These are 50 facts that point to something much more than what we are given in the official conspiracy theory. This list was primarily compiled from
by Jon Gold
), who personally gave me explicit permission to use or replicate them here
on ATS (Mods please take note).
It's important to note that nothing in this list unequivocally proves the guilt of anyone or any one entity, though it does open up a lot of questions
that should be answered. The very fact that most of these things aren't addressed, points to a particular level of guilt in of itself. So, while the
theories pointing to the guilt of certain factions of government have not been unequivocally proven, neither has the OS or official conspiracy theory,
only there is evidence proving the official conspiracy theory wrong, or at the very least negligent and ignorant. We do however have many pieces to
the puzzle and that is exactly what this list is. It is the issues in this list that may absolutely prove the guilt of certain factions within the
government, but it does absolutely implicate certain factions within the government. For this reason, an investigation (either national with strict
oversight or international with strict oversight and transparency) is absolutely necessary. There are simply far too many unanswered questions and
facts that implicate certain people or entities (other than Al Qaeda) in the crimes regarding 9/11 (both the attack itself and the aftermath). Until
these things are adequately addressed, the 9/11 truth movement won't go away and instead it will grow.
For Jon Gold's full commentary on these facts, please click here.
The Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called “The Project For A New American Century.” This group
produced a document entitled, “[
url=http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf]Rebuilding America’s Defenses[/url]” that said the
“process of transformation
” they wanted our military to undertake
would take an excessively long time, unless there was a “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” That document was written
in September 2000. This document even cited that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” A lot of the same people were part of a group that
wrote a report
“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
” that advocated an aggressive Israeli
policy in the Middle East.
The Bush Administration came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq
. This is so
heavily documented that Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked
about it. He denied it of course, and used 9/11 as the justification for what he and his administration have done.
Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill said
that Saddam was
“topic A” ten days after the inauguration at the very first National Security Council meeting, and eight months before 9/11. According to
O’Neill, “it was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
On November 24th, 2009, the “Chilcot Inquiry
” revealed that “Tony
Blair’s government knew that prominent members of the Bush administration wanted to topple Saddam Hussein years before the invasion (before 9/11)”
[...] “We were aware of these drumbeats from Washington and internally we discussed it. Our policy was to stay away from that part of the
spectrum,” added Sir William Patey, then head of the Middle East department at the Foreign Office.”
In a 2007 interview
former Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke, he states that between March 2001 and May 2001, members of the Bush Administration discussed
creating a “casus belli” for war with Iraq.
According to Merriam-Webster
, a “casus belli” is “an event or action that
justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict.”
Dick Cheney was the CEO for a company called Halliburton. During his tenure there, he gave a speech
at the Institute of Petroleum that said, “while many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the
world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress
continues to be slow.”
On 10/11/2005, it was reported that the shares that Dick Cheney claimed he no longer had with Halliburton, rose
3281% in one year
In early 2001, Dick Cheney was put in charge of The National Energy Policy Development Group, or “Energy Task Force” for short.
He prepared for this during the transition
between the Clinton and Bush administrations.
The task force met with what appears to be every oil executive in existence, even though they
denied it before Congress
It was eventually discovered that one of the topics of
during these task force meetings was Iraq’s oil fields. Five months before 9/11.
The Vice President’s office fought long and hard
to make sure the
informationfrom those meetings never saw the light of day. They even took the fight to the
. Many were suspicious of the
hunting trip that Antonin Scalia, and Dick Cheney went on prior to the Supreme
Court hearing the case
. Scalia was proud of the fact
that he didn’t recuse
himself from the hearings. Ultimately, they sent the fight to an appeals court, and it was
decided that Cheney’s Task Force documents may remain
In the months leading up to 9/11, there was an unprecedented amount of warnings
“Al-Qaeda” was about to conduct an attack. So many that CIA Director George Tenet was said to be running around with his
“hair on fire,
” and so many that a lot were not taken
seriously “because of “warning fatigue
” arising from too many
One of those warnings came in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled,
“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in
” that was initially hidden by the White House.
Another came on July 10th, 2001 that spoke of an
” that was completely
omitted from the 9/11 Report, and then lied about
it became public knowledge. Condi even had the audacity to
“does anybody really believe that somebody would have walked into my office and said, oh, by the way, there’s a chance of a major attack
against the United States and I would have said, well, I’m really not interested in that information?”
that his “Democratic friends in
Congress… need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions, as were made by some today, that the White
House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11.”
There are indications that military action in Afghanistan was planned before 9/11.
On 3/7/2001, the New York Times reports
Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley chairs an informal meeting to discuss Al-Qaeda. The approach is “two-pronged and included a crisis
warning effort to deal with immediate threats and longer-range planning by senior officials to put into place a comprehensive strategy to eradicate
On 3/15/2001, Jane’s Intelligence Review reports
that the U.S.
is working with India, Iran, and Russia “in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.” General William Kernan, commander in chief
of the Joint Forces Command said that “the details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the
September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001.”
On 6/26/2001, it is reported
that “India and Iran will
‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t
bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime.”
In late Summer 2001, the Guardian will report
western military sources say a US contingency plan exist[s] on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north.” In early
August, a senior Taliban official in the defense ministry will tell journalist Hamid Mir that “[W]e believe Americans are going to invade
Afghanistan and they will do this before October 15, 2001, and justification for this would be either one of two options: Taliban got control of
Afghanistan or a big major attack against American interests either inside America or elsewhere in the world.”
The President had plans for the invasion of Afghanistan
desk on 9/9/2001. They “outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11
attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf.”
On 7/21/2001, three former American officials, Tom Simons, Karl Inderfurth, and
Lee Coldren met with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a
. At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message
Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they
might be considering some military action.” Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz
later says he is allegedly told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is
planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.
” On 8/9/2009, it is
that Niaz Naik “was found dead in mysterious circumstances at his
On the day of 9/11, a number of key personnel were
” across the country, and the world.
With few exceptions, including Dick Cheney
The President of the United States, at a time when America was
” from kamikaze hijackers in commercial
airliners, in a highly
, 5 miles away from an international airport
, in a
classroom full of children, was not whisked away by the Secret Service.
His conduct on the morning of 9/11 changed
first anniversary. What actually happened was “when Chief of Staff Andrew Card told Bush about the second plane crash into the WTC, Bush continued
to sit in a Florida elementary school classroom and hear a story about a pet goat for at least seven more minutes.” [...] “But one year later,
Card claims that after he told Bush about the second WTC crash, “it was only a matter of seconds” before Bush “excused himself very politely to
the teacher and to the students, and he left the Florida classroom.”
On the morning of 9/11, there were several military
taking place, some of which allegedly
mirrored the events
taking place that day.
A lot of different people didn’t know whether or not the hijackings were “real-world or exercise.”
According to Richard Clarke
, on the morning of 9/11 at around
9:28am, he says to Gen. Richard Myers during a video teleconference “I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?” Myers, who
is at the Pentagon, replies it’s, “NOT A PRETTY PICTURE, DICK (emphasis mine). WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF VIGILANT WARRIOR, A NORAD EXERCISE
(emphasis mine), but” Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker
and not on alert.” The 9/11 Report only mentioned one of these exercises, Vigilant Guardian, and in a footnote in the back of the book.
On 2/25/2005, then Rep. Cynthia McKinney asked
(realplayer required) Donald Rumsfeld about
the exercises that were taking place on 9/11, but did not get an answer on that day.
On 3/10/2005, Rep. McKinney asked
Donald Rumsfeld, and Gen. Richard Myers about the exercises
again. The first question asked by Rep. McKinney was, “whether or not the activities of the 4 wargames going on on Sept. 11th actually impaired our
ability to respond to the attacks.” Gen. Myers responded with, “the answer to the question is, no, did not impair our response. In fact, Gen.
Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission… I believe…I
believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond.” Then Rep. McKinney asked, “who was in charge of managing those wargames?,” and
was cut off by Rep. Duncan Hunter. Gen. Myers never gave a name, but he did say, “North American Aerospace Defense Command was responsible.” She
was promised an answer in writing and as far as I know, never received it.
From the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), Dick Cheney allegedly monitored Flight 77 from 50 miles outside of Washington D.C. This,
according to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta
According to Mineta, “during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice
President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man
also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the
orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” The 9/11 Report states that Cheney didn’t arrive in the PEOC until 9:58. No video
conferences from within the PEOC have been made available. No personnel records for who was in the PEOC have been made available. The “young man”
Norman Mineta mentioned has never been named, and was never brought before the 9/11 Commission to testify.
On the day of 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld started planning the Iraq
DoD Staffer Stephen Cambone
took down several notes with regards to what Rumsfeld
was saying. “Best info fast… judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time – not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]” [...]
“Go massive… Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” [...] “Hard to get a good case.”
Like Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice started planning for the Iraq War
hours of the 9/11 attacks. Sir Christopher Meyer, “a former British ambassador to the United States says then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice talked to him about Iraq and Saddam Hussein hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.”
Also, “George Bush tried to make a connection
and al-Qaida in a conversation with Tony Blair three days after the 9/11 attacks, according to Blair’s foreign policy adviser of the time.”
Between 9:30pm and 10:00pm on 9/11/2001, Bush
, “this is a great opportunity. We have to think of this as an opportunity.” He does so again during his State Of The Union
speech on 1/29/2002
Karl Rove said
, “sometimes history sends you things and 9/11 came our
In the days and months following the attacks, several people within the administration and elsewhere tried to tie Iraq to 9/11.
General Wesley Clark said
, “there were many people,
inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.”
According to George Tenet, shortly after 9/11, Richard Perle
, “Iraq has to pay a
price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility.”
Former CIA Director James Woolsey said, “[I]ntelligence and law enforcement officials investigating the case would do well to at least consider
another possibility: that the attacks-whether perpetrated by bin Laden and his associates or by others-were sponsored, supported, and perhaps even
ordered by Saddam Hussein,” he writes. “As yet, there is no evidence of explicit state sponsorship of the September 11 attacks. But absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Dick Cheney claimed
Atta-Iraqi spy meeting had been, “pretty
well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April,
several months before the attack.”
Since that time, they have done so again
, and again
, and again
, and even
On 5/14/2009, it was reported
that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was tortured “in an
effort to produce intelligence tying Iraq to al Qaeda.
” According to Colin Powell’s former Chief of Staff, “what I have learned is that
as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal
opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun
linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
The heads of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, Rep. Porter Goss, and Sen. Bob Graham, along with Sen. John Kyl, met with an alleged
financier of the attacks
on the day of
The Joint Congressional Inquiry, which both Bush and Cheney tried to “limit
” of, released a report with 28 redacted pages
Apparently, those 28 pages
talk about “possible Saudi
Arabian financial links.”
In 2004, Sen. Bob Graham says that the Bush White House is
Saudi Arabia’s possible connection
to the two hijackers that lived in San Diego. He said the information about them, “present[s] a compelling case that there was Saudi assistance.”
He also says that the Bush Administration directed the FBI to “to restrain and obfuscate” any investigations into the connection.
The landlord of the two hijackers was Abdussatar Shaikh, an FBI asset handled by agent
. The FBI originally tried to
before the Congressional Inquiry, but when he finally did, he said that he may have been able to uncover the 9/11 plot if the CIA shared their
information on the two hijackers. He said, “it would have made a huge difference.” [...] “We would have immediately opened… investigations. We
would have given them the full court press. We would… have done everything-physical surveillance, technical surveillance, and other assets.”
On 1/8/2008, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported
that “a huge lawsuit
against the government of Saudi Arabia and key members of its royal family was put to a crucial test today as lawyers for victims of the 9/11 attacks
urged a federal appeals court to reinstate the government of Saudi Arabia as a defendant.” The Cozen O’Connor law firm in Philadelphia “was the
first to file suit against the government of Saudi Arabia in 2003, charging that the desert kingdom bears responsibility for the attacks because it
permitted Islamic charities under its control to bankroll Osama bin Laden and his global terror movement.” The lawsuit “suffered a setback in 2005
when New York federal district court judge Richard Conway Casey ruled that the federal foreign sovereign immunity act barred lawsuits against Saudi
Arabia and members of the royal family.”
On 11/13/2008, it was reported
that “thousands of victims of the 9/11
attacks appealed to the Supreme Court yesterday, asking it to overturn a lower court decision barring lawsuits against Saudi Arabia for supporting
acts of terrorism.”
On 1/6/2009, it is reported
that “lawyers for Saudi Arabia have
asserted in court papers that the Supreme Court should reject arguments that the desert kingdom be held accountable for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks
because, over a period of many years, it financed al-Qaeda. In papers filed with the Supreme Court, lawyers for the kingdom and several high-ranking
Saudi royals say that U.S. law provides blanket immunity to Saudi Arabia from lawsuits over the 9/11 attacks.”
On 2/24/2009, it is reported
that “the Supreme Court yesterday asked
the U.S. Solicitor General’s office to weigh in on whether a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia charging that it was a source of
terrorist financing before the 9/11 attacks should move forward.”
On 5/29/2009, the New York Times reports
that “the Justice Department,
in a brief filed Friday before the Supreme Court, said it did not believe the Saudis could be sued in American court over accusations brought by
families of the Sept. 11 victims that the royal family had helped finance Al Qaeda
. The department said it saw no need for the court to review
lower court rulings that found in the Saudis’ favor in throwing out the lawsuit.” 9/11 Family Member, and “Jersey Girl” Kristen Breitweiser
said, “I find this reprehensible. One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush
administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.
On 5/30/2009, the victims family members released two press releases. The first one
, “today the Obama Administration filed inthe Supreme Court a
document that expressed the Administration’s decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens — 9/11
family members — to have our day in court
. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who
lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.
” The second one
, “on the day that
President Obama holds his first summit with Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in Riyadh, the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism charged that recent
actions by his administration would enable five of the king’s closest relatives to escape accountability for their role in financing and
materially supporting the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
” The second press release lists “allegations made in 2002 of the Saudi royal
family’s sponsorship and support of al Qaeda that the families believe have been ignored by the Obama Administration.”
On 6/9/2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports
that this case “is
likely to reach a critical juncture this month when the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to hear arguments on Saudi Arabia’s legal
exposure.” It goes on to say that “the hurdle for the plaintiffs, both insurers and individual victims, isn’t simply facts and law, but also the
political dimensions. Saudi Arabia is one of the United States’ most important allies in the Middle East. It has been a forward staging area for the
U.S. military, deemed an important counterweight to Iran’s regional ambitions, seen as a huge source of energy, and a very big purchaser of American
goods and services.” Tom Burnett who lost his son on Flight 93 asks, “why would the Obama administration give less weight to the principles of
justice, transparency, and security and more to the pleadings of a foreign government
? It strikes a blow against the public’s right to know
who financed and supported” the 9/11 attacks.” “Kagan’s May 29 brief, representing the opinion of the Obama administration, was significant
because the Supreme Court in most cases follows the solicitor general’s lead.
On 6/11/2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports
that “lawyers representing
victims of the 9/11 attacks charge that the government sought to “appease” Saudi Arabia by urging the Supreme Court not to hear arguments that
the kingdom could be sued for its alleged role in funding the attackers.
” A “brief filed by the Center City law firm of Cozen O’Connor and
other lawyers representing victims, employed unusually scathing and at times emotional language, suggesting at one point that the government’s
brief was timed to coincide with President Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia last week.
” “A spokeswoman for U.S. Solictor General Elena Kagan
said the May 29 filing of the government’s brief had been determined by the schedule of the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide whether to
hear the case by the end of the month.”
On 6/23/2009, the Washington Times reports
that a “series of closed-door meetings
between the relatives’ groups and Justice Department officials, arranged as an update on Mr. Obama’s plan to close the detention facility at the
U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, turned instead into a sharp clash over the Saudi legal action.” Apparently, “the family members demanded to
be be heard on the White House’s stance during a series of closed-door meetings at the State Department and the Justice Department last week.”
On 6/24/2009, the New York Times reported
that “classified American intelligence
documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families.” It goes on to say that Obama’s “Justice Department
had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.
” 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser
“said in an interview that during a White House meeting in February between President Obama and victims’ families, the president told her that he
was willing to make the pages (28 redacted pages of the JICI) public. But she said she had not heard from the White House since then.
On 6/29/2009, it is reported
that “the Supreme Court has refused to
allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over charitable donations that were allegedly
funneled to al-Qaida.
” The “justices refused
to review the ruling
by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the Saudi defendants were protected by sovereign immunity in the lawsuit brought by victims of the attacks
and their families.” The Supreme Court “turned down the appeal without comment.
Elena Kagan was later confirmed
as a Supreme Court Justice.
The Bush Administration was the families’ “biggest adversary
” when it
came to the creation of a so-called Independent 9/11 Commission.
The families had to fight “tooth and nail
to get an investigation because the Bush
Administration clearly did not
Dick Cheney and George Bush refused
to testify under oath before select
individuals of the 9/11 Commission even though the families wanted
them to. They testified
together, not in public, and no recordings were allowed. The families requested the transcripts of their meeting, but were denied.
They made it difficult
for the commission to get funding.
They tried to make Henry Kissinger
the Chairman of the
commission, but he resigned after
families started asking too many questions.
Alberto Gonzales “stonewalled
” the 9/11
Commission’s access to the White House.
They appointed Thomas Kean
as Chairman, someone “who will be easily controlled by the
administration,” and Lee Hamilton, a
long time friend of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld
to be the co-chair. Hamilton participated in two inquiries that resulted in cover-ups. The
Iran/Contra Affair inquiry
, and the
October Surprise inquiry
Philip Zelikow was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission.
Paul Sperry explained
, “though he has no vote, (Zelikow) arguably has more sway than any
member, including the chairman
. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation
, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the
, and the lines of questioning for witnesses
… In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.
In 1995, Zelikow wrote a book with Condoleezza Rice called,
“Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in
While at Harvard
, “he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on
the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking
. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words that “contemporary” history is “defined
functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public
presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to William McNeill’s notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked
by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2)
shared in common within the relevant political community.”
Between 1997 and 1998, Zelikow helped to write a report that
“Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory
of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United
States still takes conventional terrorism seriously… it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism. They predict the
consequences of such an event: “An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the
necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and
property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949
Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from
further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence
would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great ‘success’ or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.
Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a ‘before’ and ‘after.
In 1997, Zelikow and Ernest May wrote a report about John F. Kennedy that is
” with errors.
Zelikow wrote the pre-emptive war strategy
for the Bush
Zelikow said that the “real threat
regards to Iraq’s WMD was to Israel.
Zelikow tried to prevent
the 9/11 Commission staffers
from talking to the Commissioners.
Zelikow tried to insert a false connection between Iraq and 9/11 into the 9/11 Report
, but the
, and the
fought against it.
It has been alleged that he may have taken direction
Karl Rove who, according to Philip Shenon, was
about the 9/11 Commission because “in the wrong hands… [it] could cost President Bush a second term.” The allegation regarding
Rove drove the September Eleventh Advocates (formerly known as “The Jersey Girls”) to call for
an entirely new investigation
. Only Rawstory.com covered
In early 2003, Philip Zelikow and Ernest May wrote a complete outline
of the final 9/11 Report.
Zelikow, Kean, and Hamilton decided to keep this outline a secret from the commission staffers. When “it was later disclosed that Zelikow had
prepared a detailed outline of the commission’s final report at the very start of the investigation, many of the staff’s investigators were
He rewrote the 9/11 Report to be more favorable of Condoleezza Rice
During the time of the 9/11 Commission, the families called for the resignation of Philip
, but were denied that request.
After the 9/11 Commission was finished, Philip Zelikow was given a job with Condoleezza Rice
at the State Department
On October 9th, 2010, during “Freedom Watch” with Judge Napolitano, 9/11 Whistleblower Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer
that during a lunch in Philadelphia, a 9/11 Commissioner told him that, “everybody on
the commission was covering for someone.” The following week, Judge Napolitano asked Philip Zelikow to appear on the show to talk about this. He
NORAD gave three different timelines
with regards to their response on the day of 9/11.
Sen. Mark Dayton slammed
the 9/11 Commissioners for what the
9/11 Report said about NORAD.
On 6/17/2004, 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick
question Gen. Myers about NORAD’s mission. “In my experience, the military is very clear about its charters, and who is supposed to do what. So if
you go back and you look at the foundational documents for NORAD, they do not say defend us only against a threat coming in from across the ocean,
or across our borders. It has two missions, and one of them is control of the airspace above the domestic United States, and aerospace control is
defined as providing surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States. To me that air sovereignty concept means that you have
a role which, if you were postured only externally you defined out of the job.
” [...] “I would like to know, as the second question, is it
your job, and if not whose job is it, to make current assessments of a threat, and decide whether you are positioned correctly to carry out a mission,
which at least on paper NORAD had.” At the end of this exchange, Gen. Myers asks, “did I answer both questions?” Jamie Gorelick responds,
“yes, and no, and my time has expired.
” According to information collected by
, NORAD’s mission at the time, coincided with Jamie Gorelick’s
understanding of it.
On 8/2/2006, the Washington Post reported
Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and
” and that “the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter
to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
” Later, it was reported that
were due to “inadequate forensic
capabilities” and “poor record-keeping.”
William P. Goehring, a spokesman for the DoD’s Inspector General’s office, said that “the question of whether military commanders intentionally
withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report that is still in preparation.” To my knowledge, that report has not
been released as of this date.
On March 7th, 2009, it is reported
that Frank Rich of the New York Times
believed “that the Defense Department Inspector General’s office’s investigations over the years may have been cover-ups that were “carried
out in response to “orders from above.
” He said that any report “over the past five or six years during the war in Iraq” may be suspect,
and that “there may be a much bigger story here.” His suspicions seem to have been confirmed in a report from
Fox News’ Catherine Herridge
that broke on October 7th, 2010. With
regards to what is known as Able Danger, “it is made clear that “at least five witnesses questioned by the Defense Department’s Inspector
General told Fox News that their statements were distorted by investigators in the final IG’s report — or it left out key information, backing
up assertions that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified a year before 9/11.
Here are some excerpts from Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton’s book, “Without
.” “There were also discrepancies between things NORAD was telling us about their performance on the morning of September 11-things
that the agency had stated publicly after 9/11-and the story told by the limited tapes and documents the commission had received”. These were
puzzling and disturbing developments, and they account in part for some of the more bizarre and inaccurate conspiracy theories about 9/11.” [...]
“Farmer believed that NORAD was delivering incomplete records with the knowledge that the commission had a fixed end date that could be waited
out.” [...] “Throughout the course of our inquiry, the topic that invited the most skepticism-and thus the most conspiracy theorizing-was the
performance of the FAA and NORAD on the day of September 11, 2001.” [...] “Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of
9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced
an account of 9/11 that was untrue.”
On 9/17/2001, NORAD gives a briefing
to the White House.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey will say “it feels like something happened in that briefing that produced almost a necessity to deliver a story
that’s different than what actually happened on that day.
Different pieces of evidence have been destroyed
or is being
from the public.
Kevin Delaney, the quality assurance manager for the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, destroyed a tape recorded by six Air Traffic
Controllers on the morning of 9/11 “by breaking up the plastic housing and cutting the tape into small fragments, depositing the remnants in trash
cans throughout the Center.”
2.5 terabytes of information regarding Able Danger was destroyed
The CIA destroyed interrogation tapes
In 2003, a book was written by Gail Swanson entitled, “Behind-the-Scenes: Ground
” that is a “collection of personal accounts” from people thatwere at Ground Zero on that day. In that book, Firefighter Nicholas
DeMasi says “at one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes. We were getting ready
to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment
and strapped it into the ATV. When we got into the ATV to take off, the agent accidentally pushed me forward. The ATV was already in reverse, and my
foot went down on the gas pedal. We went down the stairs in reverse. Fortunately, everything was okay. There were a total of four black boxes. We
.” The 9/11 Commission says those black boxes were not found.
Most of the steel from the WTC was removed
, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of
the U.S.Fire Engineering magazine wrote
, “We are literally
treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.”
Several Whistleblowers have come forward over the years with information pertinent to the 9/11 attacks.
Most were ignored or censored
by the 9/11 Commission.
Some of these people are John M. Cole
Operations Manager-FBI), Bogdan Dzakovic
(Former Red Team Leader-FAA),
Specialist-FBI), Behrooz Sarshar
Melvin A. Goodman
(Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager-CIA),
(Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence-FBI),
(Retired Division Counsel- FBI),
(Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI),
Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FB), Mark Burton
(Senior Analyst- NSA),
(Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI),
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer
9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza said
“Sibel came to, actually, the four widows, and asked us
if she could get a hearing with the Commission because nobody of the Commission was responding to her requests to testify
. And part of the
problem with testifying, um… as someone who’s working for one of the agencies, is that, they have to be careful with state secrets, what they
reveal. And, in order to be a whistle-blower, and not be retaliated against
, most whistle-blowers need to be subpoenaed
, cause then
their co-workers, and those who might retaliate against them, know that under penalty of, ya know, law, they could be… um… ya know, accused of
being traitors and what not, and put in jail, or executed. So, most whistle-blowers were… did not come forward on the basis of what happened to
. Um, Sibel brought us many whistle-blowers, and I submitted them personally to Governor Kean
, who was the Chairman of the
Commission. And I said, “these people are not being subpoenaed. They will not come before the Commission voluntarily unless they are subpoenaed.”
And, he promised me… to my face that “every whistle-blower would be… indeed heard
.” And, most were not heard. Sibel was only heard
because we dragged her in and surprised the Commission on one of the days we were meeting with them
… that we had her with us. Um, we met
other whistle-blowers on the side of the road in Maryland, ya know, to hear what they could tell us. None of them revealed state secrets to us by the
way (laughs)… um, but, they had information… and basically, the Government knew… ya know, other than the exact moment… they knew the date,
andthe method of which the attacks were supposed to come
. (pauses) And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the
. And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying,
“What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation
And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication.”
On October 29th, 2007, Sibel Edmonds agreed to break the gag order
that was placed on her, and tell her
entire story to the media. Until very recently
, the only paper to
take the challenge
was the Sunday Times. At the time, the media
in this country did not give her the time of day with one exception
that I know of, and
it wasn’t prominently displayed. Sibel’s story mentions the same alleged financier
of the 9/11
attacks that Rep. Porter Goss, Sen. Graham, and Sen. Kyl met with on the morning of 9/11. More about Sibel will be mentioned later.
On 9/9/2010, the New York Times reports
that, “Defense Department officials are
negotiating to buy and destroy all 10,000 copies of the first printing of an Afghan war memoir they say contains intelligence secrets
according to two people familiar with the dispute.” The book in question is
“Operation Dark Heart
” by 9/11 Whistleblower Anthony
Shaffer. The New York Times goes on to say that, “Disputes between the government and former intelligence officials over whether their books reveal
too much have become commonplace. But veterans of the publishing industry and intelligence agencies could not recall another case in which an
agency sought to dispose of a book that had already been printed.
On 9/9/2010, it is reported
that “specifically, the
DIA wanted references to a meeting between Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, the book’s author, and the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip
. In that meeting Shaffer alleges the commission was told about “Able Danger” and the identification of Atta before the
attacks. No mention of this was made in the final 9/11 report
On 9/17/2010, Agence France Presse reports
“publisher has agreed to remove US intelligence secrets from a memoir by a former army officer in Afghanistan after the Pentagon raised last-minute
objections, officials said Friday. The book, “Operation Dark Heart,” had been printed and prepared for release in August but St. Martin’s Press
will now issue a revised version of the memoir after negotiations with the Pentagon, US and company officials said. In return, the Defense Department
has agreed to reimburse the company for the cost of the first printing, spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan told AFP.” [...] “St. Martin’s press will
destroy copies from the first printing with Pentagon representatives observing
“to ensure it’s done in accordance with our standards,”
Lapan said.” [...] “For those portions that will be reflected as redacted we are considering litigation to challenge the determinations
Apparently, Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed
, the head of the Pakistani ISI, someone who met with
U.S. elected and appointed officials
in the weeks
before 9/11, on the day of 9/11, and in the days after 9/11, ordered possible
Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh
to wire transfer $100,000 to
. The 9/11 Families’
submitted a question
to the 9/11 Commission about this incident.
Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, John S. Pistole
their investigation “has traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan, where high-ranking and well-known al-Qaeda
operatives played a major role in moving the money forward, eventually into the hands of the hijackers located in the US.”
In January 2002, during a visit to India, FBI Director Robert Mueller
was told about Saeed
Sheikh’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks by Indian Investigators.
, “on the eve of the publication of its report, the 9/11
Commission was given a stunning document from Pakistan, claiming that Pakistani intelligence officers knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks.”
On 3/3/2006, the Friday Times reported
that “Pakistan gave tens of
thousands of dollars through its lobbyists in the United States to members of the 9/11 inquiry commission to ‘convince’ them to drop some
anti-Pakistan findings in the report.” This according to FO Official Sadiq. According to the Pakistan paper
, this story about bribery “triggered” U.S. media
interest. I don’t remember seeing any mention of this story at all. If you know of an American media outlet that investigated this story, and
reported on the results of that investigation, please let me know.
On 4/10/2006, Pakistan officially denied
the allegations of bribery. “Pakistan has
never indulged in the illegal activity of bribing or buying influence anywhere in the world,” said a statement issued by the FO spokesperson here on
On 10/1/2001, Lt. Gen. Ahmed and Saeed Sheikh may have been involved in
another “terrorist attack”
Recently, it was reported that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh has been running a terrorist
from prison, and was planning to assassinate President Musharraf.
Former ISI Chief Hamid Gul recently defended
Lt. Gen. Ahmed regarding the
allegations of the wire transfer.
On 3/15/2002, Condoleeza Rice is asked a question about Lt. Gen. Ahmed. “Dr. Rice, are you aware of the reports at the time that ISI Chief was in
Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired to Pakistan to this group here in this area? While he was here meeting with
you or anybody in the administration?” Her response was, “I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.” The
) of this has “ISI Chief” replaced with “–.”
On March 31st, 2006, 9/11 Commissioner Thomas Kean was confronted on this issue
. He said he
wasn’t aware of it.
On the morning of 9/11, a homemaker by the name of Maria will notice a group of people sitting on top of a white van.
, “They seemed to be taking a movie”
at the time of the first impact.
She calls the police. At 3:31pm on 9/11, the FBI issues a
(be on the lookout) that says, “White, 2000 Chevrolet van…with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty State Park,
Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center…. Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial
impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals.”
At 3:56pm on 9/11, these individuals are
On 9/14/2001, the owner of Urban Moving Systems flees to
Because of great pressure
in late October 2001, the
arrested men, allegedly Israeli spies, are released in
One of the men claims “our purpose was to document the
No one has been held accountable, and instead, people that didn”t deserve it,
edit on 23-11-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)