question is, "What does it mean that there was a controlled demolition?" At the simplest level, it means that someone had a lot of access to buildings over a long enough period of time to set this up.
It implies, as many other things have tonight, that people who had effective control of the site, had an interest in having it scrubbed, and making sure that no information was available, so forensic reconstruction couldn't be done.
Even in much smaller catastrophes, we typically will reconstruct things as completely as possible.
For example, TWA Flight 800, pieces were dredged off from the bottom of the sea, and reconstruction was done to allow a detailed analysis.
In this case, the exact opposite was done.
The first report that was really issued on this was issued by FEMA, in collaboration with the American Society of Civil Engineers ...
which was basically a volunteer team from ASCE that had very limited access to the site.
A lot of the pieces that they were able to retrieve, were retrieved by going to landfills, and trying to find interesting pieces before they were disposed of. [FACT: Only $600,000 Spent Investigating WTC vs. $40,000,000 to Investigate Clinton]
The initial FEMA report basically acknowledged that the kerosene would have burned off very quickly.
What wasn't destroyed in the initial fireball would have been consumed fairly rapidly, and would have only really served as ignition for the rest of the material. And the second point being that the fuel here really was strictly office contents, if you think of a modern office, with copying machines, computers,
And as has been previously mentioned, the smoke, particularly from building 2, just before it collapsed, was very black looking.
This is generally an indication of an inefficient fire, in which there is not enough oxygen for the amount of fuel. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Black Smoke Means Cool, Oxygen-Poor Fire]
These types of fires typically burn very cool. They are not hot flames, like blow torches.
The cores themselves, basically, if you've seen diagrams of the building, there's a large, central rectangle in each of the towers that contain 47 columns, and these columns basically were the primary structural support of the building.
They were given the role of supporting the whole gravitational load of the building. Since they were so strong, it would be reasonable to think they would have withstood, at least to some extent, the collapse.
But in fact, as we see after the buildings's collapse, there was basically only little stubs of these things standing up a floor or two above the ground level. [Core Should Not Have Collapsed]
[WTC Collapse Forensics: No Fuel In Core]
The cores did not have much in them that would burn.
The cores basically were dedicated to things like elevator shafts, utility shafts, stairways. So you have drywall material; you have a little bit of carpeting; you don't really have any flammable material in the core itself [WTC Collapse Forensics: Core Designed to Prevent Chimney Effect]
The core was specifically designed so it could not function as a chimney. They did not want, in case of a fire, for the fire to be able to travel through the elevators or for air to come in through the elevators. [Cores Were Hermetically Sealed to Stop Fire]
So they were designed with what this architect, Aaron Swarovski I believe it was, referred to as a hermetically sealed system. [As Far As We Know ... It Worked]
There were fire shutters that were designed to close off the core in an event like this, and those, as far as we know, functioned properly. Which means that there was a very limited amount of oxygen available. [NOVA Documentary: Animations Are Imaginary, Not Proof of Anything]
Okay, as far as the issue of what failed and how, some of the initial suggestions -- and these showed up in the NOVA documentary, which is a good example of what I like to call proof by computer animation. [Core Columns Left Out to Make Pancake Theory Look Plausible]
[WTC Collapse Forensics: Truss Failure Theory]
Thomas Egar, who was a materials scientist, but not a structural engineer, who became a spokesman for these documentaries, indicated that the floors had somehow failed, the trusses supporting the floors had failed. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Jim Hoffman Debunks Pancake Theory]
This was the theory that was put forward initially in the initial FEMA report. Subsequently, there have been basically complete contradictions of that. Jim Hoffman has done quite a bit of research that is available on the Web concerning the problems with this idea that the floors would have simply fallen. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Weidlinger & Associates Also Debunk Pancake Theory]
There was a study done by Weidlinger & Associates -- the Chief Engineer there was Matthys Levy, who is a very well known authority on building collapses. He specifically disavowed the idea of pancaking, or collapsing, of the floors. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Core Columns Left Out to Make Pancake Theory Look Plausible]
And the most recent official report we have on this, which is from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, rejected the idea that floor collapse was part of it. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Cores Not in Whitehouse Investigation]
[WTC Collapse Forensics: No Attempt To Develop a Sequential Model? Why?]
And so, as a result, we have basically no sequential model at this point. What NIST has suggested is that there was some kind of simultaneous collapse of the cores.
But they have not attempted to give any kind of modeling as to whether those cores could have in fact been destroyed by the fires in the way that they claim. And unfortunately, the material that would have allowed a detailed fire analysis, the actual physical evidence, is all gone. [WTC Collapse Forensics: This Could Not Have Been the Sort of Collapse That We Were Told It Was]
One of the most significant things, to my thinking, that indicates that this could not have been the sort of collapse that we are told it was, is the presence of the dust clouds.
And as you've seen in the pictures -- and I'm sure that all of us have seen probably more than we would like -- there were very, very large clouds of very thick dust that enveloped the area, that crossed the river, that made it almost all the way to New Jersey, from the pictures that I've seen.
This type of flow is something that we are familiar with in physics. It occurs in only two situations that we know of naturally.
One is in volcanic eruptions, where a large amount of material is suddenly exploded into the air, and basically forms small particles.
The other situation is something called turbidity currents. These occur along the edges of continental shelves where mud or sediment will become suspended in water. And the common thread is, you have large amounts of a dense material that is suspended very quickly in the fluid thereby creating another denser fluid, which is in effect the dust cloud. And that fluid can achieve considerable velocity.. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Explosives Only Plausible Mechanism To Explain High-Speed Slurry]
The problem with creating this slurry of fine particles is that there really is no mechanism that has been proposed.
We have concrete floors with carpeting or flooring over them. We have furniture. We have floors basically that are coming together in a collapse. But the concrete is basically protected under these layers. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Thick, Dense Clouds Ejected at High Speed]
Early in the collapse, in the very first moments, we see these thick clouds being ejected at very high speed.
They are clearly dense, because they flow downward, and become part of this large, overall, pyroclastic flow.
What we're basically being told is that the concrete sort of jumped up into midair where it exploded itself, and was ejected as the floors came together. Not a very plausible mechanism, but I have yet to hear of anything else proposed to explain it. [WTC Collapse Forensic: Explosives Only Plausible Mechanism To Explain High Speed Slurry]
[WTC Collapse Forensics: Most of the Concrete Was Reduced to Powder]
From quite a few people on the scene, we have been told that the powder represented most of the concrete ... [Explosives Only Plausible Mechanism To Explain Concrete Powder]
and that the amount of intact macroscopic chunks of concrete on the scene were negligible: that basically everything was reduced to powder.
And incidentally, we also know that other things besides concrete were reduced to powder. We know that contents of computers, exotic metals from computer chips, these sorts of things, were also identified in the dust in very small particles, generally on the order of less than 100 microns in diameter.
So we have a real issue of mechanism as far as what in the process of this collapse could cause so many things to be pulverized so finely. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Columns Could Not Have Collapsed Into Themselves]
For the towers to collapse the way we saw them collapse basically implies that the columns simply collapsed into themselves. They telescoped straight down. Steel keeps a lot of its structural integrity even when heated. Until you begin to approach the melting point, you don't really see a catastrophic loss of strength. [Clear Sign of Explosives]
[Implied Complete Loss of Strength Impossible]
And this is what we're talking about. We're talking about basically vertical box columns collapsing into themselves, which implies a complete loss of mechanical strength. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Film Showed Towers Oscillated Like Wind Gust and Stopped]
And as far as the initial impacts, this recent NSIT study made an interesting point about World Trade Center 2. The film analysis showed that it oscillated for about four minutes after it was struck by the airplane. [WTC Collapse Forensics: As If Hit by Hurricane Wind Gusts In Past]
And the oscillation rate was identical to what would be expected for the intact tower.
Trade Center towers, and most modern buildings, are heavily redundant in the sense that the load bearing can be shifted to other members if some of them fail.
And we saw that happen in this case. Stresses do re-distribute, but absent further weakening of the structural members, that distribution is limited. [WTC Collapse Forensics: The Structure Re-Stabilized Normally]
It happens, the structure restabilizes, and unless there is significant further damage, it doesn't progress to a total collapse.
World Trade 1 began collapsing from the very top after an hour and 40 minutes. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Impossible for Office Content Fire To Get Hotter and Hotter]
It's very hard to imagine office contents progressively heating up, hotter and hotter, over that period of time. [Collapse From Top! Very Suspicious]
And for a building to collapse from the very top, which is the least heavily loaded, is also very odd, to say the least. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Reports of Multiple Explosions]
Just a couple of other anomalies. As we know, there were reports of explosions.
There were reports of underground explosions in both of the towers at the time of the impact from a building engineer by the name of Philip Morelli.
There are interviews with him on the Web.
From the Naudet Brothers film, "9/11", you see that the lobby of the North Tower was extensively damaged with what looks like high explosives blast damage. And this was immediately after the plane collision. [WTC Collapse Forensics: Unusual Power Down and Evacuation Drills Week Before 9/11]
But we know that on the weekend before, there were power downs. And there appear to have been evacuation drills going on throughout the previous week. Which suggests that at least some people knew that something was happening.
The power downs may represent a time window in which demolition charges would have been planted, although I think it's possible that they were also planted over a much longer period of time given the relative accessibility of the buildings.
Okay, that's all I have to say. Thank you.
[Ed Begley, Jr., Host] Thank you Jeff King, very, very much.
[Barrie Zwicker, Canadian Television Journalist] A common explanation as to why no U.S. military interceptors took to the skies on September 11th until it was too late, is that it was simple incompetence. [Runaway Learjet Crashes Killing Champion Golfer]
Well, let me deal with the incompetence theory first by taking you back to October 26, 1999.
That is the date the chartered Lear Jet carrying golfer Payne Stewart crashes
, killing all on board.
This, from the National Transportation Safety Board Crash Report
9:19 a.m.: The flight departs.
9:24 a.m.: The Lear Jet's pilot responds to an instruction from Air Traffic Control.
9:33 a.m.: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot.
For 4-1/2 minutes, the controller tries to establish contact. Having failed, the controller calls in the military.
Note that he did not seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United States. Or indeed, anyone. It's standard procedure followed routinely, to call in the Air Force when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is lost, or the plane departs from its flight path, or anything along those lines occurs.
9:54 a.m., 16 minutes later: The F-16 reaches the Lear Jet at 46,000 feet, and conducts a visual inspection.
So, what does this prove? Well, it proves that standing routines exist for dealing with all such emergencies
: for instance, loss of radio contact. All personnel in the air, and on the ground, are trained to follow the routines which have been fine-tuned over decades, as the Lear Jet incident illustrates.
For large, scheduled aircraft, tracked throughout on radar, to depart extravagantly from their flight paths, would trigger numerous calls to the military, especially after two had hit the World Trade Center, and now one is speeding toward Washington, D.C. Total elapsed time? Twenty-one minutes.
It flies over the White House, turns sharply ...
and heads toward the Pentagon.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, now knows these planes are very bad news.
It's been reported on all TV networks, for more than half an hour, that this is a terrorist attack.
Now, Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation.
It's home to Air Force 1, the President's plane.
It's home for two combat-ready squadrons of jet interceptors mandated to insure the safety of the U.S. Capitol.
Andrews is only 12 miles from the White House.
On September 11, the squadrons there are the 121st fighter squadron of the 113th fighter wing, equipped with F-16s ...
and the 321st Marine Fighter Attack squadron of the 49th Marine Air Group Detachment A, equipped with F-18s.
This information was on the website of the base on September 11.
On September 12, Andrews chose to update its website.
I find it odd that after the update, there is no mention of the F-16 and F-18 fighters. The base becomes, according to the website, home to a transport squadron only.
Yet, at 6:30 the evening of September 11, NBC Nightly News, along with many outlets, reported, "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly a protective cover over Washington, D.C."
Throughout the Northeastern United States are many air bases, but that morning, no interceptors respond in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons, which have the longest lead time, and are 12 miles from the White House.
Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports to my knowledge of reprimands. This further weakens the incompetence theory. Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask, and other media need to ask, "If there were stand-down orders?"
[Barrie Zwicker, Canadian Television Journalist, from Barrie Zwicker's Film, "The Great Conspiracy"] The events of 9/11 begin with aircraft going wildly off course. Incredibly, despite radar tracking for almost two hours, the whole of the mighty U.S. Air Force goes AWOL that morning. It's a mind-bending anomaly. Not a single U.S. Air Force interceptor turns a wheel until it's too late.
There are no jets at all. It's a matter of historical record.
That could happen only two ways: Either it was staggering, multiple, simultaneous, coincidental incompetence at all levels, in many agencies, defying known laws of averages -- a 54 Million to 1 chance -- which is the 9/11 Commission official story. There's another explanation: The U.S. Air Force is neutralized by design. The evidence indicates this is about a 1 to 1 chance.
Michael Ruppert, a former Los Angeles Police Department Detective, was the first major 9/11 skeptic and researcher in the world, and remains one of the foremost.
He was one of 40 experts on 9/11 who testified at the six-day International Citizens' Inquiry Into 9/11 held in Toronto in May, 2004. I helped organize that event.
At the Inquiry, Michael Ruppert addresses the absence of jet interceptors -- but the unlikelihood of a simple stand-down order -- and asks ...
"What if they were so confused, and had been so deliberately confused, that they couldn't respond?"
Michael Ruppert is standing by in his office in Sherman Oaks, California. Michael, thanks for this. What is the reason for the failure of U.S. military jets to show up in a timely fashion on 9/11?
[Michael Ruppert] Well, the simple fact is, Barrie, that they didn't know where to go. The reason that they didn't know where to go was because a number of conflicting and overlapping war game exercises were taking place, one of which, Northern Vigilance, had pulled a significant number of North American fighter aircraft into Canada and Western Alaska, and Northern Alaska, in a mock cold war hijack exercise. [Yet Condoleezza Rice Claimed That the US Government Had No Plans Or Beliefs That Terrorists Would Use Hijackings]
There was another drill, Vigilant Guardian, which was a hijack exercise, a command post exercise, but it involved the insertion of false radar blips onto radar screens in the Northeast Air Defense Sector. In addition, we have a confirmation thanks to General Richard Myers, who was acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who told Richard Clarke, as reported in Clarke's book, that there was another exercise, Vigilant Warrior, which was in fact, according to a NORAD source, a live fly hijack drill being conducted at the same time.
With only eight available fighter aircraft -- and they have to be dispatched in pairs -- they were dealing with as many as 22 possible hijacks on the day of 9/11. And they couldn't separate the war game exercises from the actual hijacks.
[Barrie Zwicker, Canadian Television Journalist, from Barrie Zwicker's Film, "The Great Conspiracy"] But this was done deliberately though.
[Michael Ruppert] Apparently so. And I will be saying that in my forthcoming book, "Crossing the Rubicon: 9/11 and Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil."
We have done an extensive investigation on that to show that these war game exercises were apparently very well planned, by someone who I will show, I believe, was Dick Cheney in the United States government, to deliberately confuse FAA, NORAD, and U.S. Air Force fighter response ....
to fulfill a prophecy that another man had once said, "Let one happen, and stop the rest."
[Barrie Zwicker, Canadian Television Journalist, from Barrie Zwicker's Film, "The Great Conspiracy"] On that very point, we have a recording.
[FAA Employee] Hi, Boston Center TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York.
We need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there. Help us out.
[North East Air Defense Sector Employee] Is this real world, or exercise?
[FAA Employee] No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
[Barrie Zwicker, Canadian Television Journalist, from Barrie Zwicker's Film, "The Great Conspiracy"] Now the 9/11 Commission didn't mention war games, is that right?
Michael Ruppert: No, in the final report they did mention, I think in one paragraph, Vigilant Guardian [paragraph 116] , but the response given by NORAD commander General Ralph Eberhart, and other Air Force Spokespeople, was absolutely nonsensical. And it made no mention of any of the other war game exercises. Eberhart's position was, in fact -- which is a very ludicrous position -- that the Vigilant Guardian exercise, leaving aside the others, actually helped speed response on 9/11. And that is absolutely not the case.
116. On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise,Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military's response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, "it took about 30 seconds" to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004.We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan. 23, 2004).-- The 9/11 Commission Report, by The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
[Barrie Zwicker, Canadian Television Journalist, from Barrie Zwicker's Film, "The Great Conspiracy"] How does this relate to the 9/11 Commission Report which said that planes had gone in the wrong directions?
[Michael Ruppert] Well, that's a separate issue. That remains to be clarified. But what I will be disclosing in my book is in effect that there were two simultaneously operating command and control systems functioning on the day of 9/11, and at some times they were issuing conflicting orders. We do not have a clear explanation for why fighters from Andrews Air Force Base were sent out over the sea first and couldn't turn around, because the 9/11 Commission seemed to change all of the evidence just arbitrarily right before it issued its final report. So we don't have a clear explanation. But certainly it is all consistent with a motive that said, "Make sure that fighters don't get to any place in time to stop the three critical attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
[Barrie Zwicker, Canadian Television Journalist, from Barrie Zwicker's Film, "The Great Conspiracy"] You have Laura Brown of the FAA.
She attends hearings of the 9/11 Commission, is there on the aviation aspects of the day.
Embarrassed by previous nonforthcoming testimony about the FAA's role, she sends an email in May of 2003 to members of the media, whose business cards she had collected.
"Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center," she states in her email, "the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service, and other government agencies.
The U.S. Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge, and established contact with NORAD on a separate line.
The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77."
The Commission imagines, on page 35, that at 8:46, when Flight 11 hits the North Tower of the World Trade Center ...
neither the President or anyone "in the White House, or traveling with the president, knew that flight 11 had been hijacked at 8:14 that morning."
Wrong. The Commission imagines, page 39, that as late as 9:30 "no one in the (president's) traveling party had any information ... that other aircraft were hijacked or missing." Wrong.
The Commission imagines it can get away with such claims, even though millions of people saw TV news reports about the hijackings on CNN, beginning at 8:48.