Both Left and Right using killer to distort unpleasant truths...Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, Keith: 9/11 WAS an inside job.

Just because a racist killer does something reprehensible (and stupid) doesn't make everything that he says wrong.

Bucky on 9/11: Liar, liar, your pants on fire!

New version of September Clues

 

 

The never-ending legal charade of 9/11 insider Jacob Kobi Alexander

Namibia: High Court Rules in Alexander's Favour

Government has complied with the High Court ruling, in effect concurring with fugitive Jacob Kobi Alexander's legal team, that a chief of Lower Court is a public ser-vant and not a magi-strate, hence a person occupying that office could not hear cases such as Alexander's extradition case.

Cabinet has now instructed the Ministry of Justice to delete the definition of the chief of Lower Court in the Magistrate Act and substitute it with the proper definition and expressions.

Alexander, wanted in the United States to face 33 criminal charges consisting mostly of counts of fraud, has been fighting extradition to the US since his arrest in Windhoek in September 2006.

Alexander's legal team has to date mounted a successful legal fight, that has been characterised by legal delaying tactics as well as a challenge that parts of the Extradition Act are not constitutional.

The biggest challenge, however, was when Alexander's legal team protested that the Chief of Lower Court, Petrus Unengu, could not hear the extradition case because he is a public ser-vant and not a magistrate. The legal team wanted the case to appear before Uaatjo Uanavi, the magistrate before whom the case was first heard and who granted the N$10 million bail to Alexander in October 2006.

The legal team argued that as a public servant, the chief of Lower Court could neither be nor regarded as independent. The case went before the High Court that ruled in favour of Alexander. The High Court ruled that the concept of judicial independence stands on two inseparable pillars of individual independence and institutional independence, which as such means complete liberty of individual judges and magistrates to hear and decide the cases that come before them.

At its 20th ordinary meeting on October 28, Cabinet, in principle, permitted the Ministry of Justice to make the required amendments. The amendments are "so as to delete the definition of chief of Lower Court to define the expression chief magistrate, to provide for the administrative head of the magistracy, to substitute the expression chief magistrate for the expression chief of Lower Court, wherever it occurs in certain legislation and to provide for incidental matters," a statement from Cabinet said.

It is alleged Alexander committed fraud while he was Chief Executive Officer of the New York-based Comverse Technology, a software and system company he co-founded in the 1980s. Alexander is alleged to have profited illegally through illegal stock option backdating schemes, earning himself nearly US$10 million in profits.

Original article posted here.

Russia's Pravda breaks the media silence and states the obvious

Al Qaeda does not exist and never has

The basic truth is that Al Qaeda does not exist and never has. Al Qaeda is a manufactured enemy who was created by the Bush Administration in order to have an excuse to wage a war for the control of the world’s oil resources.

Did an American even hear the words “Al Qaeda” before 9-11? Or were we told that its alleged leader Osama Bin Laden has family who themselves have personal business relationships with George W. Bush’s family and that both families had financially profited considerably from the “War on Terror”?

If “Al Qaeda” was such an organized group terrorists as we are being told then why weren’t we the people notified of this evil threat when the US Cole was bombed a few months before 9-11? “Al Qaeda” is nothing more than a broad euphemistic umbrella classification used to group any Middle Eastern fighter under the Sun as an enemy. The most diabolical aspect of this public relations stunt is that it enables the current Administration to label any group it feels necessary to attack to appear to be related to an unprovable organized enemy while at the same time actually increasing its approval ratings by exploiting the basic primal fears of the American public. Furthermore when one realizes the questionable motivations that this Administration has used previously to attack an enemy, as what is now surfacing about the Iraq War, one begins to get the strange feeling that this Orwellian double-speak is nothing more than a smoke and mirror illusion whose true intentions would of made Goebbels himself jealous.

Think about it: How could a bunch of technologically unadvanced group of people from third-world nations such as “Al Qaeda” ever have any real central organization structure? If they had any real organization they would have most certainly attacked us again after September eleventh. Where are all the terrorist cells in this country? Contrary to what has been implicitly presented in the media there HAS NEVER been a single domestic terror cell caught since Bush has been in office! The majority of suspects that have been arrested and detained in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 with the exception of a handful have not been charged with crimes in anyway associated with terrorism. All of their crimes are minor and for the most part are ! related to immigration violations of some sort. There is some ambiguity in all of this though because to this day the Ashcroft Justice Department has been less than forthcoming with the specifics of these arrests. Why would this be the case if the justifications for these arrests were really legitimate? We have been bombarded by the media with every indignity from the duck-tape chronicles to the crop dusting threat. You would think that with all this seeming sensitivity by our government about informing the general populace about possible terror threats, especially when some of their sources came from “unnamed and confidential secondary sources”, that the Ashcroft Justice Department would have gone out of it’s way to mention to the public any terrorist connections that the people detained after 9-11 had and would of sworn by it on a stack of Bibles.

To date the only really suspicious activity of people detained after 9-11 were a group of Israelis who were caught in Jersey City, New Jersey filming themselves in the foreground of the burning World Trade Center with “looks of jubilation on their faces”. It was later confirmed that two of the gentlemen detained had known Mossad ties. While they were detained it is of no matter now as they were subsequently released from jail a few! weeks later and were allowed to go back to Israel with no questions asked by the direct authorization of the Justice Department. I guess they were just dropping off a box of cigars to Governor McGreevy?

What is even more illuminating about all of this is that to this day nobody has taken responsibility for the attacks of 9-11, including “Al Qaeda”. The only thing to link these attacks to anyone is the video tape of Osama Bin Laden that was conveniently found in a cave in Afghanistan that had him talking about the physical structure of the World Trade Center and the plane strike. The audio quality of this tape is so poor that any objective Arab-speaking analyst who was asked to give their opinion was unable to do so! as they claimed that just about all the words on it were inaudible. I believe an objective investigation into this original tape’s authenticity could verify if this admission is in fact genuine and could shed some light on the truth of the existence of “Al Qaeda”. But even if this tape is genuine what would this really prove? As I have already mentioned it is common knowledge that Osama Bin Laden is connected to George W. Bush’s family by a minimum of two degrees of separation. So in the grand scheme of things what does this really matter? That the Cobra Commander said he did it?

In summary, “Al Qaeda” does not exist nor has it ever. If it really existed to anywhere near the extent that we have been told then there would have been an attack on our homeland. Of course this proof of a negative is used by the Administration to justify themselves to the American public that they are doing their jobs, but when one realizes that “Al Qaeda” is really nothing more than an artificially manufactured enemy then what job are they really doing other than capitalizing off of people’s fears? What other issue does the present Administration have to offer the average working-class citizen other than security? And if security is really only a Red Herring platform issue, then of what use are they to begin with? In addition, ! if there were any degree of truth in the strength of “Al Qaeda” or even of their very existence then there would have been a much larger resistance in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq. If an organization structure existed within “Al Qaeda” then you would have seen the Iraqi resistance be a much more conventional ! one. They would have had the communication capability and weapons arsenal to mount a more traditional counter-offensive against our troops and they would have been successful doing it because our force’s numbers are so minimal. This would have been a prime opportunity to defeat “the great satan” in front of the entire world. Their motivation to do so would have been so strong that in order for them to of not of done this one must make the quantum leap and conclude that “Al Qaeda” is much to do about nothing and always has been. The emperor is naked and running through the courtyard with a great big barrel of oil.

Original article posted here.

The incontrovertible proof of the 911 controlled demolition -- new video of building 7

After black-slapping about the restoration of democracy, the next civil rights battle will be the ongoing fight for 9/11 Truth. And, make no mistake, the President-elect will be a gatekeeper, not a truth seeker.

For the third time, Japanese parlimentarian, Yukihisa Fujita, challenges 9/11 fairly tale in Japanese Diet

What we already knew

New Evidence Shows Bush Had No Plan to Catch bin Laden After 9/11

By Gareth Porter

New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals that the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block the retreat of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the first weeks after 9/11.

That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the area to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.

Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept him, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.

On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora mountains close to the Pakistani border.

The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.

Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.

Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.

Franks apparently already realized that he would need Pakistani help in blocking the al Qaeda exit from Tora Bora. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks "wants the (Pakistanis) to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what's going in and out," according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War.

Bush responded that they would need to "press Musharraf to do that."

A few days later, Franks made an unannounced trip to Islamabad to ask Musharraf to deploy troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border near Tora Bora.

A deputy to Franks, Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, later claimed that Musharraf had refused Franks' request for regular Pakistani troops to be repositioned from the north to the border near the Tora Bora area. DeLong wrote in his 2004 book Inside Centcom that Musharraf had said he "couldn't do that" because it would spark a "civil war" with a hostile tribal population.

But U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who accompanied Franks to the meeting with Musharraf, provided an account of the meeting to this writer that contradicts DeLong's claim.

Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, recalled that the Pakistani president told Franks that CENTCOM had vastly underestimated what was required to block bin Laden's exit from Afghanistan. Musharraf said, "Look, you are missing the point: There are 150 valleys through which al Qaeda are going to stream into Pakistan," according to Chamberlin.

Although Musharraf admitted that the Pakistani government had never exercised control over the border area, the former diplomat recalled, he said this was "a good time to begin." The Pakistani president offered to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India but said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment.

But the Pakistani redeployment never happened, according to Lamm, because it wasn't logistically feasible. Lamm recalled that it would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region -- far more than were available.

Lamm said the ARCENT had so few strategic lift resources that it had to use commercial aircraft at one point to move U.S. supplies in and out of Afghanistan.

Even if the helicopters had been available, however, they could not have operated with high effectiveness in the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border region near the Tora Bora caves, according to Lamm, because of the combination of high altitude and extreme weather.

Franks did manage to insert 1,200 Marines into Kandahar on Nov. 26 to establish control of the air base there. They were carried to the base by helicopters from an aircraft carrier that had steamed into the Gulf from the Pacific, according to Lamm.

The Marines patrolled roads in the Kandahar area hoping to intercept al Qaeda officials heading toward Pakistan. But DeLong, now retired from the Army, said in an interview that the Marines would not have been able to undertake the blocking mission at the border. "It wouldn't have worked -- even if we could have gotten them up there," he said. "There weren't enough to police 1,500 kilometers of border."

U.S. troops probably would also have faced armed resistance from the local tribal population in the border region, according to DeLong. The tribesmen in local villages near the border "liked bin Laden," he said, "because he had given them millions of dollars."

Had the Bush administration's priority been to capture or kill the al Qaeda leadership, it would have deployed the necessary ground troops and airlift resources in the area over a period of months before the offensive in Afghanistan began.

"You could have moved American troops along the Pakistani border before you went into Afghanistan," said Lamm. But that would have meant waiting until spring 2002 to take the offensive against the Taliban, according to Lamm.

The views of Bush's key advisers, however, ruled out any such plan from the start. During the summer of 2001, Rumsfeld had refused to develop contingency plans for military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan despite a National Security Presidential Directive adopted at the Deputies' Committee level in July and by the Principles on Sept. 4 that called for such planning, according to the 9/11 Commission report.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz resisted such planning for Afghanistan because they were hoping that the White House would move quickly on military intervention in Iraq. According to the 9/11 Commission, at four deputies' meetings on Iraq between May 31 and July 26, 2001, Wolfowitz pushed his idea to have U.S. troops seize all the oil fields in southern Iraq.

Even after Sept. 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead.

Bush's top-secret order of Sept. 17 for war with Afghanistan also directed the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq, according to journalist James Bamford's book A Pretext for War.

Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed for a quick victory in Afghanistan in National Security Council meetings in October, as recounted by both Woodward and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Lost in the eagerness to wrap up the Taliban and get on with the Iraq War was any possibility of preventing bin Laden's escape to Pakistan.

Original article posted here.

Fabled Enemies: Jason Bermas film on the 9/11 fable

More on fraudulent cellphone calls in 911 psy op

Reported Cell Phone Calls from the 9/11 Planes Further Reflections Evoked by a Critique by Prof. David Ray Griffin

Global Research, September 7, 2008

Earlier this year, Andrew Kornkven posted a comment and a blog critical of my discussion, in Chapter 17 of my book 9/11 Contradictions, of reported cell phone calls from the 9/11 airliners. In this reply, I respond to both of these criticisms, referring to former as his "Comment," to the latter as his "Blog." (All quotations are from the Blog unless otherwise indicated.) Although Kornkven's criticisms are based on confusions and other errors, my response to them has led me to report some information about this issue that I had not previously published, although much of it is in my most recent book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited. This distinction means that, although many of my comments, especially in the first parts of this essay, consist of responses to confused criticisms (which the reader will probably want to move through quickly), this essay does, especially in its later parts, contain several points of great importance. Kornkven begins his Comment by saying: "David Ray Griffin continues to put forth a misleading line of argument regarding the 'cell phone' calls." With the term "continues," he alludes to the fact that he had written an earlier critique, to which I wrote a reply. In that reply, I gave some reasons for being dubious of Kornkven's theory as to what really happened, which lies behind his criticism of my position. According to his theory, there really were hijackers on the planes, but they were not Arab Muslims, or even Muslims of any sort. He also holds that relatives of victims did not actually report receiving cell phones calls. Instead, this claim was invented by the corporate media to trick the foreseen 9/11 truth movement into denying that the calls occurred, because the calls had revealed real truths that the government did not want to be known. Why, I wondered, if the hijackers were not really devout Muslims, expecting to receive a heavenly reward for their martyrdom, would they have volunteered to commit suicide simply to provide a pretext for a war against Muslims; Kornkven's only escape from this conclusion would seem to be to speculate, implausibly, that they bailed out of the planes at the last minute. I also wondered why, if the corporate media had falsely claimed that some of the families had reported receiving cell phone calls, the Internet carries no stories about complaints from these relatives published in local papers. In the present essay, in any case, I do not argue against Kornkven's own thesis. I simply reply to his charge (in his Comment) that my discussion is "misleading" and to his charge (in his Blog) that it contains "serious logical errors." The "Cell Phone Myth" The central target of Kornkven's critique is what he calls the Cell Phone Myth, which he defines in his Comment as "the idea, advocated by Griffin, that the majority of calls were made on cell phones." However, I do not believe that there were any cell phone calls from the planes. Kornkven evidently stated his meaning more accurately in the first paragraph of his Comment, in which he said: "Despite Griffin's claims to the contrary in Chapter 17 of 9/11 Contradictions, neither the FBI nor the 9/11 [Commission] ever claimed that all, or even most, of the calls were made on cell phones." But I never said anything remotely similar to this. With regard to the 9/11 Commission, I pointed out that its report mentioned cell phone calls, but without specifying how many such calls were allegedly made, only in relation to United Flight 93. With regard to the FBI, almost all of my discussion is about its 2006 report to the Moussaoui trial, at which it said that there had been only two cell phone calls from all four flights combined. With regard to the FBI's position prior to then, I made only two comments. My first comment was a complaint that "the FBI had not discouraged the press or the 9/11 Commission from claiming that passengers had used cell phones to report the existence of hijackers on the planes." Although that statement said nothing about what the FBI claimed, something was at least implied by my second comment: Using the word "authorities" to refer primarily to the FBI, I spoke of "one of the chief elements in the story about 9/11 told by authorities and the press from the outset---that the presence of hijackers on the flights had been reported by means of cell phone calls from those flights." I clearly suggested that the FBI immediately after 9/11 was stating that hijackers were reported on cell phone calls. To say that, however, is not to say that the FBI claimed that "all, or even most, of the calls were made on cell phones." I said so little about the 9/11 Commission and pre-2006 FBI assertions because virtually all of my discussion in the chapter was about what was reported by the press and consequently widely believed. This feature of the chapter led to one of the strangest criticisms in Kornkven's Blog: Griffin next presents a lengthy jumble of media reports claiming cell phone calls. It's hard to believe that a major figure in the truth movement would base his argument on stories appearing in The Washington Post, Newsweek, The National Review, and other pillars of the controlled media. Kornkven's criticism would make sense only if I had been suggesting that these media reports were true. But I was not. I was simply documenting the point made in my opening sentence, namely: A central element in the story of the hijackings of the four airliners, as it unfolded in the press . . . , was that passengers had reported the presence of Middle-Eastern hijackers on the planes by means of cell phone calls to family members and authorities. Documenting this point required, of course, quoting the Washington Post, Newsweek, and other mainstream (corporately controlled) publications. With that confused criticism dismissed, I turn now to the question of whether my discussion of the press exemplified the Cell Phone Myth: Did I claim that the press portrayed a majority of the calls as having been made on cell phones? Hardly. What I stated was that, according to press reports, "there were at least eleven cell phone calls from United Flight 93" plus "two each from UA 175 and AA 77." As a result, "it has been widely believed that there were at least fifteen . . . cell phone calls." According to the 2006 FBI report, there were a total of 64 calls (counting those from both onboard and cell phones) from the four flights. Prior to that report, it was widely believed that there were 40 or more calls. By portraying 15 of those (40 to 64) calls as coming from cell phones, the press did not come close to claiming that "most" or "the majority" of the calls from the flights were cell phone calls. However, it is also true, as I pointed out, that many of the press stories gave special attention to the reported cell phone calls in providing evidence of hijackers on the flights. An early Washington Post story, for example, said: "Glick's cell phone call from Flight 93 and others like it provide the most dramatic accounts so far of events aboard the four hijacked aircraft." Another Post story about this flight said: "The plane was at once a lonesome vessel, the people aboard facing their singular fate, and yet somehow already attached to the larger drama, connected again by cell phones." Referring to such stories, I wrote: "cell phone calls were portrayed as a central---even the principal---means by which we had learned what happened on the planes." But I did not---as the figures in the previous paragraph show---portray the press as stating that the majority of the calls were made on cell phones. Besides invalidly turning my statement that some cell phone calls were reportedly made into the claim that "most of the calls were cell phone calls," Kornkven sometimes even changes the most to all. He did this in one of the charges quoted above, namely: "Despite Griffin's claims to the contrary . . . , neither the FBI nor the 9/11 [Commission] ever claimed that all . . . of the calls were made on cell phones." Kornkven also did this in asking: "Why does Griffin want to turn away from this evidence by imagining that the calls were cell phone calls?" In logic, even more basic than the distinction between some and most is the threefold distinction between none, some, and all. In an article in which he is accusing someone else of logical errors, Kornkven should have been careful not to commit such a basic one. This error, incidentally, led to a bizarre charge against Dylan Avery. Discussing Loose Change 2, Kornkven wrote: "At the 1:07 mark of that film, Dylan Avery asks, "'next, what about the cell phone calls...?' "Avery didn't seem to have even considered the possibility that some or most of the calls were made on airphones, which is peculiar since, a few minutes later in the film, while describing Mark Bingham's call to his mother from UAL93, he specifically mentions that Bingham twice told his mom that he was calling from an airphone. The damage to the truth movement by this oversight is incalculable. Was it truly an oversight, or something worse?" Kornkven took the very fact that Avery mentioned (some) cell phone calls to mean that he was alleging that all of reported calls were made on cell phones. This inference was especially strange given Kornkven's recognition that, shortly thereafter, Avery pointed out that Mark Bingham reportedly "told his mom that he was calling from an airphone." Kornkven then, on the basis of his own theory---according to which the media conspired with the government to create the impression that all or most of the calls were made from cell phones in order to cause the sure-to-rise 9/11 truth movement, knowing that high-altitude cell phone calls were impossible, to reject the calls as faked, thereby missing the valuable information in some of them that contradicts the official story---compounded his crime by hinting that Avery might be part of this conspiracy. ("Was it truly an oversight, or something worse?") Such suggestions could give "conspiracy theorists" a bad name! Not content with this, Kornkven proceeded to compound his error still further, saying: "Avery seems to have tacitly admitted his assumption was wrong: Loose Change Final Cut contains no references to phone calls whatsoever. Why has Griffin decided to carry on such a dubious notion?" In the first place, given the fact that the credits at the end of Loose Change Final Cut reveal that I was the Script Consultant, why would Kornkven assume that Dylan Avery and I had some difference on this issue? In the second place, my chapter points out that the 2006 FBI report said that only two of the calls from all of the flights combined were made from cell phones, and this is what Kornkven believes. So what "dubious notion" does he think I am carrying on? Having dealt with Kornkven's myth of the Cell Phone Myth, I turn now to his charge that my chapter is misleading. Misleading? Kornkven suggested that there are two ways in which my discussion is misleading. First, pointing out that I discuss "the difficulty of cell phone calls at higher altitudes," Kornkven wrote: "This is completely irrelevant because most of the calls were made on airphones." A more objective statement would be: "According to the 2006 FBI report given to the Moussaoui trial, most---all but two---of the calls were made from onboard phones." (Kornkven does not add the qualification because he accepts that FBI report as a statement of what really happened.) One might suspect that, given the fact that two of the calls were reportedly made from cell phones, the difficulty of calling from higher altitudes has not become completely irrelevant. However, the FBI report said that those two calls were made from United 93 at 9:58, when it was down to 5,000 feet (at which level cell phone calls might at least arguably have gone through). Kornkven would be right to call my discussion misleading, therefore, if I had mentioned the difficulty of high-altitude cell phone calls in order to argue against the position taken by the FBI in 2006. But I did not. Here is my statement: "In saying that only the two 9:58 calls from United 93 were cell phone calls, the FBI avoided a problem briefly mentioned in Chapter 8 [of 9/11 Contradictions], namely, skepticism about whether high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners are possible, especially calls that stay connected long enough for a conversation to occur. The FBI, when it had to present its evidence in a court of law, avoided this problem, because at 9:58, when the calls from Lyles and Felt were reportedly made, the plane, according to official reports, had descended to about 5,000 feet." As the reader can see, my reference to skepticism about the possibility of high-altitude cell phone calls was solely for the purpose of suggesting why the FBI in 2006 had changed its public claim. That is, after having at first described about 15 calls as cell phone calls (as I will argue below), the FBI in 2006 characterized only two calls, both said to have been made from 5,000 feet, as cell phone calls. I suggested that it did this to avoid claiming the occurrence of calls that would widely be regarded as impossible. I turn now to Kornkven's second charge that my discussion is misleading: "Griffin is being misleading when he says the FBI say 'it didn't happen' regarding the phone calls." Actually, however, it is Kornkven who, by thus characterizing what I had said, was being misleading. He was referring to a letter in which I wrote: "It [the FBI] has said that there were no cell phone calls from passengers to relatives from any of the planes." Kornkven admits that this statement is "perhaps technically true." Although he does not explain why my statement is, in fact, true (or at least "perhaps" so), here is why: According to the FBI report, one cell phone call was made by passenger Edward Felt, who called 911, not a relative, and the other was made by CeeCee Lyles, who was a crew member, not a passenger. The FBI report did indicate, therefore, that "there were no cell phone calls from passengers to relatives." (The distinction between passengers and crew members is made in all official reports and at least most media stories.) If this statement is true, why does Kornkven consider it misleading? He says in his Comment: "The FBI exhibit does not label the cell phone calls from CeeCee Lyles (UAL93) and Renee May (AAL77) as cell phone calls; but neither are they labeled airphone calls. Griffin seems to be suggesting none of the calls took place whatsoever, a position which the FBI does not hold." I am puzzled as to why Kornkven brought Renee May into the discussion. In his Blog, he quoted me as pointing out that it was only the call from Edward Felt and one of the calls from CeeCee Lyles that were said in the FBI's 2006 report to have been cell phone calls. His claims about the calls by Lyles and May are, in any case, false. The FBI's graphic presentation on CeeCee Lyles does, contrary to Kornkven's statement, label one of her calls a cell phone call. It can, to be sure, be difficult to get to this and the other graphics on the US government website containing the information about phone calls from the flights, because one's computer must be able to open the zip file. Jim Hoffman, however, has helpfully made these graphics available on his website. The graphic for Lyles, in any case, clearly indicates that she made a "cell phone call" to a residential number at 9:58 AM. The FBI report also explicitly labeled a 9:58 call from Edward Felt a cell phone call, although it is even more difficult to see this on the US government website. There is an easily accessible graphic about this call, which says, "call placed from bathroom," from which one can infer that it must have been made from a cell phone. One need not, however, rely on inference. There is also an expanded graphic, which says: "9:58 AM: Passenger Edward Felt, using his cell phone, (732) 241-XXXX, contacts John Shaw, a 911 Operator from Westmoreland County, PA." Although getting to this graphic (through a Flash expansion) can be difficult, it can easily be seen on Hoffman's website. Given the fact that these two calls, and only these two calls, are said by the FBI's report to be cell phone calls, we can infer that the FBI intended the remainder of the calls to be understood to have been made from onboard phones. We can make this inference because of what was said in the FBI's oral report about phone calls from Flight 93 at the Moussaoui trial. A reporter wrote: "In the back of the plane, 13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls to family members and airline dispatchers, a member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified Tuesday." As this statement shows, all of the calls from this flight, except the two that were explicitly indicated on the graphics to be cell phone calls, were said at the trial to have been made from onboard phones. From this discovery about Flight 93, we can infer that, although Renee May's parents evidently believed that she had called from her cell phone, the FBI report implied, without specifically saying so, that she had used an onboard phone. Accordingly, although Kornkven claims that "[c]alls made from Renee May on AAL77 and CeeCee Lyles on UAL93 were portrayed as being cell phone calls," the truth is that only the reported call from Edward Felt and one of the two reported calls from CeeCee Lyles were portrayed as cell phone calls. In any case, in explaining why he calls my "perhaps technically true" statement---that the FBI report said that "there were no cell phone calls from passengers to relatives"---misleading, Kornkven wrote: "Griffin seems to be suggesting none of the calls took place whatsoever, a position which the FBI does not hold." Kornkven, in other words, thinks that I used my technically true statement to claim that the FBI said that there were no calls whatsoever. However, although I myself believe that none of the reported calls occurred, I made no such claim about the FBI. Rather, I pointed out that, according to the 2006 FBI report, most of the calls previously thought to have been cell phone calls were really made from onboard phones. The Central Role Played by the Reported Cell Phone Calls Kornkven began his Blog, in which he claimed to be exposing "logical errors" in my chapter, by quoting my statement that "the reported cell phone calls . . . played a central role in establishing that the planes were hijacked by al-Qaeda operatives." Kornkven said, in rebuttal, that "none of the evidence reported in the calls implicates al-Qaeda." The fact that this was true of most of the calls---although not quite all, as I will show below---is unsurprising. At that time, few Americans had heard of al-Qaeda. Those who fabricated the calls would not have been so obvious as to describe the terrorists as, say, wearing al-Qaeda T-shirts or otherwise indicating that they were members of al-Qaeda. Alternatively, if one believes, with Kornkven, that there were real callers on the planes speaking about real hijackers, the same point would hold: There would probably have been no basis for the passengers and crew members to describe the hijackers as members of al-Qaeda, whether they were or not. In any case, the main point of my statement---as shown by my chapter title, "Were Hijackers Reported on Cell Phone Calls?"---was that "the reported cell phone calls . . . played a central role in establishing that the planes were hijacked." The point of my sentence would have been clearer if I had ended it there, without adding "by al-Qaeda operatives." It is also true, however, that the reported calls played a central role in creating the myth that the planes were hijacked by members of al-Qaeda. To say that they played a central role is not, of course, to claim that they provided a sufficient basis for this myth. An essential role was also played by the claim that authorities found Mohamed Atta's luggage filled with his will and other incriminating evidence, which "proved" that the hijackers were members of al-Qaeda. Contributions to this myth were also made by the photos of some of the alleged hijackers at airports and the "discoveries" of the amazingly durable passports of some of these men at the various crash sites. And there were still other elements of the official story that contributed to this myth. But the contribution of the reported calls---from both cell phones and onboard phones---should not be underestimated. Besides providing the only evidence that the planes had been hijacked, some of the callers, as Kornkven recognizes, described the hijackers as "Middle Eastern-looking men." Moreover, according to the husband of flight attendant Sandy Bradshaw, she, having gotten a close look at one of them, said: "He had an Islamic look." Given those descriptions, the ground was laid for the authorities to identify these Islamic-looking, Middle Eastern-looking men as al-Qaeda operatives. A central role in creating the twofold myth---that the planes had been hijacked and that the hijackers were al-Qaeda operatives---was played by some of the reported cell phone calls in particular. For example, the conversation in which Sandy Bradshaw reportedly told her husband that one of the hijackers had "an Islamic look" was described by the local paper as a "cellular phone conversation." According to this story, which was surely based on her husband's account, she had also told him that "many passengers were making cell phone calls." The most important reported cell phone call for creating this myth, however, was one that I did not discuss in 9/11 Contradictions (although it is discussed in The New Pearl Harbor Revisited). I refer to the reported call from American Flight 11 by flight attendant Amy Sweeney, in which she told Michael Woodward, the manager of the American Flight Services Office in Boston, that her flight had been hijacked. Besides telling him that hijackers were of "Middle Eastern descent," she reportedly gave their seat numbers, from which Woodward was able to learn the identities of three of them: Mohamed Atta, Abdul al-Omari, and Satam al-Suqami. Amy Sweeney's call was critical, ABC News explained, because without it, "the plane might have crashed with no one certain the man in charge was tied to al Qaeda." Kornkven was wrong, therefore, when he claimed that "none of the evidence reported in the calls implicates al-Qaeda"---although he cannot be blamed for not having learned about this call from 9/11 Contradictions. Did Family Members Describe Some Calls as Cell Phone Calls? Kornkven seems to state his central claim when he says: "the idea that most of the calls were cell phone calls was disseminated solely by our controlled media, and by Hollywood films." As we have already seen, his charge that I ever endorsed this idea---that most of the calls were cell phone calls---is groundless. As far as I know, moreover, no one else has advocated this idea. However, if we remove the exaggeration from Kornkven's claim by changing "most" to "several," we would have a claim worthy of examination, namely, that the idea that several of the calls were cell phone calls was disseminated solely by the controlled media and Hollywood films. Put negatively, Kornkven claims that neither family members nor the authorities stated that some of the calls were made on cell phones. I will deal only with family members here, saving the authorities for the next section. Arguing that the evidence I have given about family members is weak, Kornkven's first illustration involves the story about the reported calls from Peter Hanson on United 175. Having quoted my statement that "an Associated Press story . . . said 'a minister confirmed the cell phone call to [Peter Hanson's father], Lee Hanson,'" Kornkven wrote: "Can we really conclude the minister is verifying that the call was made on a cell phone, and not on an airphone? Isn't it more likely he is simply confirming that the call was made?" For some reason, Kornkven eliminated from my statement the name of the minister---the Rev. Bonnie Bardot---an elimination that allowed him to refer to her as "he." In any case, the important problem is that Kornkven has again misconstrued the nature of my argument. He assumes that I was using the story to prove that the family members and the minister really described the call(s) as made from a cell phone. What I was illustrating, however, was simply that the press had thus portrayed the calls---in this case by saying that both Peter Hanson's sister and a local minister referred to them as cell phone calls. Nevertheless, the question pressed by Kornkven---whether the family members had themselves specifically said that they received calls from relatives using cell phones---is worth asking. And the answer, it would seem, is "Yes." Bradshaw, Wainio, Britton, and Hanson: With regard to the story about Sandy Bradshaw, are we to suppose that Kerry Hall, the reporter for the Greensboro News & Record, simply made up the claim that Sandy and several passengers were using cell phones, rather than having gotten this information from her husband, pilot Phil Bradshaw, even though Phil lived there in Greensboro? A Newsweek story about United 93 said: "Elizabeth [Honor] Wainio, 27, was speaking to her stepmother in Maryland. Another passenger, she explains, had loaned her a cell phone and told her to call her family." Can we believe that Newsweek, rather than getting this information from the stepmother, simply made it up? A story about passenger Marion Britton began: "She called longtime friend Fred Fiumano, from whom she had borrowed a cell phone." The story, which quoted Fiumano, was surely based on an interview with him. Does Kornkven believe that the reporter---Jim McKinnon of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette---simply added the part about the cell phone? Moreover, besides the fact that it would be implausible to claim that the people who received these calls did not describe them as cell phone calls, we have evidence that I did not mention in 9/11 Contradictions: the FBI's report about its interview with Lee Hanson, the father of Peter Hanson. This report says: "He [Lee Hanson] "believed his son was calling from his cellular telephone." Deena Burnett's Testimony: Let us, however, focus primarily on the reported calls that Kornkven rightly described as the most important: those from Flight 93 by Tom Burnett to his wife, Deena Burnett. Kornkven began his argument by quoting this statement from me: "Deena Burnett explicitly and repeatedly stated that these calls were made from Tom Burnett's cell phone. She knew this, she said, because the caller ID identified his cell phone as the source." Kornkven then wrote: "But did she? I have examined numerous media reports in the immediate years after the attacks, and have heard her state no such thing, explicitly or otherwise." As evidence that she did, I had cited an article entitled "Widow Tells of Poignant Last Calls," published on the first anniversary of 9/11 by Greg Gordon of the McClatchy Newspapers. Gordon had written: "[A]nother call [came]. Deena's ID told her it was Tom." Kornkven wrote: "The article does mention Tom's cell phone, but not that Deena said it was such. . . . Perhaps she saw the same information as from earlier calls on an airphone, and therefore knew it was Tom." Is that plausible? Gordon's article began: "Deena Burnett clutched the phone. . . . She was at once terrified, yet strangely calmed by her husband's steady voice over his cell phone." Would Kornkven have us believe that Gordon might have written that line even though Deena had not told him Tom was using a cell phone? In any case, I had cited not only Gordon's article but also Deena Burnett's 2006 book, in which she explicitly said that her phone's caller ID showed Tom's cell phone number. Kornkven, trying to cast doubt on this, quoted one sentence from the page I had cited---"I didn't understand how he could be calling me on his cell phone from the air" ---and then said, dismissively: "This is the only example I could find of her 'repeatedly and explicitly' claiming the call was [sic; Deena had reported several calls] from a cell phone. . . . Did she actually write it? . . . [T]his single statement, coming in a ghostwritten book [sic; the book is by "Deena L. Burnett (with Anthony F. Giombetti")] published five years after the event, is meager evidence that the call was indeed from a cell phone." One problem here is that Kornkven, as the final sentence shows, again confused two distinct issues. The question he had been discussing was whether Deena explicitly described the calls as cell phone calls. But in the final sentence, he shifted to a different question: Were the calls received by her really cell phone calls? That distinction is, of course, not trivial: My whole argument is based on it. I had earlier argued that, although Deena Burnett was convinced that the call had been made from Tom's cell phone, it could not have been (because of the high-altitude problem). More recently (in the revised edition of Debunking 9/11 Debunking and then in 9/11 Contradictions), I have pointed out that, although Deena was convinced that the calls were from Tom's cell phone, the FBI report said that he had used an onboard phone. In any case, the most important problem in Kornkven's argument here is that, in denying that Deena had explicitly described the calls as cell phone calls, he failed to quote the crucial sentence from the page I had cited. In the sentence I had in mind, Deena said: "I looked at the caller ID and indeed it was Tom's cell phone number." So, unless the man who helped her write the book inserted this statement without her noticing it, then, yes, she did explicitly make it. What about my statement that she said this repeatedly? Kornkven denied the appropriateness of this adverb on the basis of his (weak) argument that she perhaps did not really tell this to reporter Greg Gordon. However, she also evidently said the same thing to the FBI. An FBI report of an interview with her on 9/11 itself, which began by stating that she "provided the following information," included these statements: "Burnett was able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone because the caller identification showed his number, [XXXXXXXXXX]. Only one of the calls did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call." Presumably, therefore, we can lay to rest the question of whether Deena Burnett reported that she saw her husband's cell phone on her caller ID. This fact is of great importance for the thesis that the cell phone calls were faked. Although several other relatives reported that their loved ones had used cell phones to call them, anyone determined to reject the truth of these reports could claim that they were all based on faulty memory (even though the claim that several people had the same false memory would be rather implausible). But given Deena's explicit and repeated report---stated on 9/11 itself to the FBI, again (evidently) on the first anniversary of 9/11 to reporter Greg Gordon, and again five years later in her book---the only way to dismiss her claim would be to call her a liar. Assuming that Kornkven would not resort to that tactic, and assuming that he accepts the 2006 FBI report, according to which the calls were not made from Tom's cell phone, I cannot see what option he has but to accept the idea that someone faked the calls to Deena, using a system that would fake Tom's cell phone number as well as his voice. Moreover, if the call to Deena Burnett was faked, what should we assume about all the calls that were believed at the time to have been cell phone calls, because that is what the recipients of the calls were told, but are now said by the FBI to have been made from onboard phones? We should assume that these, too, were faked. If some of the calls had been genuine, reporting real hijackings, why would several people have been all set up with the equipment and information to fake some calls? This same reasoning applies to the reported calls from onboard phones, which were similar in nature. If some of the calls were faked, the presumption should be that they all were. This is why Deena Burnett's story is so important. Unless people are willing to call her a liar or to reject the FBI's 2006 report, the calls she received cannot be explained except on the assumption that someone was prepared to fake several calls to her, pretending to be her husband calling on his cell phone. If even just one person was prepared to make such calls, this proves that the whole official story---that the airliners, to everyone's surprise, were taken over by hijackers---is false. The faked calls to Deena Burnett have thus turned out to be the Achilles Heel of the whole idea that real hijackers were reported by real phone calls from the airliners. Were Cell Phone Calls Originally Reported by the FBI? To recall where I am in the argument: I am examining a modified form of Kornkven's claim about Hollywood and the controlled media, namely, that they invented the whole idea that some of the passengers and crew made cell phone calls (with the possible exception of the two calls from United 93 said by the FBI in 2006 to have occurred at 9:58). Having examined one implication of that claim---that no relatives of passengers or crew members ever claimed cell phone calls were made from any of the airliners---I now turn to the other implication: "The FBI," Kornkven states, "never made such claims." In a longer statement, Kornkven wrote: "[N]o 'authorities' ever stated that airphone calls were made by cell phones. That was done strictly by our controlled media." This formulation is problematic, because it reflects Kornkven's presupposition that the calls really happened but that they were, as the FBI finally said in 2006, "airphone calls" (except for the 9:58 calls from Felt and Lyles). A more neutral formulation would be: No authorities (meaning FBI and other law enforcement officials) ever stated that any of the reported calls from the airliners were cell phone calls (except for the 9:58 calls from Felt and Lyles). One problem with this claim is that, even if it were true, Kornkven would have no way of knowing this. It is simply a hypothesis on his part. But the more serious problem is that there are good reasons to consider it false, and to assume instead that the press, in reporting that several of the calls were made on cell phones, was in part reporting what it had been told by the FBI. The FBI Reports on Hanson and Burnett: One reason to believe this is that, as we have seen, some of the FBI reports of its interviews with family members reported, without contradiction, their belief that they had been called on cell phones. The FBI report of its interview with Lee Hanson said: "He believed his son was calling form his cellular telephone." The report of the FBI's interview with Deena Burnett said, prior to the previously quoted statement: "Starting at approximately 6:39 a.m. (PST), Burnett received a series of three to five cellular phone calls from her husband. . . . Approximately ten minutes later Deena Burnett received another call from her husband. . . . Approximately five minutes later she received another cell phone call from her husband." These FBI reports would have been accepted by reporters as statements of the truth. By virtue of writing these reports, therefore, the FBI's behavior cannot be characterized as merely, in Kornkven's words, "passive acquiescence" in the idea that cell phones were used. The Reported Call from Amy Sweeney: The strongest evidence that the FBI originally endorsed the occurrence of high-altitude cell phone calls involves the reported call of flight attendant Amy Sweeney from American Flight 11. Although no phone calls from passengers were reported from this flight, two flight attendants, Sweeney and Betty Ong, were said to have made calls. The importance of these calls for the official story is shown by the 9/11 Commission's comment that they "tell us most of what we know about how the hijacking happened." The importance of Sweeney's call in particular for our present topic is that it was originally said to have been a cell phone call. According to the official account, Sweeney called Michael Woodward, the manager of the American Flight Services Office in Boston and talked to him for twelve minutes (8:32 to 8:44 AM). Stating that her plane had been hijacked, she also reportedly said, as mentioned earlier, that the hijackers were of "Middle Eastern descent" and gave their seat numbers, from which the identities of three of them were discovered. The public information about this reported call---its content along with its very occurrence---was based entirely on FBI documents. For example, Eric Lichtblau, in recounting this story in a Los Angeles Times article a week after 9/11, cited "an investigative document compiled by the FBI." Since no one other than Woodward talked with Sweeney, this FBI document had to be drawn entirely from his statements. In 2002, for example, American Airlines spokesman John Hotard, referring to "Woodward's original notes of his conversation with Sweeney," said, "the FBI got a hold of them very quickly, and wrote a summary." Lichtblau had to rely entirely on this FBI summary because, he learned from an American Airlines spokesperson, their employees were under orders from the FBI not to discuss Sweeney's call with the press. The only other publicly available document testifying to the occurrence of the call was an affidavit by FBI agent James Lechner, dated September 12, 2001, which was also based on an interview with Michael Woodward. It is this affidavit that shows that the FBI first described the call as a cell phone call. According to this affidavit, Woodward said that Sweeney had been "using a cellular telephone." However, when The 9/11 Commission Report appeared in 2004, it said that Sweeney had used an onboard phone (which the Commission called an "airphone"). On what basis was this claim justified? In June 2004, Amy Sweeney's husband was told that a previously unreported tape recording had been discovered. How had it been made? This is the story: Michael Woodward did not record Sweeney's call, because his office had no tape recorder. But he repeated what he was hearing from Sweeney to Nancy Wyatt, an American Airlines colleague who was in his office at the time, and she then repeated the account by telephone to Ray Howland at American headquarters in Fort Worth, who recorded Wyatt's third-hand account. Amy Sweeney's husband, expressing some scepticism, asked: "Suddenly it miraculously appears and falls into the hands of FBI? . . . Why did it surface now?" The answer to this question can be reasonably inferred from the fact that the original story, according to which Sweeney had called from a cell phone, was doubly problematic: Besides being made from too far up to be believable, the call also allegedly stayed connected for twelve minutes, which would be impossible in a plane traveling several hundred miles per hour. This twofold problem was solved by a piece of information on the newly discovered recording: that Sweeney, thanks to "an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant," had used a passenger-seat phone. This new account, however, raised the question of why Lechner's FBI affidavit had stated that, according to Woodward, Sweeney had used a cell phone. Although people sometimes misremember events after a passage of time, it would be difficult to explain this particular change in these terms. According to the new story, Woodward must have told Nancy Wyatt that Sweeney had borrowed a calling card in order to use an onboard phone. But if so, how could Woodward a few hours later have told Lechner that Sweeney had been using a cell phone? That being completely implausible, it seems likely that the Wyatt recording was created, rather than discovered, in 2004. The supposition that there was no recording made on 9/11 of a call from Nancy Wyatt to Dallas would be in line with Eric Lichtblau's account on September 20, 2001, which said: "FBI officials in Dallas, where American Airlines is based, were able, on the day of the terrorist attacks, to piece together a partial transcript and an account of the phone call. American Airlines officials said such calls are not typically recorded, suggesting that the FBI may have reconstructed the conversation from interviews." Why would FBI officials have need to "piece together a partial transcript" if they had received a recording of Wyatt's verbatim account of Woodward's word-for-word account of what he was told by Sweeney? Is it conceivable that American Airlines would have withheld the recording from the FBI? Hardly. Nor is it conceivable that American Airline officials could have quickly forgotten such a dramatic event. Likewise, the dramatic scenario, in which Woodward relayed Sweeney's words to Wyatt, who in turn relayed them to Dallas, where they were recorded, would have been fresh in Woodward's mind when he talked with Lechner. He would surely have mentioned this recording to Lechner, who surely would have mentioned it in his affidavit. For many reasons, therefore, we can safely conclude that the recording was not made on 9/11. It was most likely created just shortly before its "discovery," which was evidently first announced in June 2004. My hypothesis is that it was created as part of a more general transformation of most of the reported cell phone calls---all except the reported 9:58 calls from Felt and Lyles---into calls from onboard phones, a transformation that was completed in time to prevent the 9/11 Commission from endorsing the occurrence of any high-altitude cell phone calls. As I pointed out in 9/11 Contradictions, the Commission, while not taking issue with the press's portrayal of certain calls from Flights 77 and 175 as cell phone calls, also did not positively endorse this portrayal. Likewise, the Commission did not endorse the view that any of the high-altitude calls from United Flight 93 were cell phone calls. On this point, I had previously been in error. In 9/11 Contradictions, I wrote: "It was passengers on United Flight 93 who were most explicitly said to have made cell phone calls. Even the 9/11 Commission, which had not specifically referred to any of the calls from other flights as cell phone calls, said, in discussing United 93: 'Shortly [after 9:32], the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.'" At 9:32, the plane would have been at a very high altitude, and I took that statement to mean that some of the calls that began shortly after 9:32 were cell phone calls, even though the statement did not explicitly say this. It appears, however, that this ambiguous---even misleading---statement allowed the Commission to avoid either challenging or endorsing the idea that many of the passengers, such as Tom Burnett, had used cell phones to call their relatives. The evidence that the Commission was not endorsing high-altitude cell phone calls from Flight 93 is contained in a document entitled "Staff Report, August 26, 2004," which I learned about only after the publication of 9/11 Contradictions. This document refers solely to the 9:58 AM calls by Lyles and Felt as cell phone calls. It agrees, therefore, with the report the FBI would submit to the Moussaoui trial in 2006. It would appear, accordingly, that although the 9/11 Commission did not inform the public of this fact, it knew in 2004 that the FBI had withdrawn support for the idea of high-altitude cell phone calls. In any case, the FBI clearly changed its stance on the reported call from Amy Sweeney. Whereas the FBI affidavit in 2001 had said, on the basis of a reported interview with Michael Woodward, that Sweeney had used a cell phone, the FBI in 2004, on the basis of a "discovered" recording of Nancy Wyatt's verbatim report of Woodward's repetition of Sweeney's statements, said that Sweeney had used an "airphone." Summary Kornkven's charges---that my discussion of reported cell phone calls has been misleading and characterized by logical errors---cannot withstand an examination of the evidence. The "Cell Phone Myth" of which he spoke is itself a myth. His critique proved useful, nevertheless, in providing the occasion for me to bring out several points: (1) Reported cell phone calls were central to the creation of the claim that the airliners had been hijacked. (2) The FBI had actively participated in the creation of this claim. (3) The FBI, a few years later, renounced its endorsement of high-altitude cell phone calls and thereby had to make changes in its reports about several of the alleged calls---changes that are most obvious with respect to the alleged calls from Tom Burnett and Amy Sweeney. (4) These changes constitute an implicit admission by the FBI that its original claims about cell phone calls from the planes were false. (5) This admission should lead us to conclude that the whole story about phone calls was an elaborate fabrication.

David Ray Griffin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by David Ray Griffin Original article posted here.

More suspicious "suicides" a la DC madam

Key 9/11 eye witness "commits suicide"

The Daily News reported yesterday that Kenny Johannemann - a key witness in the WTC 9/11 bombings - recently committed suicide.

I call him a key witness because in spite of aggressive prodding from reporters about "the planes," he clearly called what happened on the upper floors of the World Trade Center "explosions."

More important, Johannemann reported a massive explosion in the basement of one of the Twin Towers and rescuing someone who received full body burns from an explosion that took place at the base - not the top - of the building.

(The Daily News obscured this part of the story in their report today.)

The suicide note purportedly left by Johannemann stated that he had "lost friends and family" over "his drinking" which the letter attributes to his depression since 9/11.

Here is the entire text of the note as reported in the Daily News:

"The reason I killed myself was 'cause I was getting evicted and can't handle homelessness. I was also very depressed since 9/11. I've been drinking way too much and it's ruined my life. I've lost friends and family over drinking and I'm very lonely. There is nothing left for me to be happy about other than my cat. Sounds weird, but it's true. I just wanted to say I'm sorry 2 any people I ever hurt in my life. I really was a good person when I wasn't drinking. I hope people remember that.

Goodbye!!!

Kenny Johannemann"

I wonder if the person who wrote this suicide note bothered to spend any time listening to Johannemann speak.

Johannemann had a large extended family and large social network which, according to his cousin Gerald Maya, universally held him in high regard. Maya had offered him a place to live.

You have to ask yourself two thing:

1. Would a man shoot himself in the head because he faced eviction when he had a family and social safety net like that?

2. Would someone as well spoken as Johannemann demonstrated himself to be on live TV, write a suicide note that sounds more like a teen aged boy's text message than a grown man's final testament?

Keep in mind that there are other people, more visible than Johannemann, who are actively telling the same story he did in public venues. You can bet that Johannemann's "suicide" has sent them a message loud and clear about their safety or lack of it.

Trying to clear the smoke

As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul

Stephen C. Webster
Published: Thursday August 21, 2008

According to a federal agency report released Thursday, a "new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion was directly responsible for the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

This study, posed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- a federal scientific agency which promotes technical industrial standards -- marks the first 'official' government theory on the collapse.

The building's demise occurred some seven hours after the twin towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, and has been the source of numerous conspiracy theories key to the "9/11 Truth" movement, most of which argue that the symmetrical, seven-second collapse was brought about by a controlled demolition.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, director of Institute's building and fire research laboratory, oversaw the government's three-year research efforts. The report aims to disprove the controlled demolition argument.

However, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, doesn't believe a word of the theory.

His group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute's claim in a press conference.

"Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack," said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. "Steel doesn't begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused."

"There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through," Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down.

Dr. Sunder disagreed.

"We conducted the study without bias, without interference from anyone," said Dr. Sunder. "We have only one single-minded goal in this effort."

While the Institute said it considered the possibility of a controlled demolition taking place at WTC 7, the notion was dismissed due to the absence of any recordings of an explosion sound.

Thermite, however, does not make an explosion sound. And while this was raised to Dr. Sunder in the media's Q&A session, he dismissed it as impossible.

"FEMA found it," said Gage. "Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers]."

Specifically, in Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

Yet, no study of the mysterious sulfur or melted steel was included in the NIST report.

After New York City officials cut off the water main to the tower Sept. 11, 2001, the building's sprinkler system was unable to function, Dr. Sunder said. This allowed fires across 10 floors to burn uncontrolled for nearly seven hours.

The Institute asserts that due to the lack of water supply, an “extraordinary event” occurred, and for the first time ever, steel expanding due to heat from the flames caused columns to separate from structural concrete. Column 79 was the first to fail, according to the report, which brought about a quick succession of failures in adjoining columns.

"Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems" was a critical element in the collapse, said Dr. Sunder. The "kink" seen in the building's penthouse portion in video of the collapse was in-line with the columns which failed first.

"If water had been available, it is likely that sprinklers would have operated and the building may still be here today," he said.

"It looks like they want to wrap-up this investigation and blame [the collapse] on normal office fires," said Gage during counter-conference.

WTC 7's structural system is in "widespread use" in other buildings, he added, insisting that such effects may also be present elsewhere. The Institute's report also includes recommendations for the strengthening of building codes to avoid future thermal expansion-driven collapses.

The collapse of WTC 7 is "no longer a mystery," Dr. Sunder claimed.

The Institute's full report is available at wtc.nist.gov.

Further details from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth press conference are forthcoming.

Original article posted here.

Smoke screen

Report: Fire, not bombs, leveled WTC 7 building

Enlarge By Robert Deutsch, USA TODAY A new report refutes speculation by conspiracy theorists that 7 World Trade Center, seen here on Sept. 12, 2001, as firefighters work at the wreckage site, was destroyed by explosives.

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland (AP) — Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.

Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.

Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.

"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.

Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building.

Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center.

The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers.

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.

The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts.

No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in 2006.

A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.

In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."

"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."

Original article posted here.

Montreal 9/11 confronts City Hall, busting possible false flag from the start

What weazl has been calling for all along (and it doesn't even include the 911 1rst degree murders!)

Former SF Mayor Willie Brown busted over 911 comments

Great (but very incomplete list). Weazl will also start adding to this

103 Suspected 9-11 Criminal Coconspirators

	George W. Bush — eldest son of Bush crime family; guilty of election fraud in 2000, 2004; guilty of war crimes, war profiteering, treason, crimes against humanity; likely signed-off on 9-11 plot
	Dick Cheney — former PNAC member; former chairman of CFR; guilty of war profiteering, treason; was in bunker on 9-11 directing several “war games”; lied to 9-11 Omission Commission about timing of 9-11 activities
	Donald Rumsfeld — former Secretary of War and PNAC member; close friend of Cheney; was at Pentagon on 9-11; once slipped and said “when that missile hit the Pentagon”
	Paul Wolfowitz — Deputy Secretary of War on 9-11; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist; investigated for spying for Israel; former PNAC member; chief architect of Iraq war; forced to resign in World Bank scandal
	Richard Perle — former assistant Secretary of War, chairman War Policy Board, and PNAC member; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist; allegedly gave $100,000 to head of Pakistan’s ISI, Mahmoud Ahmad; nicknamed “Prince of Darkness”
	Douglas Feith — effectively in command, with Wolfowitz, of War Department on 9-11; Undersecretary of War for Policy; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist; investigated for spying for Israel; former PNAC member
	Dov Zakheim — Pentagon comptroller when trillion dollars reported missing on 9-10-01; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist; Shul Rabbi; former CFR member; former CEO of fly-by-remote manufacturer; reputed 9-11 mastermind
	George Tenet — director of the CIA on 9-11; was awarded the “Medal of Freedom” by Bush for his fine work on 9-11; reported to be “dual citizen” of US and Israel
	Robert Mueller — FBI director on 9-11; under his “leadership” FBI field agents’ warnings of an imminent attack were stifled
	Thomas Pickard — took over the job of FBI director from Louis Freeh in August 2001; held this position only for a few weeks before Robert Mueller became director; former Terror Task Force chief John O’Neill complained about sabotage by Pickard
	Dale Watson — former Deputy Chief of the CIA at the Counter-Terrorist Center; appointed Inspector Deputy Assistant Director of the National Security Division (NSD), FBI Headquarters, Washington, DC in July 1998; appointed FBI Headquarters Assistant on December 6, 1999 by the Attorney General; ignored at least four different FBI agents’ warnings including an “urgent cable” from the CIA on August 23rd about Almihdhar and Alhazmi
	Dave Frasca — FBI Radical Fundamentalists Unit Chief; personally scuttled the work of Kenneth Williams in July 2001 and Coleen Rowley in August 2001, the Arizona and Minnesota FBI agents who were actively investigating “terrorist” patsies in CIA-operated flight schools
	Marion “Spike” Bowman — FBI agent who thwarted FBI investigations into both Zacarias Moussaoui and the anthrax attacks on Congress
	John Ashcroft — Attorney General on 9-11; protected “terrorist” patsy Abdussattar Shaikh from subpoena after 9-11; stopped flying commercial aircraft in 2001
	Michael Chertoff — Assistant Attorney General on 9-11; freed over 100 Israeli spies in the US after 9-11; promoted to head Homeland Security; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist; likely Mossad agent
	Michael Mukasey — federal judge in New York; presided over 1993 WTC bombing case; active in 9-11 cases, including Larry Silverstein’s insurance claims; oversaw the detained material witnesses of 9-11, including five dancing Israeli Mossad agents apprehended by FBI; recently appointed by Bush to be the next Attorney General; radical Zionist of Russian Jewish parentage; “dual citizen” of US and Israel
	Ted Olson — Solicitor General of the United States on 9-11; alleges that his wife, Barbara, phoned him from AA Flight 77 to report that it was highjacked by men with knives and box cutters; Flight 77 allegedly crashed into the Pentagon though there was no wreckage of a 757 at the site, no bodies, no luggage, and the hole in the side of the Pentagon was much too small to accommodate a 757 (Barbara is not likely alive, but she was not killed at the Pentagon event)
	Colin Powell — Secretary of State on 9-11; met with General Mahmoud Ahmad two days after 9-11; former chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; helped cover up Vietnam My Lai massacre
	Condi Rice — National Security Adviser on 9-11; promoted to Secretary of State; lied to 9-11 Omission Commission while under oath
	Tommy Thompson — Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary; hired Jerome Hauer, former Office of Emergency Center, on 9-10-01
	Jerome Hauer — managing director of Kroll and senior adviser to US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) for National Security and Emergency Management on 9-11; put John O’Neill at the WTC on 9-11; lied to Dan Rather on CBS News on 9-11 about the controlled demolition of WTC buildings; director of Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management from 1996 to 2000
	Porter Goss — former House Intelligence Chair; was meeting with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s ISI and 9-11 financier, on 9-11; promoted to Director of CIA, resigned after “hookergate”
	Bob Graham — former Florida Senator; was meeting with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s ISI and 9-11 financier, on 9-11; ran for President in 2004
	Marc Grossman — Under Secretary for Political Affairs on 9-11; met with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s ISI and 9-11 financier, on or shortly after 9-11; “dual citizen” of US and Israel
	Richard Armitage — former member of PNAC, Deputy Secretary of State; met with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s ISI and 9-11 financier, shortly after 9-11
	Philip Zelikow — led the 9-11 Cover-Up Commission; personally wrote the 9-11 Omission Commission Report, a best-selling work of fiction; appointed Counselor of US Department of State; “dual citizen” of US and Israel
	Ari Fleischer — White House spokesman for Bush on 9-11; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; connected to the extremist group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics
	Andrew Card — Bush’s Chief of Staff on 9-11; was with Bush at Booker Elementary School in Florida on 9-11; claims to have whispered to Bush, “A second plane hit the second tower, America is under attack”
	Karl Rove — Bush’s top strategist, known as “Bush’s Brian”; America’s Joseph Goebbels; was behind the campaign to oust Georgia Representative Cynthia McKinney who was the first nationally-known politician to question Bush’s role in 9-11; in June 2005, said, “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and prepared for war, liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers”
	Richard Meyers — in charge of USA air defenses on 9-11; lied to 9-11 Omission Commission about reasons for air defense failure on 9-11; promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
	Ralph Eberhardt — NORAD Commander on 9-11; fanatical supporter of missile defense scheme, militarization of space; enthusiastic supporter of merging law enforcement and the military
	Larry Arnold — NORAD Commander Major General on 9-11; has used 9-11 to push militarization of USA
	Eric Findley — Canadian Air Force Major General; acting commander of NORAD on 9-11
	Montague Winfield — Major General in charge of Pentagon war room on 9-10-01, the evening of September 10th he requested a rookie to stand in for him on 9-11
	Richard Mies — former Admiral; ran Global Guardian “war game” on 9-11 out of US Strategic Command (Stratcom) at Offutt Air Force Base; now CEO of Hicks & Associates, a “strategic consultant” to the USG dealing in “military transformation”
	Henry Shelton — chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9-11; supported formation of Able Danger
	Peter Schoomaker — US Army Chief of Staff; former SOCOM (Special Operations Command) chief; ran Able Danger
	Geoffrey Lambert — Major General; SOCOM (Special Operations Command) Intel Chief; made Able Danger, the program that tracked patsy “terrorists”, off limits to FBI
	John Brinkerhoff — retired US Army Colonel who was a career senior executive in the Office of Secretary of War; from 1981 to 1983, FEMA associate director for national preparedness where he developed plan for martial law; claims intentions of Posse Comitatus are “misunderstood and misapplied”, that USG has “full and absolute authority” to use troops to quell American uprising; after 9-11, joined Anser Institute for Homeland Security and wrote “talking points” supporting revised “national security initiatives” that would allow imposition of martial law
	John Lehman — Reagan’s Navy Secretary from 1981 till 1987; claims US is in religious war against “violent, Islamic Fundamentalism”; member 9-11 Omission Commission; PNAC member
	Tony Gentry — Army Intelligence and Security Command General Counsel; ordered 2.5 terrabytes of Able Danger data destroyed
	Philip Odeen — as director of Program Analysis for the National Security Council, provided staff support to Henry Kissinger from 1971 to 1973; served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of War in Systems Analysis; named to chair the National War Panel in 1997; former president of Reynolds and Reynolds; former CEO and president of BDM International; executive vice president of Washington operations of TRW
	Elliot Abrams — former member of PNAC, National Security Council; pleaded guilty in 1991 to lying to Congress about Iran-Contra affair; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist
	Lewis “Scooter” Libby — former PNAC member; studied political science at Yale under Paul Wolfowitz; aid to Cheney; convicted for lying about outing of Valerie Plame; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist
	Jack Abramoff — entertained USG “terrorist” patsy Mohammed Atta on his yacht just before 9-11; convicted criminal lobbyist; ardent Zionist
	Jeb Bush — Florida governor on 9-11; declared martial law in Florida four days before 9-11; brother of George Bush; PNAC member; guilty of election fraud in 2000
	Rudolph Giuliani — mayor of New York on 9-11; hailed as “hero” for his “gutsy” leadership on 9-11; allegedly involved with FEMA and former NYC Police Chief Kerik in Operation Code Angel
	Bernard Kerik — NYC Police Chief on 9-11; “sidekick” of Giuliani; allegedly involved with FEMA in WTC demolition “war games” called Operation Code Angel
	Lewis Eisenberg — chairman Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on 9-11; authorized transfer of WTC leases to Silverstein and Lowy just weeks before 9-11; later appointed chairman of Republican National Committee; Zionist
	Eliot Spitzer — New York Attorney General on 9-11; barred his top aide, Deputy Attorney General Dietrich Snell, from testifying to Congress on Able Danger; threw out Karl Schwarz’s 9-11 synopsis
	Richard Holbrooke — former US ambassador to UN; CFR member; co-chaired “Independent Task Force on America’s Response to Terrorism” in which the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) was promoted
	John Deutch — former Undersecretary of War, director of CIA; co-authored paper, “Catastrophic Terrorism: A National Policy” with Zelikow, Ashton Carter; senior partner at Global Technology Partners, an affiliate of Rothschild North America; MIT professor; grandson of Yonah Fischer, Antwerp diamond merchant who ran Zionist Federation of Belgium
	Ashton Carter — co-authored paper, “Catastrophic Terrorism: A National Policy” with Zelikow and Deutch; senior partner at Global Technology Partners, an affiliate of Rothschild North America
	Michael Ledeen — became “anti-terrorism” advisor to Secretary of State, Al Haig in 1981; contacts with mullahs in Iran-Contra affair; alleged ties to Italian fascist P2 Masonic Lodge; contacts with Libby, Cheney’s Chief of Staff; top NeoCon(vict) advisor to Bush and Karl Rove; member AEI (American Enterprise Institute); wrote book extolling fascism
	Abdussattar Shaikh — FBI informant to the San Diego office; helped bring “terrorist” patsies to USA; protected by Attorney General Ashcroft
	Abdullah Noman — worked for the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; filed 10-15 visas for the patsy 9-11 “hijackers” in the Visa Express Program
	Daniel Lewin — officer in elite, secret unit of Israeli military called “Sayeret Matkal”; orchestrated activities of Mossad agents in USA before 9-11; was allegedly stabbed or “shot” by highjacker Satam al-Suqami before AA flight 11 crashed into the WTC
	Dominic Suter — Mossad agent; his front company, Urban Moving Systems, employed the five Mossad agents caught celebrating in New York on 9-11
	Sivan Kurzberg — driver of van belonging to the celebrating Israelis; when stopped by police on 9-11, he said “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem”
	John Gross — one of the lead engineers for the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed; denies existence of molten steel at the WTC
	Theresa McAllister — edited the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed
	Ronald Hamburger — structural engineer and Senior Principal at Simpson Gumpertz and Heger consulting engineers in San Francisco; was a principal author of FEMA’s initial report on the collapse of the twin towers; later a key participant in the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed
	William Baker — member of FEMA Probe Team; partner with Skidmore, Owings, Merrill; contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed
	Harold Nelson — contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed
	Ramon Gilsanz — contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed
	Shankar Nair — contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed; quoted in Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001 that “Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center”
	Gene Corley — led FEMA/ASCE WTC collapse “investigation”; was the principal investigator for ASCE and FEMA of the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City
	Paul Mlakar — part of ASCE team that investigated both WTC and Murrah Federal building attacks
	Mete Sozen — part of ASCE team that investigated both WTC and Murrah Federal building attacks
	Charles Thornton — partner of Richard Tomasetti; told Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel, “Karl, we all know what caused the collapse”; part of ASCE team that investigated both WTC and Murrah Federal building attacks
	Richard Tomasetti — partner of Charles Thornton; reportedly behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the WTC steel evidence
	Victor Ganzi — president and CEO of Hearst Corporation since June 1, 2002; the Hearst publication, Popular Mechanics, has repeatedly tried to debunk the truth of 9-11
	Benjamin Chertoff — 25-year-old cousin of Michael Chertoff; senior “researcher” for Popular Mechanics’ hit piece on 9-11 Truth Movement
	Kevin Delaney — FAA manager at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center who destroyed controllers’ tapes of 9-11
	Marvin Bush — brother of George Bush; on board of Securacom, US-Kuwaiti company paid $9.2 million to manage WTC security October 1996 to 1998; on board of HCC Insurance, big WTC insurer
	Wirt Walker — cousin of George Bush; principal at Securacom, US-Kuwaiti joint-venture that managed security for WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Airport, all of which figured into 9-11
	Larry Silverstein — he and partner Frank Lowy obtained 99-year lease on WTC shortly before 9-11; made several billion dollars on 9-11 insurance fraud; admitted to “pulling” WTC 7; Zionist
	Frank Lowy — he and partner Larry Silverstein obtained 99-year lease on WTC shortly before 9-11; came to Palestine in 1945 from Hungarian to fight as Golani commando in Israeli “War of Independence”; Australia’s second richest person; in May 2007, investigated by Israeli police for corruption scandal involving Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; Zionist
	David Rockefeller — vice director of the Council on Foreign Relations (1949-1985), vice president (1950-1970), and chairman (1970-1985); as chairman of the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association (1958 to 1975) was primary builder of WTC complex; founder and honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission; president or CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank, 1961 to 1981; 9-11 was the anniversary of 1973 CIA-sponsored coup plotted by David Rockefeller’s cabal and overseen by Nelson’s protégé Henry Kissinger that toppled Chile’s President Salvadore Allende
	Nicholas Rockefeller — told film-maker Aaron Russo of coming catastrophic event eleven months before 9-11
	Warren Buffett — was hosting golf charity event at the US Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha on 9-11 (Bush flew to Offutt afternoon of 9-11); world’s second richest person
	Rupert Murdoch — key player in Zionist-controlled corporate media which began the 9-11 cover-up on day one; connected to individuals who privatized and leased WTC just weeks before 9-11; vocal supporter of Zionist extremists Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon; honored by leading Zionist organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), in which Silverstein, Lowy, and Eisenberg all hold senior positions; Zionist who tries to hide his Jewish heritage
	Maurice Greenberg — CEO of American International Group (AIG) on 9-11 which became co-owner of the “private spy agency”, Kroll Associates, in 1993 and was a major share-holder in Marsh & McClennan whose CEO on 9-11 was Maurice’s son Jeffrey; director of the New York Federal Reserve bank (1988-1995); deputy chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1996; major investor in the Blackstone Group
	Jules Kroll — founder of Kroll Corporation, a “security services” company which was in charge of “security” at WTC on 9-11; has close links to CIA and is active private military contractor in Iraq; Zionist
	Paul Bremer — Marsh & McClennan executive on 9-11; Chairman of the Congressional National Commission on Terrorism, 1999 to 2000; US Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism, 1986 to 1989; Presidential Envoy to Irag and Adminstrator of the Coaltion Provisional Authority, May 2003 to December 2004
	Wallace Hilliard — with Saudi investors including Shiek Kamal Adham, Adnan Khashoggi, and Prince Nawaf bin Abdul Aziz. bought Venice, Florida Huffman Aviation in 1999 where Mohammed Atta and other alleged 9-11 highjackers allegedly learned to fly; flight school linked to CIA firm
	Peter Peterson — CEO of the Blackstone Group, parent corporation of one of three lease-holders for WTC 7 on 9-11; also chairman of the CFR and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on 9-11; CEO of the Institute for International Economics in October 2000
	A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard — now number three Executive Director at the CIA; until 1998, managed firm used to place “put options” on United Airlines which has left $2.5 million in “profits” unclaimed
	Mark Loizeaux — as CEO of CDI was instrumental in “recycling” steel from WTC crime scene; CDI also buried the rubble from the crime scene of the Murrah Federal Building
	Loring Knoblauch — CEO of Underwriters Labs; said that jet fuel fires were not “reasonably foreseeable”; resigned suddenly in August 2004 after UL performed tests of WTC floor models where floors did not collapse and were barely affected
	Michael Cherkasky — CEO of Kroll on 9-11; former investigator in the Manhattan DA’s Office from 1978 to 1994; now CEO of insurance-firm Marsh & McClennan
	Frank Carlucci — former Secretary of War; affiliated with PNAC; served as chairman of the Carlyle Group (1992-2003); on BoD of BDM International
	William Kristol — PNAC co-founder; adherent of Leo Strauss; editor of The Weekly Standard; strong advocate of the Iraq war; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist
	William Perry — former Secretary of War; associated with the Rothschild's banking empire through Global Technology, a Rothschild affiliate
	James Woolsey — former CIA director; PNAC member; claims “incompetence” was reason for 9-11
	Newt Gingrich — former Speaker of the House; PNAC member; reputed to be a member of the CFR; served on the Pentagon’s War Policy Board
	Henry Kissinger — long criminal history; wanted for war crimes in several countries; sat on War Policy Board under Perle; chosen to lead 9-11 Cover-Up Omission Commission; “dual citizen” of US and Israel
	George H.W. Bush — Bush crime family Don; Skull and Bones; CIA operative involved in JFK assassination; former head of CIA; son of friend shot Reagan when he was VP; war profiteer
	Tony Blair — British Prime Minister on 9-11; ally and partner in crime of George Bush; London 7-7 bombings were also “false flag” operation
	Pauline Neville-Jones — International Governor of BBC on 9-11; Chairman of UK Joint Intelligence Committee (1991-1994); Chairman of QinetiQ Group, a war technology company with government customers in UK and USA; Chairman of Information Assurance Advisory Council (IAAC)
	Mahmoud Ahmad — head of Pakistan’s ISI; had Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh wire $100,000 to lead 9-11 “terrorist” patsy Mohammad Atta
	Benjamin Netanyahu — former Israeli Prime Minister; said 9-11 was “good” for US-Israeli relationship; in NYC on 9-11 and in London on 7-7 bombings
	Ariel Sharon — Israeli Prime Minister on 9-11; heavy Mossad involvement in 9-11 (200 Israeli intelligence agents rounded up after 9-11, five Mossad agents arrested filming and celebrating WTC collapses, employees of Mossad-operated company at WTC notified hours before plane hit) implicates Sharon; infamous Zionist terrorist and war criminal; now said to be comatose

What Really Happened on 9-11?

The events of 9-11 are seared into the collective psyche of this generation. We have all been affected by the catastrophes of that fateful day, but what really happened on 9-11?

Some people believe an outlandish conspiracy theory involving 19 Arab hijackers who allegedly: commandeered four commercial jets with nothing more than their cunning, wit, resolve, hatred of America, and some box cutters; then proceed to fly these aircraft around US airspace unfettered for a total lapsed time of over an hour; on three of the planes, pulled stunning flight maneuvers beyond the capability of even expert pilots; and, managed to cause damage to their targets — one of which just happens to have been the most heavily defended building in the world — so extreme as to be in clear violation of several well understood laws of Physics, Chemistry, and Thermodynamics. This amazing conspiracy theory is even more suspicious and bizarre in that it is the one proffered by the United States Government (USG) and the 9-11 Cover-Up Omission Commission. In the 9-11 Truth Movement we call it the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT).

Thankfully, despite the best efforts of the corporate-controlled media and virtually the entire US Congress, there are literally millions of people in this country and millions more around the world who do not believe that these 19 Arabs, as clever as they purportedly were, could have somehow suspended the laws of Physics on 9-11.

Are There Competing Conspiracy Theories?

We just observed that the official story of 9-11 is in fact a “conspiracy theory”… and a wacky one at that, one that happens to be physically impossible!

There must be another explanation, one that doesn’t require us to rewrite most of Newtonian Physics. There is, in fact, another explanation that is supported by the empirical evidence, the observed events of the day. It is more than a “conspiracy theory” at this point. It has been sufficiently verified, tested, and refined to be rightly called a “conspiracy reality”.

True, there are competing conspiracy “theories”, but they only compete with the OCT not the conspiracy reality, as they all have anomalies, inconsistencies, improbabilities, and out right impossibilities that will keep them forever in the realm of “theory” unsupported by fact. These conspiracy “theories” that eschew the OCT only to embrace other utter nonsense (like: planes didn’t hit the WTC, holograms and “video trickery” were used instead; the three WTC skyscrapers demolished on 9-11 were destroyed by exotic, space-based, directed energy beam weapons; a commercial jet really did hit the Pentagon) are in reality all part of a concerted COINTELPRO-style USG disinformation campaign designed to splinter and marginalize those of us who have solved the Rubik’s Cube of 9-11. These “theories” don’t compete with what is known to be true by the vast majority of the 9-11 Truth Movement, they are deliberate and elaborate disinformation campaigns designed to make those of us who do know the truth look foolish by association.

What Is The Real Conspiracy?

Here is a synopsis of what the best and brightest researchers around the world have gleaned over the past five-plus years from the best evidence available:

* yes, 9-11 was a “terrorist” attack, but it was not perpetrated by “angry Arabs”, it was a State-sponsored “inside job”, a “false flag” operation planned, executed, and covered up by elements of the USG and operatives from at least two other countries… it was the greatest act of psychological warfare ever perpetrated;

* the alleged 19 Arab “hijackers” were “patsies”, several are still alive, several were under the care and feeding of USG operatives and were being “trained” at CIA-operated flight schools;

* FBI field agents who discovered the plot were told by their superiors not to investigate the “suspicious Arabs in flight schools”;

* no interceptor jets were launched in a timely manner on 9-11 because of the five to seven overlapping war games — “games” simulating a simultaneous hijacking of several planes — that were taking place on 9-11;

* the planes that hit the Twin Towers were most likely remotely controlled to their intended targets;

* WTC 1 and 2 (the Twin Towers) and WTC 7 were all destroyed by preplanted charges — a combination of Thermate and high-powered explosives — in controlled demolitions;

* the Pentagon was hit by a military drone painted to look like American Airlines flight 77, possibly in combination with a cruise missile;

* the cell-phone calls allegedly made from the “hijacked” flights were not possible with the technology available on 9-11 from the altitude and speed at which the jets were traveling, these calls were faked to help sell the OCT;

* the fate of United flight 93 is still up for debate at this time, it seems to have been intended to hit Congress and was likely shot down by a “rogue” air force interceptor, but some reports claim it landed in Cleveland (one way or another, all passengers are dead).

Why Kill Your Own People?

This is the toughest part for the uninitiated to understand. The people who planned and executed the treasonous, heinous crimes of 9-11 are largely drawn from a handful of people known as NeoCons. Many of these are current or former members of PNAC (Project for the New American Century). Many are disciples of Leo Strauss, a German-born, fascistic, political philosopher who taught at the University of Chicago. Strauss thought that the average person was too stupid to decide what is in their best interest and that a ruling elite should govern all of humanity.

Taking a long-term perspective, 9-11 was conceived as a “stepping stone” to eventually enable the creation of a New World Order (NWO), the ultimate goal of the ruling elite — one global, fascistic, police state in perpetual war against an unseen enemy… terrorism.

There were also several short-term objectives of 9-11: to push the USA Patriot Act through a compliant and complicit Congress; to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq; to create a “siege mentality” in the USA and around the world; to eliminate the Constitution and in doing so eliminate Constitutional Rights and civil liberties; to dramatically increase military and “security” spending; to further divide the country; to rapidly militarize local police; to set the stage for the next “9-11”; and, ultimately, to prepare for martial law.

How Could They Keep It Secret?

Most people assume that for insiders to have pulled off 9-11 would have taken so many people that someone would have talked by now.

First of all, it seems likely that there were as few as roughly 140 people who were intimately involved in the details of 9-11. On this site, you can see pictures and a short bio of the 90 people who are highly likely to be the top criminal coconspirators guilty of the planning, execution, and subsequent cover-up of the treason and mass murder that took place on 9-11.

As far as why no one has confessed, look at it this way: everyone involved in 9-11, even those only involved in the cover-up, are guilty of crimes for which they could possibly receive a death sentence if convicted. If that isn’t enough incentive to remain silent, i don’t know what is! How many times has a criminal ever confessed to a crime for which they were not even a suspect?! Criminals will only confess if they’re convinced they’ve been caught and they’re willing to make a deal for leniency if they reveal their cohorts.

Furthermore, when you read the names on the list of suspected perpetrators, you’ll see right away what a tight-knit little group it is. If there were even a shadow of a doubt about someone’s loyalty, they would not have been invited into this cabal.

About the List of Suspected 9-11 Criminal Coconspirators.

This list was compiled after many hours of research. Many, if not most, of the people named here were very likely criminally involved in the planning, execution, and cover-up of the crimes of 9-11 — crimes which include mass murder, accessory to mass murder, and treason. There is a slim possibility that a few people named here should not be on this list. If evidence surfaces that would exonerate someone named here, their name will be removed.

Clearly, there are people who were involved who are not on this list; for instance, the people on the small team of demolition experts who actually wired WTC 1, 2, and 7 for demolition. We won’t have a final verdict on all of the perpetrators until a new and fully independent 9-11 investigation is launched that has the ability to subpoena documents and question suspects under oath.

If you would like to offer someone to be added to the list of suspected perpetrators, you can submit pertinent information to contact@whodidit.org.

Please note: In an effort to reclaim the meaning of certain highly-charged words, the word “defense” has been replaced by the word “war” in all USG department names, position titles, and policy boards. For instance, “Secretary of Defense” is retitled “Secretary of War” to more accurately reflect the true nature of the position.

Analysis of the Suspected 9-11 Criminal Coconspirators.

Of the 103 people named on the list of Suspected 9-11 Criminal Coconspirators there are:

22 current or former members of George W. Bush’s White House (21.4%);

4 current or former members of Congress (3.9%);

6 current or former FBI agents or officials (5.8%);

6 current or former CIA agents or officials (5.8%);

6 current or former officials of New York (5.8%);

12 current or former high-ranking USG military commanders (11.7%);

13 current or former USG officials (not included above) (12.6%);

12 current or former members of PNAC (11.7%);

16 consultants, lobbyists, or members of a “think tank” (not including PNAC) (15.5%);

12 engineers (11.7%);

34 current or former corporate executives (33.0%);

4 senior “statesmen” (3.9%);

5 members of the Bush family (4.9%);

1 Canadian (1.0%);

1 Pakistani (1.0%);

2 Arabs (1.9%);

2 Brits (1.9%);

4 known or suspected Mossad agents (3.9%);

14 people who hold “dual citizenship” (13.6%); and

27 Israelis and Zionists (including people with “dual citizenship” noted above) (26.2%).

Note: Since the same person can be counted in more than one category, the tally above will not add up to 103 and the percentages will not total to 100%.

What Can We Do?

Once you know the truth of what really happened on 9-11 and you realize that a handful of people at the highest levels of the USG and the corporate world committed mass murder and treason on 9-11, it’s impossible to simply look the other way and carry on as if the OCT fairy tale were true.

The perpetrators of the “false flag” attack of 9-11 committed an abominable crime and have, so far, escaped prosecution. If they are not removed from power in the very near future it is virtually assured that they will do another 9-11-style attack. The biggest difference is the next one will be much worse, most likely involving a nuclear device, and the outcome will be much worse as well. Expect the following: casualties in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands; an immediate declaration of martial law; the total suspension of the constitution and all civil rights; the abolition of Congress; and the hasty coronation of George W. Bush as Dictator of the Americas.

Don’t let anybody tell you, “One person can’t make a difference”! Tell your friends and family the uncomfortable truth about 9-11. Pass out copies of dvds like “9-11 Mysteries”. Organize talks about 9-11 in your community. Demand your elected officials launch a new and independent investigation of 9-11. Vote for 9-11 Truth Candidates for public office. Individually and together we can, must, and will see that the perpetrators of 9-11 are removed from power and brought to justice.

Original article posted here.