Confronting the Evidence -- A Call to Reopen the 9-11 Invest

Possibly better than tootsie rolls, illustrated screenplays are tasty little nuggets of cinematic flavor in a convenient pdf wrapper. Download and read your favorite movie in a quarter of the time it takes to watch it. And you can grab quotes and images.

Confronting the Evidence -- A Call to Reopen the 9-11 Invest

Postby admin » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:00 am

Confronting the Evidence -- A Call to Reopen the 9-11 Investigation, by
directed by Jimmy Walter




Site Admin
Posts: 17165
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Confronting the Evidence -- A Call to Reopen the 9-11 In

Postby admin » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:03 am

Part 1 of 4


[Transcribed from the video by Tara Carreon]

[Jimmy Walter,] Hello, my name is Jimmy Walter. Like everyone else, I watched the planes hit the World Trade Towers and I watched them collapse. Like everyone else, I thought it was the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires that caused the collapse. Like everyone else, I became concerned with terrorism. I went onto the Internet and started researching the foreign newspapers and articles that were appearing there, but were not making the light of day in the American mainstream press, or were buried on page 88 under a small and usually misleading headline. What I discovered was that not only did Saddam Hussein not have weapons of mass destruction, did not have poison factories, but in fact he fought Al Qaeda tooth and nail as an arch enemy.


But what really alarmed me was that George Tenet, the CIA, and the international press were warning us clearly that invading Iraq would swell the terrorist ranks, increase terrorism, and make us less secure.
I was so alarmed I ran full-page ads in the New York Times, U.S.A. Today, and various alternative newspapers across the country. I was censored by the L.A. Times; I was ignored by everyone.

[Powell Lied?
February 5, 2003, at UN:
Testified "Poison Factory!"
February 9, Journalists Reported:
Not Even Aspirin Found!
1st Gulf War Facts:
Satellite Photos a Lie!
Powell Admits Wrong!]

[1991 Gulf War Facts:
Satellite Photos a Lie
Powell Admits Wrong
Baby Murders Faked
U.S. OK'd Kuwait Invasion
Iraqi Poison Gas Use Not Proven
2003 Gulf War Facts:
Iraq Uranium Purchase a Lie
No "Poison Factory"
Iraqi Reactor Parts Evidence Faked
War Will Increase Terrorism -- CIA
Wall Street: Casualty of War]

"The WTC was probably one of the more resistant tall buildings ... they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center" --- Scientific American, 2001
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time." FEMA. (47 floor steel building constructed normally)
All three buildings collapsed in under 10 seconds, the maximum speed of gravity.
The South Tower fell after only one hour. 4000 died. Meridian One burned fiercely for 19 hours in 1991 and never collapsed.
All of the important evidence from the disaster was destroyed, illegally, before the investigation was concluded, some before it began -- Fire Engineering.
"The investigation of the WTC is a half-baked farce." -- Fire Engineering Magazine.
$600,000 was spent investigating the WTC collapses vs. $40,000,00 on Clinton's sex.]

The 9/11 Report has been published, but some very troubling questions remain unanswered.
Despite all of the time and all of the testimony, the 9/11 Report does not explain questions raised by "Fire Engineering" Magazine, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a flight instructor who trained one of the hijackers and others. The new book, "Painful Questions," by concerned American Eric Hufschmid, addresses the issues listed below.
"No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire." -- Fire Engineering Magazine
The South Tower fell after only 1 hour. The North Tower fell one hour later. After the initial fireball, neither building burned significantly. The Meridian One Building in Philadelphia burned fiercely for 19 hours and never collapsed.
Building 7 at the WTC, steel and constructed differently from the twin towers, fell at 5:30. It was not hit by an airplane and had no apparent significant fire.
Jet fuel burns at too low a temperature to harm steel. (The black smoke indicates that the jet fuel was not even burning at maximum temperature.) And the fires did not burn long enough to harm steel.
Days later, there were still "hot spots" in the building that exceeded the maximum temperature possible from burning jet fuel, but just the right temperature if explosives had been used.
The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions.
the buildings collapsed at the maximum speed of gravity. That is almost impossible without explosives.
The impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires were way off center. More than 2 sides of the towers and the main center columns were untouched. Why did all three buildings collapse?
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time." -- Federal Emergency Management Agency
F-16 fighters are supposed to form an umbrella over Washington in an emergency. The Pentagon was attacked over AN HOUR after the second aircraft hit the WTC. Why were no fighters scrambled?
"I was so impressed with this book and teh questions it raises that I will send a FREE COPY to any fire station, police precinct, judge or politician that requests it. Contact me at" -- James W. Walter, Jr.
Painful Questions: Should the 9/11 Investigation Be Re-Opened?
Read This Book And Decide For Yourself!
"Painful Questions," by Eric Hufschmid, Is Not Available In Any Store.
Order it At]

"Do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. Love your enemy"
"How oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? ... Until seventy times seven.
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell...
"make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth... Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black..."
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" [pay your taxes without complaint]
"It shall be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
"Jesus said to him, 'If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."]
[Bush: Massive preemptive military strikes ("Shock & Awe") that destroy thousands of INNOCENTS' homes and lives, are necessary and justified to get 1 "evil" man.
Is out of patience in less than 6 months with no credible evidence.
"... sick and tired [angry] of games and deception"; Angry about Enron; media leaks; on and on.
Calls Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea "Axis of Evil..." This is worse than "good-for-nothing."
Call N. Korea leader a "pygmy" and "typical rogue"
Swears he won't burden future generations with debt; [will] vengeance against "evil" doers; shrink government; bring in Osama; bring down Hussein; These sworn tasks have not been accomplished.
Taxes punish the profit makers and should be reduced or abolished
"I will not engage in class warfare" while his tax cuts went to the rich and he let unemployment insurance lapse.
Bush says "Rich deserve more of a tax break." Cuts welfare for children.]

[Powell Lied
Based on: "Truth behind US 'poison factory'", ... 12,00.html
On Sunday, February 9, 2003, Luke Harding of "The Observer" of London reported from the camp in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam which Colin Powell claimed was an al-Qaeda Islamic terrorist group. Powell further claimed it was a "terrorist chemicals and poisons factory." The terrorist factory was no such thing! It is a run-down slum of concrete buildings, one of which is a bakery. There were no signs of chemicals anywhere. The kitchen had some chopped vegetables. There was a Kalashnikov propped against one wall. The Islamic group that uses the camp invited Harding and other foreign press to see for themselves. "We are just a group of Muslims trying to do our duty," Mohammad Hasan, their spokesman said. "We don't have any drugs for our fighters. We don't even have any aspirin. How can we produce any chemicals or weapons of mass destruction?"
Proof Powell Lied to UN!
Based on: "No casus belli? Invent one!",1 ... 19,00.html
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, Maggie O'Kane wrote that in September, 1990, there was heavy reliance on "classified" satellite photographs alleged to show that one month after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait there were 260,000+ Iraqi soldiers and over 1,400 tanks waiting at Saudi Arabia's border to invade. The threat of Saddam aggressively expanding his empire to Saudi Arabia was central to the UN's decision to go to war, but the satellite photos were never released. The US cabinet met on the day Iraq invaded Kuwait, August 2, 1990. War was only a possibility. Norman Schwarzkopf wrote in his autobiography, "It Doesn't Take a Hero" that General Colin Powell had told him, "I think we could go to war if they invaded Saudi Arabia. I doubt if we would go to war over Kuwait." The next time Powell met Schwarzkopf, Powell told him to prepare for war in Saudi Arabia. Schwarzkopf wrote, "I was stunned. A lot must have happened after I left Camp David that Powell wasn't talking about. President Bush had made up his mind to send troops." America and Britain were beating the drums of war. New resolutions were passed by the UN Security Council since Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait was no longer enough. The pictures were still top secret.
Jean Heller at the "St. Petersburg Times" persuaded her boss to buy pictures from a commercial satellite, the Soyuz Karta, to verify Powell's claims. But there was no sign of any troops or tanks. "The satellite pictures were so clear that at Riyadh airport in Saudi Arabia you could see American planes sitting wingtip to wingtip," said Heller. Two experts verified her analysis. Peter Zimmerman, a satellite expert at George Washington University said, "I looked at them with a colleague of mine and we both said exactly the same thing at exactly the same moment: 'Where are they?' We could see clearly the main road leading right through Kuwait, south to Saudi Arabia, but it was covered with sand banks from the wind and it was clear that no army had moved over it. We could see empty barracks where you would have expected these thousands of troops to be billeted, but they were deserted as well." Powell has admitted it! There was no imminent invasion. The Kuwaiti government had spent $2m surreptitiously with a public relations firm to sell the war. Their worst deception was the "incubator babies." Iraqi soldiers were said to have taken premature babies from incubators at the Al Adnan hospital in Kuwait and "left them on the cold floor to die." The PR firm's work involved rehearsing six liars to fake details of the premature baby propaganda. Niyirah al Sabah who, unknown to her audience, was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, told the story in gross detail to Congress during November 1990, just before the critical vote. Crying, she claimed she saw the Iraqi troops' cruelty while she worked as a volunteer. But a Filipino nurse in the hospital, Myra Ancog-Cooke, revealed that none of the staff had ever seen or known of Niyirah al Sabah. Myra was assigned to the children's ward with another Filipino nurse, Freida Contrais-Naig. They had stayed behind to protect the incubator babies. "I remember someone called and said, 'Look at CNN, they are talking about us.' We watched and it was strange seeing that girl telling them about the Iraqis taking the babies out of the incubators. I said to Freida, 'That's funny, we've never seen her. She never worked here.' We didn't think very much about it really. We were more excited seeing our hospital on the television." President Bush mentioned the incubator babies in five speeches. They were mentioned in seven senators' speeches backing the war. The PR firm was unashamed over the sham pulled on the UN Security Council, the US Congress, the press and the public!]

I shut up when the war started in order to support our troops. After Mission Accomplished was asserted, I started going around the country to the protests to bring our boys home. There I met Eric Hufschmid who had written, "Painful Deceptions" and "Painful Questions." I got his book and video, but never gave him the time of day. At worst, I thought, 9/11 was a sin of omission, where the Administration had let it happen in order to further their own nefarious world domination purposes. I did not believe that the World Trade Center was brought down with explosives.

[Painful Deceptions: How did Osama pull off such a devastating attack?]

[Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, by Eric Hufschmid]

[A video supplement to the book Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack]

[Created 19 April 2003 by Eric Hufschmid, Edited 4 April 2004]

About six months later, a friend cajoled me into watching Eric's videos. It was an epiphany. I knew after watching his video that the towers had been brought down with explosives. When I saw heavy steel beams flying straight out, some of them actually going up and down, trailed by a smoke cloud of poisonous debris, I knew that it had to be explosives.

[Clear Sign of Explosives]

[Straight Out
Not Down!
300 feet]

Please watch the following video of the event I produced on September 11, 2004, at New York City, which follows, and see, as they say in the "Matrix," how deep this rabbit hole goes. I really do feel like I took the red pill. Brace yourself. You're in a for a rude awakening.

[Confronting the Evidence: A Call to re-open the 9/11 investigation]

[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] I'm Ed Begley, Jr. How are you all this evening? Thank you for coming. I'm going to be the host for this evening's program. Welcome to "Confronting the Evidence -- A Call to Re-Open the 9/11 Investigation." I'll be your host for this evening's program. I'd like to ask you to please finish taking your seats, as we're going to begin in a moment. I don't need to tell you that tonight marks the third anniversary of the September 11th events. We begin tonight's program with, we ask you to join us in a tribute to the fallen, if you will.


[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] We're going to hear from a lot of people this evening. They are a very distinguished panel. But right now, I would like to bring out Jamey Hecht, my co-host for this evening. Jamie, would you come out here.

[Jamey Hecht, Ph.D. -- Co-Host] Why does so large a group of people believe that the violence, the bereavement, and the grief inflicted on September 11th, which have had such permanent and ongoing consequences, some of which we can't foresee, was avoidable? That it wasn't a bolt out of the blue, some cosmic blow against humanity that should cause us all to bow our heads, remember the fallen, and then go back to business. Or, as we were urged to do at the time here in New York City, to go out and shop. Why have the questions posed by the families, and by the independent researchers, some of whom you will meet tonight -- and so many of you -- gone unanswered? In the next few hours, we shall embark upon a difficult journey. And we ask you to reconsider the horrifying events of September 11 in a new and troubling light.
This journey is quite difficult, it requires that we re-examine some of our most basic beliefs. This requires overcoming a special kind of inertia, which we're rarely asked to move. And yet, the rewards are a change from anxiety to awareness, from passivity and quietism to a more full participation in the most urgent issues of our time, diminishing unnecessary harm, and bring us closer together for a world of possible safety, and creativity and understanding.

[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] If this is your first exposure to this material, you may feel very uncomfortable with that: the challenge to confront your prior assumptions about September 11. If you've already been exposed to these issues, you will see that there are many things that you will want to look at.
We have a large group of gifted researchers, some of them have been questioning the official story of 9/11 since the very first day after the attacks. The questions these researchers have raised have been the subject of countless articles, discussions, initiated by citizens in their homes. And there's been official silence by the commercial media about these events. But we've had a tremendous impact on what people have thought.

[1/2 New York City Thinks Attacks Did Not Come By Surprise]

Last month, a representative poll commissioned by Zugby found that about half of the city's residents did not believe that the attacks came by surprise. 41% of New York residents.

[Jamey Hecht] That's 49.3% of residents of New York City, and 41% of New York State residents.
And the question is, "How could that view be so pervasive?" Why have our questions been ignored.
And we believe we owe it to the victims and their surviving family members to conduct a searching and fearless examination of the events of 9/11 from a number of different angles, and to pursue it wherever it leads. We know of no better way to honor the fallen than to marshal our forces -- intellectual, emotional -- and confront what repels us: dark implications of evidence which it's all too easy to put aside. We hope that as you draw your own conclusions, we can aim together at a more complete account of these events.

[Ed Begley, Host] If you are among those to whom it seems impossible that the authorities would actually allow 9/11 to happen for political gain, at such an enormous cost to human life, consider what the authorities knowingly allowed to happen to the residents of this city immediately after September 11th. Let me please introduce Jenna Orkin of the World Trade Center Environmental Organization. Jenna.

[Jenna Orkin, WTC Environmental Organization] September 11 was a tragedy that has changed the course of history and the way we live. It was also an environmental disaster of historic proportions. The World Trade Center contained about 50,000 computers, each made with between 4 and 12 pounds of lead. That's not including World Trade Center 7.

[50,000 Computers Each with 4-12 lbs Lead Equals 400,000 lbs of Lead]

[200,000 lbs of Asbestos]

Hundreds of tons of asbestos coated the first 40 stories of at least one tower. The tens of thousands of fluorescent light bulbs each contained enough mercury to contaminate a quarter of a [thousand] city blocks.

[Over 10,000 Fluorescents, Enough to Contaminate 2,500 City Blocks]

The smoke detectors contained radioactive americium 241.
The alkalinity of the air was equivalent to that of Drano.
A month after the disasters, scientists from the University of California at Davis found levels of vanadium and ultra-fine particles that were the highest they'd ever seen of 7,000 samples taken from around the world, including at the burning Kuwaiti oil fields.
Dr. Marjorie Clark has testified that 9/11 was equivalent to the burning Kuwait oil fields.
Dr. Marjorie Clark has testified that 9/11 was equivalent to dozens of asbestos factories, incinerators and crematoria, as well as a volcano.

["The Air Is Safe To Breathe." -- Environmental Protection Agency]

[Evaluation Report: EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement.
Report No. 2003-P-00012
August 21, 2003]

Yet starting on September 13th, the EPA maintained that "The Air is Safe to Breathe."

[Council on Environmental Quality]

A report by the EPA Inspector General in August of 2003, revealed that EPA's press releases, which initially warned the public about asbestos in the air, were edited to offer reassurances instead. The editing was performed by the White House Council on Environmental Quality in order to re-open Wall Street. That's in the report.
As a result of the false good news, rescue workers were sometimes not allowed to wear respirators, on the grounds that they might frighten the public.
Insurance companies often refused to pay for cleanup, forcing residents to clean the tons of toxic debris in their apartments as per the instructions from the New York City Department of Health.
"Use a wet mop or wet rag, and where the dust is really bad, wear long pants."

[Serious Respiratory Problems]

We are beginning to see the consequences of this disastrous chain of events. Over half of the heroes who cleaned Ground Zero are already manifesting serious respiratory problems.

[Firefighters Can No Longer Work]

Hundreds of firefighters can no longer work.
And as a harbinger for what's in store for people, 14 rescue dogs have died.
The Commission Report deals with this issue in a footnote on page 555. They interviewed Sam Thernstrom, the White House coordinator who changed the press releases. He said his motive wasn't to re-open Wall Street, it was procedural. His story is corroborated by Christie Todd Whitman, who told the initial lies.
When John Gotti is corroborated by Lucky Luciano, that may be good enough for the Commission, but we should not rest there.
In the environmental disaster of 9/11, Osama Bin Ladin could not have found a better collaborator, a more kindred spirit, than George W. Bush.

["I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breath and their water is safe to drink." -- EPA Administrator Christie Whitman]

"We can reassure the public that the air is safe to breathe, the water is safe to drink." -- EPA Administrator Christie Whitman

[Hugh Kaufman, Chief Investigator, EPA] The EPA officials were lying to the public, and to Congress, about the health effects engendered by the 9/11 catastrophe.

[Robert Gulack, SEC, Union Steward, Victim] Because the EPA said the offices were safe, and employers ordered their employees back into the buildings, thousands of us are now permanently ill.

[Ron Elum, Works near Ground Zero, Victim] I headlined at Radio City Music Hall with the Rockettes dancing behind me. I sang everywhere there was to sing a song. But I can't sing now, because every time I try to sing now, I choke.

[Robert Gulack, SEC, Union Steward, Victim] So in the middle of October, October 15th, 2001, I came to work. Two days later, I woke up at night, October 17th, 2001. And my lungs were full and gurgling. The respiratory function was so low, that it woke me up out of a sound sleep. And from that day on, I've been sick.

[Hugh Kaufman, Chief Investigator, EPA] In fact, the air was hazardous for many, many months. And all of those tons of hazardous material were lodged in people's homes, and in their offices, where in many cases they still are today.

[Joel Kupferman, NY Environmental Law and Justice Project] For me, the major failure by the U.S. Government after 9/11, was its failure to act as a government: which is to inform and protect.

[Ed Begley, Jr., Host] Of all the terrifying images on September 11th, the collapsing twin towers are among the most horrific.
A shocked nation saw the two larges structures on the New York City skyline dramatically crumble before our eyes.
Given the vast scale, and unprecedented nature of the horrifying spectacle, and lacking any information to the contrary, viewers could only assume that the fiery crashes of Flight 11 and 175 were the sole causes of the Towers' subsequent collapses.

[Building 7
47 Floors
Steel Frame
From "Painful Deceptions," by Eric Hufschmid]

Building No. 7 at the World Trade Center was a 47-story building with a steel frame. No airplane crashed into it, nor did the Towers fall onto it. However, this building disintegrated on September 11th.
This satellite image shows the World Trade Center about a year before the attack. Building 7 is the tall building at the top. Building No. 1 is the North Tower. You can distinguish it from the South Tower by its antennae. Buildings 4, 5 and 6 were office buildings. Building 3 was a hotel. The attack on September 11th destroyed all seven of these buildings, and it damaged surrounding buildings as well.
Here is a view from an airplane of the rubble of Building 7. The pile is very small. How did a 47-story steel building crumble into such a tiny pile of rubble? The Bush administration wants us to believe that fire caused it to disintegrate. Fires started in Building 7 at around 9:00 in the morning, a few moments after the plane crashed into the South Tower. These fires burned slowly all day.

[Fires Burned 8-1/2 Hours]

[The Fires at 3 PM]

This photo shows the fire at 3:00 p.m. The fires are not easy to see because they are small, and the air is full of dust and smoke. Nearby buildings and reflections make it difficult to figure out where Building 7 is, so I'll fade out the other buildings for a moment so that you can see Building 7 more clearly. There are flames coming from only a few of the thousands of windows of this large building. Most floors do not have fires, and those that do are burning in a few small areas only. Compared to other office fires, these are small. Why didn't the sprinkler system extinguish them?

[Why didn't the Sprinkler System Extinguish Them?]

This photograph shows the rear of Building 7. This side of the building doesn't have many fires either. There are no fires anywhere along the base of the building.
Incidentally, in the background of this photograph, are Buildings No. 5, on the left,
and 6 on the right. Both of those buildings have very serious fires burning inside. The Government has never bothered to explain how Building 5 ended up with such serious fires. Despite the fact that the fires in Building 7 were so small that the sprinkler system should have extinguished them, at about 5:30 in the evening, the building suddenly imploded, and crumbled into a pile of rubble.

[5:30 PM Suddenly Crumbled]

How did a few small fires cause Building 7 to collapse? According to Bill Manning, editor in chief of Fire Engineering, a magazine for fire departments, fire has never destroyed a steel building.

[How did a few little fires cause Building 7 to crumble?]

[Fire Engineering: Fire has never destroyed a steel building]

[Larry Silverstein, PBS Home Video: America Rebuilds] I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it. They made that decision to pull it, and then we watched the building collapse."

[Ed Begley, Jr., Host] Now, the term "pull," which you just saw Larry Silverstein use, is an industry term that means "to demolish: a controlled demolition." What exactly did Larry Silverstein say here? Did he say World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition? If so, is it conceivable that through all the melee and hysteria that was going on in the morning of September 11th, a demolition crew could have come in and taken down World Trade Center 7 within seven hours? Most controlled demolitions take up to two weeks of intense planning to make it happen. If this is the case, the only explanation that makes sense, is that a controlled demolition was planned way in advance of September 11, 2001.


[Voice of Dave von Kleist, Radio Personality] Shortly after September 11th, as what usually happens, many conspiracy theories began to emerge as to what really happened on September 11th of 2001.


And because many of these theories were not grounded with any evidence, we didn't really pay too much attention to them. However, in February of 2002, my attention was drawn to the following website entitled, "Hunt the Boeing -- Test Your Perceptions."

[From "In Plane Site" by David von Kleist]

Now the original website was completely in French, and was released by the French, and drew some very serious questions as to what had really happened at the Pentagon.
I mean, after all, we had all seen the big hole that was created by the 757 that had slammed into the Pentagon at 9:43 on September 11th.
But some of the photographs that were shown on this website raised very serious questions as to whether or not that is exactly what had happened. Some of these photographs showed a smaller hole, and in some cases showed that there was no way that a 757 could have created this damage.
So we began our own investigation, and that started by taking a look at some of the magazines we all saw at the supermarket checkout stands shortly after the events of September 11th.
As I began poring through the photographs, I had one goal in mind: and that was to prove the French wrong with their website, "Hunt the Boeing."
After all, there must have been some photographic evidence that showed that a 757 had hit the Pentagon.
But as we went through all of these photographs, we could find no pictures whatsoever showing a tail, a nose, a fuselage, wings, engine, wheels, luggage, seats, nothing. There were no photographs showing any recognizable wreckage from a 757.
Furthermore, when you look at the size of the hole at the Pentagon, it was approximately 65 feet across, and the height of the Pentagon is approximately 73 feet.
From wingtip to wingtip, a 757 is 124 feet, 10 inches. From nose to tail, a 757 is 155 ft. and 3 inches in length. And the height is 44 feet and 6 inches
However, when you look at the hole in the Pentagon, you'll find that it's only approximately 65 feet across. How does a plane of those dimensions fit into a hole of only 65 feet across?
And yet, when you look at the left side of the Pentagon, you'll note that there is very little, if any, smoke damage or heat damage at all.
On the third floor, it's very plain to see a file cabinet with a computer monitor. Neither of them are damaged.
On the second floor, you can see a wooden desk that hasn't burned.
And on the first floor, a very curious sight indeed: a wooden stool with a book that is laying and open. The pages aren't even singed.
Upon further inspection, we found that the damage at the Pentagon was completely and totally inconsistent with the damage of the planes that had hit the World Trade Center. I mean, after all, the planes that hit the Trade Center created a fire so intense that it fatigued the steel and collapsed the buildings. Or so that's what we were told.
Now, which of the planes involved in the September 11th attacks had embarked upon transcontinental flights? Which means that they had a majority of their fuel left over when they hit their respective targets? That means that approximately 8,600 remaining gallons of fuel would have been ignited on the 757 that had hit the Pentagon.
Again, we look at the photograph, and ask ourselves, "Is the smoke and heat damage consistent with that amount of fuel being ignited?
Another interesting question that is raised in the photographs of the collapsed area of the Pentagon, if you'll note in the upper floor and roof area, it appears that that area simply collapsed, and does not show any impact damage from a tail section that was over 43 feet in height.
How could a 757 slam into the Pentagon and not have an impact area where the tail section would have hit the upper floors?
Shortly after these questions were raised, and the topic was open for discussion on our radio show, ThePowerHour,com ...
these five frames were released from a security camera at the Pentagon.
The only problem is that the release of these five photographs seem to raise more questions than they answer.
First of all, why was the date incorrect in the lower left corner of the screen?
Second of all, they really didn't show that there was a 757 that had hit the Pentagon. And thirdly, many people asked, "Is this the only security camera that was on at the Pentagon?" The Pentagon -- this is the nerve center for the United States military, supposedly the most secure building in the country. And this is the only video footage that was available of the most heinous attack ever recorded at the Pentagon? Where were all of the other security cameras aimed? What about the security cameras that were on in the hallways of the Pentagon? Every inch of the Pentagon is under video surveillance. Where are those video cameras?
We also had a report about a gas station whose video camera was pointed in the exact direction where the 757 would have hit the Pentagon. Shortly after the event, it was reported that federal officials showed up at that gas station and confiscated that footage.
There should be no question that the outer rings of the Pentagon have indeed collapsed.
We've seen pictures from one angle ...
from another angle ...
and America has seen these pictures. We all assume that that was the damage that was caused by the 757 hitting the Pentagon. But shortly after the release of the article, "From Deception to Revelation," we were sent some photographs that were taken apparently right after the event, and before the outer walls had collapsed. When examining these photographs, we can clearly see that the area in question had not yet collapsed. In fact, there is very little evidence of a hole big enough to accommodate a 757. The hole that we do see is approximately 14 to 16 feet across. Question: How does a 757 fit into a 16 foot hole and leave no damage or wreckage on the outside of the Pentagon? These are questions that deserve serious scrutiny.
Let's take a look at some of the photographs that were taken before the outer wall of the Pentagon collapsed. In this first photograph, you can see the firefighters pulling the hoses away from the fire truck. In the foreground, we see wire spools that were left on the front lawn of the Pentagon. After all, this section of the Pentagon was under renovation. We'll use these wire spools as reference points.
Also, to the right of those wire spools, and on the face of the Pentagon, we can see that some concrete facing has broken away. We'll also use this as a reference point as we examine these photographs.
Now to the left of that area where the facing has broken off, we can clearly see that the Pentagon has not yet collapsed.
There are some flaming areas, and that area appears to be the only section where there is a hole approximately 14 to 16 feet. Question: "How does a 757 fit into a 16 foot hole and leave no wreckage on the front of the building?" We can also see that the roof of the building does show fatigue, but has not yet collapsed.
In this photograph, an astonished onlooker sees exactly what we're seeing: The Pentagon had not yet collapsed. And again, there is no sign of any wreckage whatsoever: no tail; no fuselage; no wings; no wheels; no engines; no seats; no luggage; nothing on the outside of the Pentagon. The Pentagon roofline is clearly visible, and again it is under fatigue, but it had not yet collapsed.
As we examine this next photograph, let's take a good close look at the lower left corner. You'll see Engine 331 from the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. And we contacted the Fire Chief from this engine company, Chief Plaugher, who agreed to come on our radio show, along with two of his firefighters. But one hour before airtime, they canceled. We were told that the two firefighters had been placed on indefinite leave.
When we look at this photograph, we can see that the fire retardant foam is being sprayed on the front of the Pentagon. And again, the area in question had not yet collapsed.
And you can see right in the center of the photograph, a big area where some of the concrete facing has broken away. And it appears that this is the only major hole in the front of the Pentagon. Again, is this hole big enough to accommodate a 757? And where is the wreckage?
In this photograph, we again see Engine 331, and fire retardant foam being sprayed on the front of the Pentagon. Note clearly in the center of the photograph, we see the upper floors of the Pentagon, again, yet to collapse.
But also notice that there does not appear do be any damage to these upper floors.
Question: If the height of the Boeing 757 was 44 feet 6 inches, there should have been some point of impact in these upper floors, and yet when we look at these pictures, there doesn't appear to be any impact whatsoever in the area where the tail should have hit.
And again, there is no wreckage visible on the front of the lawn.

[Actual Collapse of Outer Wall, ABC News Live Coverage, The Pentagon] About two miles from the Pentagon, you can see the smoke billowing up from the building as the symbol of the United States Defense establishment goes up in smoke.

So there is an amazement all over Washington.
Site Admin
Posts: 17165
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Confronting the Evidence -- A Call to Reopen the 9-11 In

Postby admin » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:04 am

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
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 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.
Site Admin
Posts: 17165
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Confronting the Evidence -- A Call to Reopen the 9-11 In

Postby admin » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:05 am

Part 3 of 4

[From Radical 9/11 Pioneer Alex Jones's video "9/11 The Road to Tyranny"] Unlike the Northwoods Plan, the FBI actually carried out the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
They actually hired a retired 43-year old former Egyptian Army Officer, Ahmad Salem, and paid him $1 million, and gave him real explosives, a detonator, and told him to build a bomb and to give it to the foolish people he was controlling to allow them to attack the World Trade Center complex.

[Secretly recorded conversations between agents and informer.
telling agent Floyd: "Since the bomb went off I feel terrible. I feel bad. I feel here is people who don't listen."
Ms. Floyd seems to commiserate, saying, "hey, I mean it wasn't like you didn't try and I didn't try."]

There was only one problem with their plan: Mr. Salem was not as ruthless and sociopathic as the FBI and their globalist controllers. He began to get very concerned right before, and of course after, the attack saying, "Why are you giving me real explosives if this is just a sting operation?" When they told him to go ahead and let the attack go forward, he secretly recorded the head of the FBI in New York ordering him to let the bombing take place.

[The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. headquarters in Washington about the bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.
"He said, I don't think that the New York people would like the things out of the New York office to go to Washington, D.C." Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him.
Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute Mr. Salem's ...]

[The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.
The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far ...]

[injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court in that attack.
Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian army officer, was used by the Government to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists now charged in two bombing cases: the World Trade Center attack and a foiled plot to destroy the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels and other New York City landparks. He is the crucial witness in the ...]

[transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said, "came and messed it up."
"He requested to meet me in the hotel," Mr. Salem says of the supervisor. "He requested to make me to testify and if he didn't push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with a phony powder and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, ...]

[part of the, ah, problem, and that's one of the things they're looking at.
SALEM: You think it's a good idea to meet Mr., ah, the President, Bill Clinton, to let him know?
SALEM: To, do you think it's a good idea to meet the President, let him know?
SALEM: I can call him and ask to meet him.
FLOYD: As in President Clinton?
FLOYD: Well I mean you could, I mean, you could, as a U.S. citizen you can talk to whoever you want to talk to, but I mean I think that you might want to see if you can get in touch, you know, talk with [deputy New York City F.B.I. director William] Gavin and sit down and ...]

It's very important to understand that all of the evidence you just saw is documented 110%. It is part of the public record. The FBI admits it, but the media wrote a few stories about it, there were a couple of nightly newscasts, and it was never heard of again.
In July, 2001, Ken Williams at the Phoenix FBI office wrote a now-famous memo to headquarters suggesting a nationwide program to keep tabs on suspicious flight school students.
But the suggestion was suppressed before 9/11 by the FBI's Radical Fundamentalism Unit, where Michael Maltbie and Marion Bowman, and Unit Head David Frasca, all had access to it.
Shortly afterward, in August of 2001, the Minneapolis FBI Field Office questioned recently arrested Zacarias Moussaoui, later alleged to the be 20th hijacker. As the investigation intensified in the weeks before 9/11, one Minneapolis agent claimed he was worried Moussaoui would try to fly a hijacked airliner into the World Trade Center. But the Minneapolis investigation was so vigorously blocked that agents joked Osama Bin Ladin must have a mole at FBI headquarters. Once again, it was Michael Maltbie, Marion Bowman, and David Frasca who played a role in the obstruction. All three had knowledge of the Phoenix memo at the time, yet none of them told anyone in the Minneapolis office about it prior to 9/11.

[[DELETE] gives reason to believe that a coordinated effort is underway to establish a cadre of individuals who will one day be working in the civil aviation community around the world. These individuals will be in a position in the future to conduct terror activity against civil aviation targets.]

[In June 2002, Michael Maltbie Was Promoted to Field Supervisor in the FBI's Cleveland Office
In December 2002, Marion Bowman Received the "Presidential Rank of Meritorious Service" and a Cash Bonus of 20% of His Salary.
Late in 2002, David Frasca Was Promoted to the FBI's Third Ranking Position in Charge of Domestic Terrorism]

[Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation: Called Off the Trail? FBI Agents Probing Terror Links Say They Were Told, "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie"]

In January of 2001, Chicago Field Agent Robert Wright saw his three-year investigation of a terrorist cell abruptly halted.

["... Gathering Intelligence So They Would Know Who to Arrest When a Terrorist Attack Occurred." -- FBI Agent Robert Wright]

Three months later, he wrote a stinging memo charging that the FBI was not interested in thwarting a terrorist attack, but instead was merely "gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."
After 9/11, badly shaken, Wright wrote a 500-page book detailing his experience. But to this day, the FBI has blocked him from publishing it in full.
Was Wright's terminated investigation related to the 1991 order of January, 2001?

[Department of Justice Gags FBI Translator]

Working in the translation office at the FBI after 9/11, Sibel Edmonds discovered evidence of rampant internal corruption and criminal conspiracy to cover up advance information about 9/11.

[FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. SAC Advisory Committee: Director; Deputy Director]


Placed under a gag order by the Justice Department, Edmonds has been denied the opportunity to tell her story in full, but she has courageously found ways to get word of her ordeal out to the public.
She has joined with the 911 Truth Movement and has not wavered in her claims.

[Sibel Edmonds] To become an American citizen, I took the Citizenship oath. In taking this oath, I pledged that I would support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Therefore, not only do I have the right to challenge John Ashcroft's anti-constitutional and un-American actions, as an American citizen I am required to do so. So are you.

["To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong ...]

["is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President (1858-1919)]

[Jamey Hecht, Ph.D.] The 911 Commission Report fails to mention anything at all about Robert Wright. Sibel Edmonds and Colleen Rowley are each mentioned just once in footnotes that reveal nothing about what they said. Also unmentioned in the Report are David Frasca, Marion Bowman, and Michael Maltbie, the officials who should rightly have to answer why these investigations were apparently blocked.

[JAMES BAMFORD: Author of "A Pretext for War" and "Body of Secrets"]

[Tom Kiely -- NYC] The set of documents known as the Northwoods documents, or the Northwoods agreement, or something to that effect, you featured them in your last book. Since we're talking a pretext for war, that certainly was a pretext for war in the early 60's. Can we speak about that for a moment?

[James Bamford, Author of "A Pretext for War" and "Body of Secrets" -- Washington, D.C.] The idea was to create a pretext to show that there was an attack by Cuba on the United States. And the idea was to have U.S. personnel from the CIA, and other places, secretly create terrorism in the United States. The documents actually said people would be shot on American streets; bombs would be blown up. And again, all of the evidence would be laid to point the finger at Castro.
One other idea was they had a very complex plan where they were going to take an aircraft, and load it with CIA people who looked like college students, fly it over, have it take off from an airport in Miami with a lot of publicity, and then it would quickly, after it got into the air, land at a secret CIA base. At that same time, an identical plane would take off from that CIA base, except this plane would be empty. And it would be remotely piloted from the ground. It was a drone plane that would be very similar to the plane that had just taken off. And once the plane was over Cuba, there was going to be a tape recorder that would have played a distress call into a microphone saying, "Help, we're being shot at." And a few minutes later, once the plane was over Caribbean Sea for passing over Cuba, somebody would have pressed the button on the ground blowing up the plane, and they would have blamed Cuba for killing a planeload of American college students.
At another point, they had this idea where they were going to -- actually John Glenn was going to go into his first space mission around the same time. And part of the plan was that if Glenn's rocket accidentally blew up on liftoff, they were going to plant evidence making it look like it was Cuban sabotage that blew it up. These were all outrageous plans. So they made their way all the way up to Secretary of Defense McNamara. Actually, the plans were all signed by all of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And then they went up to McNamara, and McNamara rejected the plan. And that was the end of it.
So it never got put into effect. But the fact that you can get all of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the senior military officials in the U.S. government, to do something that outrageous, is extraordinary to me.

[Barrie Zwicker] Fast forward again to August 2, 1990. Iraq attacks Kuwait, claiming the Kuwaitis are slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields.
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush pushes for a land war against Iraq, but polls show the U.S. public is split 50-50 on that idea.
Then comes this eyewitness testimony before a Congressional Committee, from a 15-year old Kuwaiti girl.
The claim is she cannot be identified for fear of reprisals.

[Nayirah al-Sabah] While I was there, I saw Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the children to die on the cold floor.

[Barrie Zwicker] The U.S. public is outraged. The result? Support for a land war zooms.
It's a turning point. Desert Storm is launched. 135,000 Iraqis are killed.
An estimated 1 Million Iraqis, many of them children and old people ...
then die as a result of ten years of sanctions.
One small problem: There never were any incubator baby deaths. Not one. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's investigative flagship program "The Fifth Estate," reveals the girl to be the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter, given her lines, and coached in acting by the giant American PR firm Hill & Knowlton.
It's one phase in a $10 million joint U.S.-Kuwaiti campaign of deception.
This man is lying:

[Dr. Issah Ibrahim] I myself buried 14 newborn babies that had been taken from their incubators.

[Barrie Zwicker] This man is lying:

[George Herbert Walker Bush] They had kids in incubators, and they were thrown out of incubators so that Kuwait could be systematically dismantled.

[Barrie Zwicker] There were a lot of people who participated in a conspiracy. Yes, an out-and-out conspiracy of fake organizations, false documents, fraud, and disinformation.
So, if a new man named Bush is in the White House, and helps engineer a brazen deception in order to achieve global geopolitical goals, as well as domestic and personal ones, it wouldn't be a first, would it?

[Jimmy Walter,] Hello again. What I did not tell you before was that in the course of my research, I discovered that Colin Powell was a habitual liar. In the run-up to Gulf War I, Colin Powell testified that he had satellite photos of 2,500 Iraqi tanks on the Saudi border ready to invade. A St. Petersburg Times reporter went to the Russians and bought a satellite photo of the area. Not one single tank. Years later, when questioned by reporters, Powell admitted there were no tanks; that in effect, he had lied. And for those of you who do not remember, Colin Powell was the officer who covered up the Mai-Lai Massacre.

[Neo-Con -- Neo-Conservative -- The New Conservative Nationalist Movement]

[The Project for the New American Century]

[Chief Justice William Rehnquist] Repeat after me. "I, George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear ..."

When George W. Bush took office in 2000, he brought with him Vice-President Dick Cheney ...
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ...
and Deputy Secretary for Defense, Paul Wolfowitz ...
all of whom had served together previously in the administrations of Ronald Reagan ...
and George H. W. Bush.
Paul Wolfowitz in particular had long been recognized as the intellectual force behind a radical, neo-conservative fringe of the Republican party.
For years, Wolfowitz had been advancing the idea that the United States should reconsider its commitments to international treaties, international law, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations.
A radical plan for American military domination first surfaced during the administration of George H. W. Bush.
In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, working in the Department of Defense, was asked to write the first draft of a new national security strategy: a document entitled, "The Defense Planning Guidance."
The most controversial elements of what would later become known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine, were that the United States should dramatically increase defense spending; that it should be willing to take pre-emptive military action; and that it should be willing to use military force unilaterally, with or without allies. This new reliance on military force was necessary, according to Wolfowitz, to prevent the emergence of any future or potential rivals to American power, and to secure access to vital resources, especially Persian Gulf oil.
Out of power during the Clinton presidency, Wolfowitz and his colleagues affiliated themselves with a number of influential conservative thinktanks.

[REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century: A Report of The Project for the New American Century]

In 2000, they would craft yet another proposed national security strategy: this one, published by a rightwing thinktank calling itself the Project for the New American Century.
At its core, the document revived the Wolfowitz Doctrine. It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars, to deny other nations the use of outer space, and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision.
But even these hardline conservatives knew that the Wolfowitz Doctrine was likely too radical to win the support of the foreign policy establishment, their own Republican party, and the American people.
In their defining document, written in September of 2000, a full year before 9/11, they acknowledged that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one absent," in their own chilling words, "some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." One year later, that event would arrive.

[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] David vonKleist is the host of the popular radio program "The Power Hour." He is the maker of a new film, "9/11 in Plane Site." Alright, David, please come out here. Welcome.

[David vonKleist, Host of The Power Hour] Before I start, I want to thank any of the listeners we've got out there of the Power Hour for helping to keep us on the air. How many listeners do we have out there? I know there's a few of you. I thank you.
And the listeners know this is going to be a team effort. If we're to get the information out about what truly happened on September 11th, we have to somehow overcome the mindset, and the brainwashing, that's been subjected upon the American people for not just the past several years, and not just the past several decades, but for several generations.
Right off the bat I'm going to say a word. We're going to play some word association, I want you to all scream the first word that comes to your mind. Are you ready? "Conspiracy ... theory." Now there are two words in that phrase. The active word is theory. By definition a theory is an idea, a supposition, a concept. Here's an example. In theory, if I purchase a raffle ticket, I could win a prize. Now as long as you don't buy that raffle ticket, that win is theoretical. But once you buy one raffle ticket, it becomes a possibility. And the more raffle tickets you purchase, the more possible and eventually probable your win becomes. That's what it is with a conspiracy theory. When you have no evidence, it is a conspiracy theory. But once you have one piece of evidence, no matter how circumstantial or clumsy it may be, it becomes a possibility. And the more evidence you gather, the more possible, and eventually probable, the conspiracy is. Now we have to keep this in mind when we look at all of the information about September 11th.
Now about six weeks ago, I released a documentary film called "9/11 in Plane Site." Curiously, there were some individuals that somehow found a way to write a review on this documentary three weeks before it was released. They said all kinds of things: like this was manipulated footage. Yeah, that's what it was! It's doctored photographs. Yeah, photo workshop. That's the ticket. Yeah. I assure you that what you see on that video is unmanipulated, unaltered, video footage and photographs. So let's put that to rest right away. For those of you who have seen the documentary, I actually held the DVD from CNN entitled "America Remembers" right up into the lens of the camera, and yet some still say, it was manipulated footage. There are some folks who just don't want us to consider the possibility that maybe there was something other than a terrorist with a boxcutter in his hand that was responsible for slamming planes into targets on September 11th.
Now, you've seen some of the clips here about the Pentagon. Two and a half years ago I wrote an article called, "From Deception to Revelation." And I was summarily raked over the coals for even having the audacity, the unmitigated gall, to suggest that something other than a 757 had hit the Pentagon. People said I must have been part of a Cointelpro operation. Artichoke, that's what it was! And I don't even want to bring up some of the websites out there that claim to want to know "What Really Happened." Some of them really want to snoop around to find out what's really going on. You can figure it out.
But when people look at these videos, these videoclips in "9/11 in Plane Site," the big question comes up, "Dave, you're saying that no plane hit the Pentagon, and maybe the planes were switched that hit the towers. Wait a minute, what happened to the plane? You have to tell me what happened to that plane. Where are those people? You must have some sort of an idea!"
Well, yeah, I do, and if I came forward with that idea it would be a conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? The whole point of the project "9/11 in Plane Site" was to stick with video evidence and photographic evidence, and ask questions. And that's all we did. Boy, some people really hate it when you ask questions.
And for those of you that continue to ask the question, "Well, you have to tell me where's the plane? Where are the people?" I don't know. But let's consider this. Let's say you put a loved one on a bus here in New York, and they're going to go to Boston. What, it's about 5-1/2 to 6 hours? Something like that. So you take him down to the Greyhound bus terminal, you put him on a Greyhound bus, they get on the Greyhound bus, they sit in the window of the Greyhound bus right over the logo that says Greyhound bus, they wave to you on the Greyhound bus as it leaves the Greyhound bus terminal., and 5-1/2 hours later: "We interrupt this program to bring you a terrible news bulletin. It seems that a Greyhound bus has lost control and slammed into City Hall at Boston. There was a big explosion and everybody was killed.
And of course there is terrible mourning, and memorial services, and all kinds of terrible things going on. Well, about two weeks later somebody comes up with a photograph, or a video of the bus just before it hit the City Hall. And you know what? It says "Trailways" on the side. Question: "Where did the Greyhound bus go? Do you know?" I don't know. But we look at the information, the physical, the photographic, and the video evidence, and they scream the questions, "Where did those planes go, because they sure as hell didn't hit the Pentagon. And whatever hit those towers, has a very serious question as to whether or not those were commercial aircraft at all. This is where we are with this investigation that needs to be started right now.
Now I want to ask the question, take a look around you, do you see any cameras from CBS, Channel 2, Channel 4, ABC, Fox, CNN? Are they here? No, they're not. You want to ask the question "Why?" And I grew up here in New York City. I grew up in the Village. I grew up in Brooklyn. I watched those towers as they climbed their way into the sky, and when I saw them come down, it hit me very hard. Because this is where I spent my wonder years. And I have to ask the question, "Why is it that now I live in a very rural area?" I live in the center of the country. I'm out in the middle of flaming nowhere Missouri, a little town they call Versailles, Mercy Boo Cups, Monser!
And I want to know how is it that me and William Lewis, the director, can go down there with tons of videos that were sent to us by our listeners -- and again, I thank every single one of you for sending us the videotapes because without your help, the video project would not have been possible. The networks will not provide video footage. They will not provide releases. And they will not allow America to see this video footage, because some guy got on television a couple of months after September 11th and said, [does a bang-up job of mimicking Bush] "We've got to stop showing all of these videoclips of America being attacked no more 'cause we need time to heal." Once you see these videoclips in slow motion, you'll understand why they won't show them anymore. And for those of you who are curious, go to the Borders, or the Barnes and Noble, and buy the CNN disc "America Remembers." The videoclips are right there.
Now, I don't want to take too much time. We're running really late. But there's a couple of points that need to be made. First of all, let this be seen as no political football. We have one party in this country. It is the U.S. Corporate Party, with subparty A -- Republicans -- and subparty B -- the Democrats. We have to understand that the largest industry in this country is the defense contracting industry, because it includes communications, agriculture, industry, technology, and anything else that you can name. And war means money. We don't have the Cold War, and we don't have the Russians to be boogeyman anymore. China's our biggest trade partner. The United States is a world power. We don't have a boogeyman. Well, golly gosh, don't you think that they need to create one?
So I have to go back to where I started: conspiracy theory. I will now give you an example of a conspiracy theory. On September 23rd, Condoleezza Rice had a news conference. And she stated -- and I'm paraphrasing right now -- she said "We have definitive proof that links Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to the events of September 11. And we will release that information in due time." To this day, we're still waiting. We have not seen one piece of evidence that links Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban directly to the planning stages of September 11th
And when you have no evidence, and you charge somebody with conspiracy, that is a conspiracy theory, isn't it? The only difference is if you're George Bush & Company, and the United States Government, you get to launch not one, but two wars, half the world away, kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, and contaminate the entire region for 4.5 billion years with depleted uranium.
I don't know what the solution is, ladies and gentlemen. But the silence is deafening from the mainstream media. And I think that the only thing that we have to do right now is to mount a massive, million man media march, in every city across this country, and scream, "We want the truth!" And I will finish by making the same statement that I made at the end of my video when I will ask you all, "Where is your line in the sand?" Thank you very much.

[Professor David Ray Griffin, Author of "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"] Good evening. I'm glad to be part of this very important event which is made possible by Nico's invitation, and Jimmy's Video.
I would like to use my time to talk about the 9/11 Commission Report, which is the present subject of my research. Many people have asked me, "How good is the report?" Well, that depends on your perspective.

[The 9/11 Commission Report: "Our Aim has been to Provide the Fullest Possible Account of the Events Surrounding 9/11 ..."]

If you're one of the average Americans who get their news about 9/11 from the mainstream media, you will probably think the 9/11 Commission Report is excellent. This seems to be the opinion of people who write customer reviews on, almost all of them giving it five stars. Some of it praise it by saying, "It reads like a novel." Well, that's true. I myself would give it five stars if it were correctly categorized, that is, as a work of fiction. We are told in the preface that it was an attempt to give the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11. Now of course, they can't quite mean that.
There were trillions of events surrounding 9/11. They meant they were going to give an account of those that seemed relevant to understanding 9/11. So that means there had to be a principle of selection. That principle of selection would be based upon your perspective. That is, your basic theory about what happened on 9/11.
There are, of course, two basic competing theories of 9/11. Both of them are "conspiracy theories."
One of them is the official conspiracy theory put out by the Bush administration, according to which the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by Al Qaeda, inspired by Osama Bin Laden.
The other account, which is the alternative conspiracy theory ...
suggests that the attacks were made possible by the complicity of the Bush Administration itself. In the preface we read that the report is intended to be impartial.
But it is definitely not impartial as between these two theories.
The Commission began its work simply by assuming the truth of the official theory.

[The Guiding Theory, that Al-Qaeda was Solely Responsible for 9/11, Framed the Entire Investigation]

It did not argue for that theory. It simply assumed its truth from the outset, and throughout its work. And it uses this theory to decide which events are relevant: The Guiding Theory, that Al-Qaeda was Solely Responsible for 9/11, Framed the Entire Investigation.
We are also told in the preface that they intended their work to be independent, and non-partisan.
Now, by non-partisan, they meant that the committee was made up equally of Democrats and Republicans. Even this claim isn't quite true, because the Chairman of the Commission is a Republican.
And even more importantly, the Executive Director is a Republican. And this Executive Director -- Philip Zelikow -- is not just any old Republican.
He was a member of the National Security Council of the Bush 1 administration, where he worked with Condoleezza Rice.
Then, during the Clinton years, when the Republicans were out of office, he and Condoleezza Rice co-authored a book.
And I have co-authored a book with somebody, and I know you have to be very good friends. And you have to share almost all beliefs in common. He then worked for the transition team for the National Security Council for the transition between the Clinton and Bush administration. And finally, he was appointed to Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. So the Commission is definitely not independent, if you mean independent from The White House. Because the Executive Director represents the perspective of The White House.
Now why is this important? The Executive Director directed the work of the Staff. And the Staff of the Commission -- not the Commissioners -- did almost all the work. And as Director of the Staff, he decided which lines of inquiry were worthy to be looked into, which subjects should be subject to research, and which ones should not. Therefore, as Executive Director, Zelikow could direct the Staff to investigate those events that were relevant to the official conspiracy theory, and simply ignore all events that would be supportive of the alternative conspiracy theory.
Some critics, having read the 9/11 Commission report from the perspective of the alternative theory, have called it "The 9/11 Omission Report." Well this is a good name, because it systematically excludes virtually every fact supporting the alternative theory. But given Zelikow's role, this should be no surprise to us.

[Whitewash as Public Service: How the 9/11 Commission Defrauds the Nation, by Benjamin DeMott]

Some people have also called it a Whitewash. And it is. But this term assumes that the Commission should have investigated the White House, that is, various kinds of evidence, suggesting that there was complicity by The White House.
But given Zelikow's position, the investigation of the White House would have been carried out by essentially The White House itself.
A more accurate way to put it was that as The White House's inside man on the Commission, Zelikow was in position to make sure that the White House, along with the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, and the Justice Department, was not investigated. Once we understand this, we will not be surprised by the Commission's omissions.

Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host: Kristina Borjesson is the author of "Into the Buzzsaw," a leading journalist who exposed the myth of a free press. A collection of stories about reporters who acted courageously and discovered that no good deed goes unpunished. She's won an Emmy and a Murrow Award for investigative reporting.
Christopher Scheer is a co-author of "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq." He co-authored the Oscar nominated script for the film "Nixon."
Paul Thompson has compiled the world's most compendious resource of mainstream press stories about the events of 9/11, "The Complete 9/11 Timeline" at
Finally, Dr. Robert Bowman, an old friend of mine by the way, who flew 101 combat missions as a fighter pilot in Vietnam and who today takes a stand against war. He headed the Star Wars programs under Ford and Carter and then opposed them under Reagan. He now runs the Institute for Space and Security Studies. Welcome everyone.
Let me start with Dr. Bowman. What is your assessment of the film clip about the "Project for the New American Century" that we just saw? Do these guys really have that much influence?

[Dr. Robert Bowman, Institute of Space and Security Studies] Absolutely.

[Sharon's War Crimes in Lebanon: The Record, by Jean Shaoul]

As a matter of fact, this bunch not only drew up a plan for the foreign policy of the United States, they also drew up a plan for the foreign policy of Sharon's Likud government of Israel.

[Ariel Sharon: War Criminal, by Hadas Thier]

Both of these plans, drawn up by largely the same people, included regime change in Iraq as a central element
And as the clip noted, they acknowledged it couldn't happen..
The American people wouldn't allow it, unless there was a New Pearl Harbor

[The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, by David Ray Griffin]

That was what 9/11 was.

[Paul Thompson, Author/Research Writer] If I could clarify, he's referring to a paper that came out in 1996 called "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,"which was written for Benjamin Netanyahu, the just newly elected Israeli Prime Minister.

[Israeli Spy Scandal Deepens: Spies or Students?, by Lorie Kramer]

And it was written by, I believe, Douglas Feith, and a number of the people who are lately involved in this Israeli Spy Scandal. So David Wurmser is another one.
So the neo-cons -- this is how we refer to them -- actually gave advice to Sharon. And they are also pretty much the same people as in the "Project for the New American Century."

[Jamey Hecht, Ph.D. -- Co-Host] Paul, what about 9/11? Why is anyone doubting it? Why weren't all of the real questions cleared up by the 9/11 Commission?

[Paul Thompson, Author/Research Writer] We can see so many instances of conflicts of interest. For instance, Philip Zelikow, who is the Executive Director -- and he was the person who was in charge of figuring out who the witnesses are going to be, what evidence they were going to look at -- he co-wrote a book with Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor. And he has so many ties with the Bush Administration. He was part of the transition team. So he actually had to be interviewed by his own Commission, because he himself was involved in so much of what went on before 9/11.
And all of the Commissioners are very compromised by conflicts of interest. Quite a few of them are working with legal teams that represent United Airlines or American Airlines. I think half the Commissioners. So that's one problem.
Another problem is that the final report was supposed to be a unanimous report. So that means if there was a single Commissioner who had any objection about anything, that fact would be dropped from the report. So there is literally nothing in the 9/11 report that the Bush Administration did not approve of.

[Professor David Ray Griffin, Author, "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"] The number of omissions is staggering. For example, they begin the book with a discussion of the hijackers, giving the same 19 that have been named from the beginning.
They fail to point out that six of those hijackers have shown up alive.
They also discuss Mohammed Atta, describing him as a fanatic Muslim, obviously so devout he was ready to meet his maker.
They omit the fact, as Daniel Hopsicker has revealed, that Atta was very fond of alcohol, pork, and lap-dances.
They hardly discuss the World Trade Center collapses. They do not discuss the fact that fire had never brought down a high rise steel frame building.
They do not discuss the fact that the collapses had ten characteristics that are common to controlled demolitions.
They do not even mention the collapse of Building No. 7, and of course, therefore, the comment by Larry Silverstein -- the one who had a lease on it -- that he and the Fire Department decided to pull it; that is, have it brought down by explosives.
They do not discuss the removal of the steel, which would have covered up any evidence of explosives.
With regard to the crash into the Pentagon, they ignore several of the most puzzling questions, assuming the official theory. That is, why would terrorists have struck the West Wing, which was being renovated, so it had very few people, and when all the top brass and Rumsfeld were in the East Wing.
They do not discuss the fact that photos taken by the Associated Press, and even by a marine, show that up to 30 minutes after the building was allegedly hit by a 757 going 400 some mph, the facade had not collapsed.
They don't discuss the fact that these photos show the hole that was created was very tiny, and that no Boeing could have gone inside it.
They don't mention that no photos show there was a Boeing outside the Pentagon.
They don't mention that the Pentagon's anti-missile system should have brought down any commercial airline coming near the Pentagon.
With regard to Bush's behavior that day, they do not force the question as to why the Secret Service did not whisk him away, when there should have been fear that he would have been one of the terrorist targets.
They do not discuss the most specific of the advanced warnings. They do not ask Ashcroft, "What was the warning he got so that he would no longer fly commercial airplanes?" They do not mention David Schippers' report that prior to 9/11, he tried to inform Ashcroft that several members of the FBI were telling him that they knew the attacks were scheduled for that time in lower Manhattan.
They do discuss the PUT options. But they dismiss it saying, "We found the man who bought most of the United Airlines PUT options had no conceivable connection to Al-Qaeda, therefore he could have had no foreknowledge. This is a perfect example of how the official theory dictated what evidence was relevant.
With regard to the claim that we were hunting Bin Laden prior to 9/11, the Commission fails to mention that he reportedly showed up in July before 9/11 in a hospital in Dubai where he was treated by an American doctor, visited by a local CIA agent, and the head of Saudi intelligence. They ignore the testimony of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operative who reported that three members of the Saudi Royal Family had advance knowledge that there would be attacks on America on 9/11, and that a Pakistani general also had this knowledge-- testimony that tended to be verified by the fact that all four of those men ended up dead in a few months.

[House of Bush House of Saud, by Craig Unger]

In regard to these Saudi flights that Michael Moore made well-known in his moviebased on Craig Unger's book, the Commission claims there was nothing wrong with the flight on September 11th from Tampa to Lexington. American airspace had been open. They leave out the crucial point which Craig Unger had stressed that American airspace had only been open for commercial aircraft, not for private. This seemed a particularly blatant attempt at deliberate deception.
They ignored all the allegations that FBI headquarters had blocked investigations. They ignored Robert Wright's charges. They omitted the crucial element in the Coleen Rowley case, the Moussaoui case. And they omitted virtually every detail of Sibel Edmonds' 3-1/2 hour testimony. They omit any reference to the fact that the head of the Pakistani Intelligence Service was in Washington that very week, and that he had ordered $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta. It ignores the "Project for the New American Century" formed by many members that are now part of the Bush administration, with its explosive statement that a new Pearl Harbor would be very helpful. They ignore the fact that many members of the White House, including the President himself, after 9/11, described the attacks as "opportunities." They ignore the fact that there were pre-existing plans for war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and that both of these had to do primarily with oil.
I've talked primarily about the Commission's omissions, but there is another remarkable dimension -- the revisionism of this report. In Chapter 1, they give us a completely new version, which is actually the third official version of what happened on 9/11. This version is clearly intended to absolve the Pentagon of all blame by portraying the FAA as staffed by incompetent bunglers, ones who couldn't recognize a hijacking when all three or four regular characteristics were staring them in the face. And then people at FAA headquarters, who could not bring themselves to pick up the phone and call the military even after they knew of hijackings. This part should win a prize for creative fiction.
In short, the 9/11 Commission Report is a national disgrace. But what can we do? We cannot get on the mainstream media to make these truths known. Probably we need to organize massive protests, massive enough to force the mass media to pay attention. The first step in this, of course, is to get enough people informed about the facts about 9/11, and about the cover-up, so that we can create this mass movement. That, of course, is the importance of this event. And I'm pleased to have been a part of it.
Site Admin
Posts: 17165
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Confronting the Evidence -- A Call to Reopen the 9-11 In

Postby admin » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:05 am

Part 4 of 4

[Kristina Borjesson, Author/Investigative Reporter] The plan to go to war in Iraq was in place right after Bush was inaugurated. And you know, his cabinet tells you everything about what their interests are, because they're all oil people.
And essentially, the way you have to look at the Middle East, via this lens of the plan for a "New American Century" is this:
You have to look at Jordan -- and I'm going to make this very brief -- all the borders of Jordan are oil pipeline rights of way. The Gulf States: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc., those are oil reservoirs. And Israel, Syria and Lebanon, those are pipeline terminals. So if you look at it that way, all indications now are that we're headed for Iran.
So if you look at it just as I've described it, you really get a sense of why this was so important for them to do, even on the back of this horrific tragedy.

[Christopher Scheer, Author/Reporter-AlterNet] It has been astonishing -- as I imagine many of you agree -- since 9/11, it has taken three years just to even get a baseline establishment of what the government's position is on what happened. For the first year or two we didn't even hear answers to what happened, when, and how. Now things are finally trickling out, due to the commitment of say, widows and other relatives of those who were killed on 9/11.
So we have an administration that has shown itself to be incredibly opportunistic, and unwilling to open the door to discussion about how they acted before and during 9/11. Which means that many, many people, like Paul Thompson and others, have had to do all this legwork themselves. And the media has been rather quiescent.
I personally am a skeptic of many of the things that we're going to see here tonight. I think that a lot more has to be done to ascertain what it is. And I don't think you have to go so far as to establish that this was a manufactured event, but clearly what we know already is bad enough.
What we know is that the system of security and counterterrorism was blinking red, in the words of George Tenet. That the warnings of an imminent attack were so severe that something dramatic should have been done. It was unparalleled. Instead, our President went on a month-long vacation. And so we know that there was a blind eye turned to the warnings.
We also know that in the event of 9/11, the government was incredibly opportunistic. That these same guys who were in PNAC, who were in the American Enterprise Institute, and who were strewn throughout the top level of the government, quickly, within hours, seized on this event to push their pet obsession of invading Iraq, which as most of you probably know by now did not have weapons of mass destruction; was not a threat to us; who had nothing to do with 9/11. And 42% of Americans in a poll taken this week still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. So that means we have our work cut out for us to talk to that 42% and say, "Where is your head? What are you thinking? Can you read this? Can you look at this? Can you think about this again? Because I imagine that all of you are here, and this conference is happening because of the Internet. 20-30 years ago you could not have had this level of response to an event like this without the media taking part. You guys are all part of the media now, and you all have enormous power by using that, and talking to people.

[Jenna Orkin, WTC Environmental Organization] The other night, we had a similar meeting, and there was a discussion about the dire situation with oil. We're running out of supplies.
I want to know if the people on this panel think that there's a solution, since we're so dependent on oil?

[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] One of the most patriotic things we can do is lessen our dependence on Mideast oil, and stop funding these people. There is a very direct line these dollars take to go to people who want to do us harm around the world.
And a hybrid vehicle that cost me $95 from L.A. to Pittsburgh, you can't buy a Greyhound ticket for $95 to Pittsburgh. It gets 60 mpg. I have an electric car to drive around L.A. that's charged by the sun. I've owned a windmill since 1985, putting out many homes' worth of clean power. So these technologies exist. It's just another way of doing things.
And guess what? There's jobs making hybrid cars, and solar panels, and electric cars, and all those things, too. And good jobs. Jobs with dignity. Now Paul, can you wrap it up and bring us home please? And tell a little bit, "Did the 9/11 Commission answer everything for you?"

[Paul Thompson, Author/Research Writer] At least a dozen countries tried to warn the United States: Israel, Egypt, Germany, France, Argentina, Morocco -- the list is quite long -- and there isn't a single mention of any of those warnings from foreign governments in the 9/11 Commission Report, even though these were reported by The New York Times, and Washington Post.
So you can see that even some of the most basic facts are not in the 9/11 Commission's Report. So we cannot trust the report in my opinion really whatsoever.

Pre-9/11 warning

Among those coming forward is a former NSA linguist who worked with the NSA for almost three decades. The former employee spoke on condition of anonymity as he is currently employed by another federal agency. He is referred in this article simply as "J."

"J" is a "hyperpolyglot" or a person who is fluent in an unusually high number of languages. Former colleagues described him as a brilliant man possessing critical skills that were "amazing."

"I believe the abuse is very widespread," said J. "The targeted person suddenly is described as 'not being a team player,' as 'disgruntled,' and then they're accused of all sorts of bizarre things. Soon they're sent to the psych people."

J first ran afoul of the process when his superiors disagreed with a report he and other agency linguists filed on Sept. 11, 1993. Their study of Arabic language messages and the flow of money out of Saudi Arabia to terrorist entities in other countries led them to conclude that Saudi extremists were plotting to attack America. "You could see, this was the pure rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and his group, the exact same group, and we had an early indication," J said.

"All of us in the group had this view of a burgeoning threat, and suddenly we were all trotted off to the office of security. Then came the call to report for a battery of psychological tests," said J.

J told Cybercast News Service that he was again summoned to undergo psychiatric evaluation after warning NSA that security measures should be taken to protect against the possibility that terrorists might try to fly airplanes into buildings.

As an example of what might happen, J said terrorists might try to fly a plane from the nearby Tipton air field in Ft. Meade, Md., into an NSA high-rise building. J said NSA officials described him as "obsessed" with the idea of a "kamikaze" threat due to the time he had spent in Japan. The month was May 2001, four months before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S.

A similar scenario ensued every time J's analysis countered conventional wisdom, provided a dissenting opinion or made someone feel that their job was being threatened. J said he soon developed an irregular heartbeat due to the stress of not knowing when he next would be called for another psychiatric test.

"I believe it was retaliation, but how do you prove that?" J said. He spent the last 10 years of his career at the NSA with no promotion or raise. During that time, another linguist with critical skills left out of disgust with what was happening, J added.

"Who was going to listen to us?" asked J. "Who could do anything anyway?

"I'm still afraid they're going to screw my life over," he said. "They have long tentacles. I never even owned a computer because I know what they can do. Every keystroke can be picked up."

Agent X and the 'underground network'

Agent X, a current NSA officer, confirmed the allegations and told Cybercast News Service that psychiatric abuse as a form of retaliation was "commonplace" at the agency.

"A lot of people who work there are going through the same thing. People live in fear here. They run it like some kind of Gestapo," Agent X said.

Those targeted are "yelled at, badgered and abused," X added. "These are really good people, who start to be labeled crazy, but they're telling the truth."

Agent X also alleged that the NSA plants false evidence in personnel files as part of the intimidation campaign.

The agency also maintains a "dirt database" of inconsequential but potentially embarrassing information on employees, gathered during routine clearance investigations, said Tice. The information is kept as a means of leverage, he alleged.

Agent X said that an "underground network" has developed to discuss these issues. "It's like the Nazis have taken over."

-- NSA Accused of Psychologically Abusing Whistleblowers, by CNS News

[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] There have been a great number of omissions. In fact, more than we have time for. We're about to look up a few of the big ones. You may recognize the 9/11 Commission Report. I'm going to read you perhaps the most astounding confession on page 172. "The U.S. Government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately, the question is of little practical significance."
Isn't that interesting? Doesn't it matter who paid for 9/11?
It also says in the 9/11 Commission Report: "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government or foreign government official supplied any funding." And I think we've discovered Rule 1 of the 9/11 Commission: "Don't Follow The Money". Dr. Bob Bowman.

[Dr. Robert Bowman, Institute of Space and Security Studies] What was going through the President's mind? Get to the very important question that Jenna asked earlier about culpability. And what do we believe? And was this something that just dropped into their laps, or whatever?
In attempting to answer this, we have three different kinds of information. I'm not going to go into them. You've been exposed to a lot of them tonight, and will be to more of them.
A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11, is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible. But they don't prove what really happened, and who was responsible.
But there's a second group of facts, having to do with the cover-up. And you know, these are a whole bunch of things. Like the confiscation of the surveillance tapes of the impact on the Pentagon. The confiscation of the air traffic control voice tapes. It goes on and on and on. Taken together, these things prove that high levels of our government don't want us to know what happened, and who was responsible.
And then there's a third set of facts that impinges upon the President's thinking, and all of that. These are the facts of what happened after 9/11. And this is a historical record.
For example, Ashcroft and his cronies got their Patriot Act, which takes away our civil liberties, and trashes the Bill of Rights. Unocal got its invasion of Afghanistan, and secured a route for oil and gas pipelines for a trillion dollars worth of gas from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean. Cheney's Halliburton got no-bid contracts to support the troops in destroying Iraq, and other contracts to rebuild it.
And more importantly, all those PNAC guys, the neo-cons, got their invasion of Iraq. They got regime change in Iraq.
So the questions come, "Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place?" When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it's highly placed individuals in the administration, with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.
I think the very kindest thing we can say about George W. Bush, and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say, is that they were aware of the impending attacks, and let them happen.
Now some people will say that's much too kind. However, even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder.
When we talk about the rest of this stuff, there is one thing I want us to keep in mind: If enough of the American people are stupid enough, and manipulated enough, to re-elect this gang of thugs, then we, the true American Patriots, will have no recourse but to continue pushing for a real investigation, perhaps by the Attorney General of New York City who knows, an investigation telling the truth and leading to the indictment of these people, their conviction, their removal from office, and their incarceration for a very long period of time.

[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] We're going to return to our panel to discuss the issue of whether or not 9/11 was unavoidable. Still, we wonder after such supported and supposed failure, shouldn't anyone be held accountable? First of all, I want to introduce John Prados. He's a journalist and an author. His work appears regularly in one of the nation's great old journals on military affairs, "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists." Welcome John.

[Jamey Hecht, Ph.D. -- Co-Host] Carl Schwartz is a principle in Global Access, and a former high-level consultant to the Republican party. Arkansas Republicans once asked him to run for governor against Bill Clinton. And more recently, he's been researching the background reasons for the removal of the Taliban. Carl Schwartz.

[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] Mr. Prados, who, if anyone, in the government should be held accountable for 9/11?

[John Prados, Author/Former Senior National Security Analyst] Who's to be held accountable? I think it's pretty clear. The President of the United States -- George W. Bush -- who failed to exert leadership at a key moment in the nation's history. The Vice-President of the United States -- Richard Cheney -- who was in charge of a committee to deal with the terrorism issue, and wouldn't meet with it before September 11th happened. Attorney General of the United States -- John Aschcroft -- who cut money out of the terrorism budget the day before September 11. The National Security Advisor -- Condoleezza Rice -- and her deputy -- Stephen Hadley -- who held back the plan to do anything about al Qaeda for nine months during the months that something could have been happening.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, which muffed its investigation of what was going on in terrorist circles in the United States. The Central Intelligence Agency, who failed to appreciate everything that was going on, even though George Tenet was running around with his hair on fire. There's a lot more I could talk about, but I think we've got little time here, so I'm going to pass it along.

[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] There's somebody I want to hear from -- and thank you John, that was quite eloquent. You know, not only was The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, signed under President Nixon, but a lot of the recent environmental laws passed, we couldn't have done without Sherry Bollert and John Chaffey, now deceased, and Lincoln Chaffey, and wonderful Republicans who've stood up for the environment. We have a Republican here tonight who's here to prove this is and should be a non-partisan issue. I'd like to hear from Carl Schwartz. Please, Karl.

[Karl Schwartz, Author/Pres. and CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies] Every time I hear the name Ashcroft, I have to remind myself, this was the guy who lost a gubernatorial election in the show-me state to a dead guy. And his next job is to come before every one of us and treat us all as an Al Qaeda suspect. So I am not real proud to call myself a Republican these days. I tell the story that I became a Republican in 1980 because of Bill and Hillary Clinton. And I became an Independent recently because of George Bush.
There have been several things said this evening, and these are just factual, correcting things. We talked about this back stage. Because of the media and the timeline, and how people put this all together, the doctor brought up Unocal a minute ago. Unocal is actually owned by the Venezuelan government-owned Petroleus. They are not a U.S. owned company anymore. If you know anything about the pegging of the dollar to oil, and the pegging of the dollar to the Euro, there's only two countries on the face of this planet that have done that: one is Iraq, and you can see what happened to them, and the other one was Venezuela. And you can pretty well come to a conclusion that there's been quite a bit of interference in Venezuela as to what to do about their pegging to the dollar. We've tried to stomp Chavez to death politically down there.
To address Sibel Edmonds that came up in the clip a minute ago. I interviewed Sibel Edmonds for a book that I wrote, and everybody thinks it's got a cute name to it, and I didn't even name it. It's titled, "One Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas: A Conservative Republican Speaks Out." Where my story started in this is in 1999. I left Wall Street. I've been in this city many, many times. In fact, I've been in the World Trade Center many, many times. I used to office with ____ Capital Markets at 100 ___ Street. And then we all moved with Smith Barney, and we went up here to 1345 Avenue of the Americas. And then Smith Barney moved down to 380 Grenwich. That's when I left the company. And I preferred to do something else with my life other than travel half a million to a million miles a year.
But one of the things that I did was I went with UUNet. I saw telecom and IP __ as something that was interesting. Possibly profitable if you did it right. And I met a company in November, 1999 at a telecom conference. In the book, "The Forbidden Truth," the Brisard book, they disclosed that Bridas Corporation had actually signed a contract with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to build the trans-Afghanistan pipeline. Now, they were not able to ferret out the information I did, and I did this face-to-face. What we found is that Bridas also had a contract with the Taliban, and with General Rashid Dawston. The last remaining obstacle after our government and our influence peddlers had put enough pressure on Turkmenistan to upend that government's agreements with Bridas, they also upended Pakistan. There's a good possibility that when Bhutto was overturned, we may have been behind it. We have a lot of companies over there, including four that have electrical generation power plants in Pakistan right now. And they've had them since the mid-1990s. They wanted and need cheap natural gas to make those projects feasible. Some of you may have heard about the Enron Dabhol fiasco in Dabhol, India. That is not a feasible project because the cost of the natural gas is too high. They proceeded anyway. We've lost a billion dollars in U.S. Government guarantees.
But the thing that stuck out to me the most is we found that this is a bipartisan problem. It's on both sides of the aisle. And that's why I finally decided to stand up and tell everything I knew. We were actually putting RICO lawsuits together to go after certain parties. Not about 9/11. Our research had nothing to do with 9/11. It had to do with international securities fraud. It had to do with telecom fraud. An interview I heard on the radio one time led me to Sibel Edmonds. I'm not under a gag order. I wanted to compare names. I want to compare trails, what we call "rabbit trails." When you're investigating, these people will throw everything out in front of you they can to keep from getting caught. Sometimes you have to wade through 10, 15, or 20 shell corporations just to find out who the true owner of something is. And what we found was the same thing she found. And she confirmed it in a conversation with me just about the time they were putting the lid on her. She found drug trafficking, and money laundering. She found foreign names. And she found American names in the financing of 9/11. And what she found had nothing to do with counterterrorism. I even quote in my book, sometimes it pays to, "Dick, did you check your six? Did you check it three, nine and twelve to see if they were sitting right across the table, or standing right next to you?" What they found inside the FBI actually came from ongoing drug investigations dating back to 1998. And I heard just a minute ago, Mr. Thompson brought up Argentina. The company that had the contract with the Taliban is Bridas Corporation. They are from Argentina. On September 9, 2003, they won a lawsuit in our Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. They had been tied up in the Texas courts since 1996. They won $500 Million in a judgment for interference of contract in Turkenistan. The only remaining thing was to take the Taliban and Bridas out, and then we controlled it all. We controlled the Caspian Basin oil. We have the pipeline to get it to the sea. The oil and gas in the Caspian basin in current dollars is worth somewhere between 11 and 12 trillion dollars.
If you look at who was on the 9/11 Commission on the Democrat side, who was directly benefited, Mr. Ben-Veniste's law firm was the law firm that kept Bridas tied up. They are also the law firm that lost the lawsuit when it went to the Supreme Court and down to the Fifth Circuit. They kept them tied up at least from 1998. They're involved in Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekhistan in about 20 different ways. You got the guy Thompson, former Republican governor of Illinois, who is sitting on the board of FMC. They have an oil and gas subsidiary. They make equipment. They are selling a lot of it overseas in the Caspian. Jamie Gorelick, I thought she was going to be a go-getter. I mean, I was rooting for her because she acted like she knew what she was doing. She sits on the board of Schlumberger, which is a competitor to Halliburton. Just within two weeks prior to the 9/11 Commission saying "__", and handing it over to the President and Congress to change our rights some more, which is what I think they plan to do, Schlumberger finally comes forward and admits they are having record profits in this last quarter, and they're doing a lot of big bucks business in the Caspian basin.
If you look at the reality that Bridas had a contract with the Taliban, we had landlocked oil and gas deals. We had to get it to the ocean. We have people actually doing business in Pakistan. You literally have to look at 9/11, and all of these foregoing issues, as inseparable. There is your new Pearl Harbor. And that our government can sit there and contrive policy like this, I came up with four words in this book. One was "hopelessness." I see it all over this country, and I've seen it for a long time. The second word that came up to my mind is the "indifference" of our government. And you were speaking about the EPA. They can literally change reality, because they're afraid it may affect something. And their policy does not have anything to do with quality of life or life. If this snuffs your life out economically, or health-wise, so be it, if they think it's good policy. And it's both sides of the aisle in D.C. I call them financial terrorists. I don't know what you would call them.

[Jamey Hecht, Ph.D. -- Co-Host] I'd like to ask the first question to Webster Tarpley. Can you talk about the likely role of the neoconservatives, the civilians inside the Pentagon, in perpetrating 9/11? And if you like, can you comment on their likely response to a successful 9/11 movement that might put in jeopardy their hold on power this November?

[Webster G. Tarpley, Author] When Bush ran for office he ran, frankly, as a moron, who would be a moron, but he would get the best advisors. So it's to the advisors that we have to look. And if we look at a Cheney, or a Wolfowitz, or some of these other people, here we see people that may very well be the conduits of the rogue network into the White House.
But make no mistake, it is that rogue network which has been running the United States.
Now if I say, "rogue network," it may make them seem a little bit too lonely. And I don't think they're lonely. People who are old enough to remember the Iran-Contra years, can remember words like "The Invisible Government,""The Parallel Government," "The Secret Government," "The Shadow Government." Senator Inouye said they had their own army, navy, airforce, treasury, their own policies, their own ways of making decisions. That invisible government, that secret government, I submit, is alive and well. The neocons are certainly a part of it. I call them neocon fascist madmen. But it's deeper in my view. It's not just the neocons.
The neocons have been part of this for perhaps 20 or 30 years, but it's something that's been around significantly longer. So I would say we have to look primarily at this network inside the U.S. Government. Now certainly other people provide auxiliaries. MI-6 traditionally provides services. The Mossad obviously provides services. When we get down to something like Saudi Intelligence, or the ISI, again, these are kind of walk-on parts in the middle of all this. But it seems to me that this is the thing that we have to confront.
Now this network is still in place. No one has laid a glove on them, much less this fake 9/11 Commission with Kean and Hamilton. So I would just say, that's a group that's still there, and their reaction is most likely to be what they're doing right now: they're courting war with Iran, they're courting war with Syria, they're courting war with the Sudan, and most disturbing of all, they are courting war with Russia.
Because according to President Putin, and the Russian press right now, the people behind the massacre at that school in Northern Ossetia are the United States Government and the British Government. And that's all over the Russian press.

[Jamey Hecht, Ph.D. -- Co-Host] Our last presenter for the evening is a very accomplished, award-winning Canadian journalist named Barrie Zwicker, whose new film is called "The Great Conspiracy -- The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw." Barrie Zwicker.

[Barrie Zwicker, Canadian Television] Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it wrote Santayana. History is bunk, said Henry Ford. Of the two, I'm more with Ford. The problem with Santayana's thoughtful quote, is that it assumes that history is accessible enough to be ignored. The allure of Ford's seemingly anti-intellectual outburst, is that it reminds us that history can be complete fiction. .
But I haven't been able to find anyone to quote on what seems to me to be the most significant point of all about history. Namely, that much, perhaps the most significant history, is hidden.
I. F. Stone wrote a book called, "The Hidden History of the Korean War."
Daniel Boorstin wrote, "Hidden History -- Exploring Our Secret Past." And I thank Jamie Hecht for that. He found that title on the Internet today. Thank you, Jamie.
Howard Zinn wrote essentially an alternative history -- which a lot of you know about --"A People's History of the United States."
And more recently Michael Parenti wrote, "History as Mystery." But unfortunately, Michael Parenti, my friend, is very, very poor on 9/11. For some reason, like Noam Chomsky, he just can't seem to get his head around this. It's a mystery to me. .
But the most lethal hidden histories, pound for pound, are the false flag operations that Webster Tarpley mentioned. These are the state-sponsored, or rogue network, toxic deceptions in which an actual attack on one's own country is engineered for the purpose of mobilizing public opinion, usually behind the war agenda of the invisible government, and the ruling deceivers.
Now these deceptions tend to be turning points of history leading to terrible loss of life, and even downward spirals for whole countries. The book, "Great War-Triggering Deceptions of All Time" is yet to be written. But when it is, it will be very thick and of utmost importance. And if it is written, I cannot think of an author more qualified and capable of writing it than Webster G. Tarpley.
One more quote, by an American cultural critic, Larry Ray. Again, thank you, Jamie, I couldn't remember the name, and Jamie found it. I didn't have access to the Internet today. Larry Ray wrote, "Anniversaries are reservoirs of sacred power." I saw this firsthand this morning at ground zero. But there is something more sacred than any commemorative occasion, and that is the search for truths about turning point events, specifically tonight, about the events of 9/11.
You're owed at least two relevant examples of previous deceptions, and that's all there's time for. First, Pearl Harbor, the original outrage. Robert B. Stinnett's book, "Day of Deceit," is in my opinion, by far the most comprehensive work on the subject. A former U.S. Naval Officer, Stinnett invested 17 years in research. And he liberated 100,000 previously classified documents. To brutally summarize, "Day of Deceit" proves, to my satisfaction at least, that for a year before Pearl Harbor, FDR had a plan, specifically an 8-point plan, to provoke the Japanese into attacking U.S. forces or facilities. He repeatedly emphasized that it must be the case that the Japanese fire the first shot. And what a shot it was. It required that a significant part of the U.S. fleet be made vulnerable. That those responsible for protecting that fleet have one or both hands tied behind their backs. That the Japanese remain unaware that all their codes, right up through the high command, had been broken, and broken good. The day before Pearl Harbor, according to the Gallup poll, just 16% of the U.S. public supported this country entering World War II. The day after Pearl Harbor, 1 million men volunteered to fight in that war. That stingingly effective deception, at least, was in service of adding another powerful ally to the struggle to defeat Nazi Germany. And I for one retroactively endorsed that. But such an ethically warranted fraud, if I may use that phrase, is virtually a lone exception to the rule in this sordid category.
Typical, on the other hand, was the supposed attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in early August, 1964, on two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. I believe this has been referred to earlier in the evening. That's a problem when you come last. The supposed attack on the U.S. destroyers, Maddox and Turner Joy, was a sham. Navy Commander James Stockdale, who was Ross Perot's vice-presidential candidate, was flying cover in the Tonkin Gulf that night. "Our destroyers were firing at phantom targets," he wrote later. There was nothing there but black water and American firepower. Lyndon Johnson, nevertheless, went on TV to deceive the American people and the Congress. The result was overwhelming support for immediate passage of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which was the sole legal basis for the Vietnam War; the loss of 3 Million Vietnamese lives; and 58,000 American ones; and creation of a schism in the U.S. body politic that continues to this day.
Emblematic -- and the media have been mentioned here without praise earlier this evening, and after 33 years as a media critic I can't find any fault with that -- emblematic of media malfeasance and supine service to illegitimate power, then and now, The New York Times, after LBJ's speech editorialized that, "The President went to the American people last night with the somber facts," the most somber fact is that if We the People cannot force today's top hidden history into the open, a cascade of calamitous events is very likely to ensue. And my prayer is that I am wrong. Thank you.

[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] You've been so patient. And we've been talking up here a lot, showing a lot of information. We invite you now, we have roamers out there with microphones, to get your questions for the panel. You can put some tough questions of any sort that you like. We have people out there with microphones, and we're going to get people to ask a question.

[Man] Where exactly are Rice and Powell in this whole thing? I only heard one person say something about Condoleezza Rice, but also Colin Powell. So those two.

[Kristina Borjesson, Author/Investigative Reporter] Powell did not want to go along with the program. And he was basically pressured to sell the war on Iraq. He was in the White House at the time post -9/11 when they were trying to ride that terror wave into Iraq. There were a number of offices. And I'm sure many of you have heard of them. Within the administration, there was the White House Information Group with Condoleezza Rice and company. They were the messengers. And the messages that were being formulated at the same time for them to send out was to sell the war, and the images of the mushroom cloud. And then there was the Office of Special Plans for cherry picking intelligence, and putting it together in a way, again, that would sell disinformation to the American public. And part of the Office of Special Plans was also to put pressure on high level people in the CIA, the NSA, and even Colin Powell, who didn't want to go along with the program,. But unfortunately, he buckled. And he's trying to get Bob Woodward to sort of write his mea culpa. But he was a big man in a tight spot, and he did not, I think, acquit himself very well. He didn't stand up and call a halt to the madness.

[John Prados, Author/Former Senior National Security Analyst] Rice took over as National Security Adviser with a different agenda. She's a Europeanist, an expert on the Soviet Union, Cold War. She was, and in a certain sense still is, mired in the Cold War. When she came into the White House, she put down the issue of terrorism. The counterterrorism planning group, the Crisis Unit, which the Clinton Administration had formed, she downgraded it. Richard Clarke, she demoted. The plan that he advised, she put on the file cabinet. That plan then took 9 months to get to the President's desk the day before September 11th.

[Man] We have just seen that the operation, the events of 9/11, were enormous, multi-faceted, multi-step. My belief is that an operation of that enormity was probably in the works for many, many years. The fact that it happened on 9/11, 2001, puts the Bush Administration only nine months into it. Prior to it, as we know, for eight years there was Mr. Clinton in the White House. What, to the Panel's mind, was Mr. Clinton's and his administration's role in the events of 9/11?

[Webster G. Tarpley, Author] I would say that towards the end of the 1990s, you have the emergence of an oligarchical consensus that the entire U.S. ruling class, ruling elite, comes to see terrorism as the preferred means, indeed, the only means to provide social cohesion, To provide an enemy image for the society to keep it together. According to neocon theory from Carl Schmitt, you have to have an enemy image in order to have a society.
They were concerned, of course, about world domination and geopolitics, the continuing Russian nuclear deterrent, the economic dynamism of China, which is rapidly overtaking over the rest of the world, and the demographic dynamism of the Islamic world.
They were also concerned about the collapse of the monetary system, and the fact that many countries are on the verge of dumping the dollar as a means of payment for oil. But also for many other things, For trade. And going to the Euro, or some other solution. And towards the end of that period, it seems to me you have this oligarchical agreement that terror is the way to go.
It's a very dangerous thing, because now it means that the entire social order, the political parties, intellectual life, politics in general, are all based on a monstrous myth.
Now, concerning these Presidents. I think it's very naive to think that whatever puppet happens to be sitting in the White House is somebody who actually has power. One of the things I try to do in my book, I try to give you a thumbnail sketch of the mental wrecks, the impaired people, severely impaired people, who have been in the Oval Office. Generally, it took at least one nervous breakdown to qualify as President.
Now Clinton is simply a plausible face for this apparatus that is sitting there. And I think it's a mistake, either with Clinton or with Bush, although I think with Bush in the more recent phase, it's more serious. You got to go back to the fact that these people are simply figureheads.

[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] Thank you Webster. Next question. Sir, in the middle.

[Garland Roberts] My name is Garland Roberts. I'm head of the Black alumni at Brooklyn Technical High School. We were the first people on site with generators, and everything else. And we met up with massive amounts of problems. We also were the people originally that were the third bidders on the emergency exit systems. We personally knew the whole of the systems that go through the two world trade centers, 7, and the hotel, and physically didn't need plans, or anything else on site. They continuously tried to keep us from getting involved. They were telling us, "Well, we don't need you." We knew the things intimately. They wouldn't let us underneath, because the kids told us, another kid told us who was involved with the subways, that they had come up under subfloors where they had the different switches that cut off the floors. And we knew there were people trapped there.
Now there's another man who's important for your damn thing. That's Carl Ross, who was the other guy with us, that was trying to get them to let us actually show them where to go, and everything else. Carl was important because when the first plane hit, he was late for work as an architect. And he was opening that door downstairs when you come from Jersey with a New Jersey pass, when the plane hit, and physically saw the rubble coming down. And he ran. But the thing that he questioned was, he did not see JP4, which is like a kerosene smell.
He didn't get any of that down into that lower section that would have been part of the main structure. And nobody's addressed that at all. How do you get these other things into somebody to investigate. I'm not the goddamned media. I tried. I went to Congressmen. I went to Senators. I was with McCain. I joined the Republican party to fight the goddamned right wing.

[Man] We have to ask, "How did the lower parts of those buildings fail when they were cold steel, and they had 100% of their structural integrity?" And yet they fell. The North Tower fell faster than the speed of gravity. That simply is not possible.

[Man] Alex Jones, "9/11 The Road to Tyranny" creator, said on his radio show through a secret service agent on Saturday, a week ago, the secret service agent testified that he and his fellow agents, and his agency, has known for years -- plural -- years that the martial law in this country is supposed to be implemented starting November 1st.
Before November 1st, they need to have a major catastrophe in order to get us to accept that without a major fight on their hands. What do all of you know about this horrible shit that's going on in our lives? And why has it taken so long for a panel like this, that appears to be an honest panel for the most part, why has it taken so fucking long for this to happen?

[Webster G. Tarpley, Author] At the beginning of June, I put out a release called "Rogue Bush Backers Plan Super 9/11 False Flag Terrorist Attacks." And it essentially goes through the tremendous pattern of psychological warfare, terror demagogy, coming from the Bush Administration. But also coming from martial law bureaucrat Richard Clarke, Ted Koppel of the controlled media, and so forth. And what this points to, I think the big turning point is Bush's speech of April 21st, because he'd been trading on terrorism before. In the 21st of April speech, the editors, he essentially said there's going to be another round of terrorism, and we're going to make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear capability. Therefore, the great danger right now is a second wave of 9/11 style terrorism, one or two magnitudes beyond. In other words, the ABC realm: atomic, bacteriological and chemical.
What I did try to point out at the same time in that article, is that there are countervailing forces. It's more or less this. If you get "successful" super 9/11 terrorism, a new wave, you will be essentially freezing the neocons -- Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and so forth -- into power, especially in the Pentagon. Now who is there in the society who doesn't like that? I think the U.S. Army, strangely enough, is a candidate for not liking that. We look at Iran: Iran is four times the size of Iraq. It has three times the population. It's intact. It hasn't been bombed. It hasn't been starved by years and years of sanctions. When you look at Wolfowitz, the Army looks at Wolfowitz and they say, "Iran is a meatgrinder. He wants to put us into it. Are we going to allow Wolfowitz to have a coup, and set up a neocon fascist dictatorship in the United States?" I think the answer is there are some who don't want it. And the so-called "Israeli mole-scandal" in the Pentagon is a desperate attempt to try to freeze, to stop that network from starting a war with Iran.

[Ed Begley, Jr. -- Host] Webster, thank you very much. And thank you all for coming. Thank you for your passion, and what you all saw and reported. We really appreciate it. Stick around, and talk amongst yourselves.

[Jimmy Walter (] Thank you for watching this video. Among all that you've seen, there is one silver bullet. There were no Muslims, no Arabs, no hijackers involved in these crimes.
Only White House, New York City, New York State, and the Mayor's office of New York City, lied to the people of New York, and the visitors to New York, that the air was safe to breathe.
If you worked, lived, or visited the World Trade Center area after 9/11, I urge you to seek legal counsel to press criminal charges, and file civil suits against the government officials who lied to you and may have seriously injured your health. Thank you.

For more information visit:
Produced by Jimmy Walter for and INN Studios, NYC. Directed by Lenny Charles, INN Studios, NYC. Produced at Atlantic Video at The Manhattan Center d/b/a of MCP-AV, Inc. Public Relations by Ilene Proctor, International Public Relations. Edited by The Gardener Group at The Guest House. Panel (in the order of their appearance)
Host, Ed Begley, Jr.,
Co-Host, Jamey Hecht,
Jenna Orkin, World Trade Center, Environmental Organization,
Robert Bowman, Institute of Space and Security Studies
Christopher Scheer, Co-author of "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq"
David Ray Griffin, Author of "The New Pearl Harbor"
Paul Thompson, Author of "The Terror Timeline"
John Prados, Author of "Hoodwinked"
Karl Schwarz, Author of "One Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas"
Webster Griffin Tarpley, Author of "George Bush, The Unauthorized Biography," and "9/11 Synthetic Terrorism Made in USA"
Christopher Bollyn,
Jeff King,
David vonKleist, Produced film "911 in Plane Site," Host of "Power Hour,"
Barry Zwicker, Produced film "The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw,"
Dr. Griffin and Jimmy Walter, Interviewed by Penny Little
Other books mentioned in the program:
"High Noon for Natural Gas: The New Energy Crisis," by Julian Darley
"The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies," by Richard Heinberg
"Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil," by Michael C. Ruppert, Catherine Austin Fitts
"Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden," by Jean-Charles Brisard, Guillaume Dasquie, Wayne Madsen
"The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex," by Helen Caldicott
"Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack," by Eric Hufschmid
"The Hidden History of the Korean War," by I.F. Stone
"Hidden History, Exploring Our Secret Past," by Daniel J. Boorstin
"A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn
"History as Mystery," by Michael Parenti
"A Pretext for War," and "Body of Secrets," by James Bamford
Films Mentioned in the Program:
"Hijacking Catastrophe," by The Media Education Foundation,
"Fahrenheit 9/11," by Michael Moore,
"America Rebuilds," by PBS,
"Open Your Eyes: The War on Terrorism is a Lie," by Roy and Karen Harvey of Snowshoe Films
Internet Addresses Mentioned in the Program:
Site Admin
Posts: 17165
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Return to Illustrated Screenplays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest