NEWS FLASH! April Gallup interview..She was inside the Pentagon on 911 and saw no evidence of an airplane..it was an explosion iinside the building.

April Gallup 911 Pentagon Survivor on alex Jones TV : No Plane Part One



April Gallup Was there a bomb in the Pentagon #2



alexJones April Gallup #3



Aprol Gallup #4




Press Release Mon., Dec. 15, 2008
New York City, New York

A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan Monday charges Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,and ex-Air Force General Richard Myers, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefson September 11th with “broad complicity” in the attacks of that horrific day. The suit seeks damages, triple damages and punitive damages for an ex-U.S.Army member who, along with her two-month-old baby, was injured in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on 9/11.

The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised “painful questions” about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent.

The complaint alleges the three leaders and other “unknown, named” U.S. military and civilian officials engaged in a conspiracy to “facilitate and enable” the Attack on America; because they wished to bring about a “frightening catastrophe of terrorism”, “a new Pearl Harbor”, which would create “a powerful reaction of fear and anger in the public and in Washington”. This would generate an “atmosphere of acceptance” which would allow the longed-for neo-conservative political and military program to go forward: invade Afghanistan, pass the Patriot Act, invade Iraq, tap phones, etc; torture, lie, intimidate, etc.

The plaintiff AG [April Gallop] was a career soldier, holding top secret clearance, who had an agreeable assignment in Germany until she was abruptly transferred to the Pentagon in 2000. On September 11, 2001, she had a new baby boy, Elisha, with her on her first day back from a two-month maternity leave. She was told by her supervisor to hurry to her desk that morning, for an urgent document-clearing job, and to drop the baby off at child care later. She got to her office, turned on her computer, and the place blew up. There were at least two big explosions that she heard and felt.

The walls collapsed, the ceiling fell in, she was hit in the head and knocked unconscious; she came to, grabbed the baby (who was also hit in the head), and picked her way out to where daylight was showing, wherethe front of the first floor had been blown off. The insides of the building were also blown out; but there was no sign of any wrecked airliner, and no burning jet fuel splashed anywhere.

There is also no sign of airliner wreckage in any photograph that has been published so far; and there are many photographs that show a clear absence of wreckage, and plain evidence of blast damage. Many internet sites carry the pictures. See, e.g,

http://www.teamlaw.org/images/Penthitista.jpg?sdgsdf ;

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/metcalf3.jpg

Meanwhile, there are said to be some 85 videotapes from various surveillance cameras on and around the Pentagon, which the U.S. Department of Justice is withholding from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. What do they show, or not show?

The Pentagon has released two video clips from cameras showing the side of the Pentagon that was hit. In the first, at about 1:07, just after a car passes in front, a white or silver projectile-shaped object appears at the right edge of the picture, opposite the building; and the next frames show an explosion beginning at the front of the building, followed by a fireball. The object is indistinct, and definitely not recognizable as an airliner.

In the second tape, from a camera a little further away but with the same general view, you see the car pass, and then at 25 seconds, a plume of white smoke shows on the right side, where the shape was in the first tape. A parking lot entry ticket device in the foreground hides the object emitting the smoke, and the explosion begins in the next frame; but plainly there is no giant airliner hidden behind the parking device, about to strike the building. Both tapes, obtained by Judicial Watch in 2006 are at: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,97499,00.html

The official report suggests the plane disintegrated on impact, but also that parts of it plowed all the way through to the back wall of the “C-ring”, some 300 feet from where it hit on the outside; but there are no pictures of airplane wreckage inside the building either.

See http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/punchout_rv.jpg ; http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/interior_damage1.jpg

see also http://rawstory.com/news/2008/911_survivor_blasts_Rumsfeld_Cheney_No_1217.html

The plaintiff alleges her belief that no airliner crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, although it appears that one swooped low over the building just when bombs went off inside, or a missile hit, or both. These may have been controlled from E-4B, the Air Force “doomsday plane” which was shown live on CNN, circling over Washington at the time of the attack.

But whether a plane hit the building or something else did, certainly there was no warning of a plane's approach; which might have saved the plaintiff and her child, many others who were hurt, and the 125 people, members of the military and civilian employees, who died in the attack that morning. Yet flight controllers broadcast an emergency warning about the plane more than a half-four before the Pentagon was hit.

The explosion(s) destroyed the interior of the building where plaintiff’s office was. When she could gather herself from the blast, with help from other survivors, they made their way out through rubble, smoke and dust. She got to the outside, holding her baby, collapsed on the grass, and woke up later inthe hospital.

Officials came to the hospital and asked her what she thought happened. She told them a bomb went off; but they said no, in fact, an airplane crashed into the building. She asked, and has continued to ask: where were the fighter planes, that have protected America's skies for so long; that normally go up once or twice a week, at a moment’s notice, to check on off-course airliners? Where were the Pentagon's defenses? Where was the alarm, to get the people out of harm's way?

These are painful questions, indeed, and Rumsfeld and Cheney have not given good or even decent answers. Their multiple stories, especially as embodied in the duplicitous Report of the Official 9/11 Commission, controlled by Bush Administration insider Phillip Zelikow, do not hold water and can be proven false. The Report is full of errors, omissions and distortions, and has been thoroughly discredited, in the writings of David Ray Griffin and numerous others.

AG went to a special Commission hearing in 2004, open only to survivors, and watched as Donald Rumsfeld gave rambling, evasive answers about the failure of the Pentagon defenses, particularly the fighter planes. The Commissioners failed to confront his non-responsiveness, and never pinned him down. Cheney was observed in the White House bunker that morning by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, apparently giving orders that the plane headed towards Washington be allowed to continue. Cheney has never testified or been reasonably questioned about his actions.

We brought this lawsuit for AG and her son to hold them to account...

Richard Grove, Premier whistlblower

Richard Grove, 911 Whistleblower Extraordinaire

We Are Change interviews Richard Grove (part 1 of 3) By Richard Grove
View in HD  Download 540p Version  Visit Richard Grove's ExposureRoom Videos Page

We are change Part One

We Are Change interviews Richard Grove (part 2 of 3) By Richard Grove
View in HD  Download 540p Version  Visit Richard Grove's ExposureRoom Videos Page

Part Two

We Are Change interviews Richard Grove (part 1 of 3) By Richard Grove
View in HD  Download 540p Version  Visit Richard Grove's ExposureRoom Videos Page

Part Three

Richard Gage returns from a very succesful European tour

Final Report on the European Tour -- A Great Success!

by Richard Gage, AIA

It looks like the Europe Tour was an awesome success!
Thousands of Europeans were exposed to the truth about
the explosive controlled demolitions of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11 — in 9 cities, across 6 countries, including London, Madrid, Vienna, Geneva, Paris, Aachen, Brussels,Hamburg, and Berlin.
Hundreds of architects & engineers came to see what all the controversy was about. (See the numbers in the individual event records). Mainstream media in Spain gave us a good TV interview and prime time coverage of the AE911Truth presentation. About 8 other radio and TV interviews provided additional coverage. Full houses in Madrid and Paris caused people to be turned away. I gave some of the better presentations I've ever given and received a standing ovation.
Language was not an issue because we had translators where it was most necessary. And the numbers of hands raised revealed that hardly anyone supported the official conspiracy and fire story after the evidence was given. The event coordinators in every one of the 9 cities showed up and performed professionally from start to finish – working around the clock to ensure=2 0that publicity via the TV & news media, marketing to A&E's, and even leafleting on the street, as well as all the facility
coordination went without a hitch! These guys are incredible and give the Americans an edge to strive for!

A huge thank you to Ms. Annie Machon from London, whose tireless efforts and seamless skills went toward putting the tour together, and who coordinated all of the European Coordinator activities to ensure my efficient travel and other details. And to the lead EC's themselves: Gareth and Douglass in London; Diana and Greg in Madrid; Daniel T. and Jimmy W. in Vienna; Richard Golay, Florian and Valerie in Geneva; Arno, and Deborah in Paris; Channing in Aachen; Jean-Luc and Eric in Brussels; Jens and Inez in Hamburg; Ronald, Oliver, Heiner, Hauke, Sebastian, and Clifford in Berlin. You and your team are all national and world patriots, and heroes!

I was treated in every city to an incredible whirlwind tour by our gracious EC's. At the top of my list, though, had to be the harrowing motorcycle ride through the medieval streets of Paris – and the Avenue Champs-Élysées – after which Arno brought to life the Eiffel tower, Notre Dame, the Arc de Triomphe, Sacré-Cœur Basilica, and other famous treats to the eye. A close tie had to be the modern domed architectural
masterpiece of Sir Norman Foster at the top of the historic Reichstag in Berlin, and Charlemagne's ma gnificent cathedral in Aachen. And don't miss the "Gherkin" — a pickled shape20building in London, also designed by Sir Norman Foster with an amazing cross-spiraling perimeter structure. (see photos in the galleries below)

Don't wait to go to Europe until you're 53! You'll regret having missed so much of the unique people and architecture. They are indeed quite aware of and sensitive to the growing political/social/military machine in America. We really don't see it because we live in it and haven't been given an outside view of it through our media. It seems
that almost everyone in Europe disfavors the outgoing American Administration – and with a passion! And that is even without hearing the evidence in our 9/11 presentation and its obvious implications.
There is quite a move in the European community to bring David Ray Griffin over this spring. Willie Rodriquez recently completed a short powerful tour. And they seem to want AE911Truth back in 6 months. The truth and the truth-tellers are relentless in Europe. We will support them wholeheartedly. It seems that it will require massive
international pressure upon our American Government in order to compel necessary self-reflection and moral will-power of our elected representatives to engage the weighty issues of 9/11 head on, raise truth and justice upon their shoulders, and let the chips fall where they may. My sense is that all of Europe will come to the aid of an ailing America, as we have to them in their times of peril. It has been an20immense honor for AE911Truth to be one small voice in the sea of American cries for help from20our friends across theAtlantic.
I am so grateful for an enlightening and enriching trip where deep friendships and alliances have been forged. Let's build on the momentum!

— Richard Gage, AIA, Architect

http://www.ae911truth.org/events/eurotour/

Wayne Madsen - NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Rally..3 videos and a link to the new radio program dedicated to the investigation of 911

MPORTANT new 9/11 online radio show -- with Links...

Hello all,

Thanks to all who listened in on the first installment of “9/11: Truth or
Consequences” last Tuesday. Many people were amazed by the Wayne Madsen
statement we played in which he said there are people within the NSA who
would testify if there were to be a new 9/11 investigation. As one
listener said, "This single-handedly proves the need for a new
investigation". To view the video clip of this statement, go to:

Wayne Madsen - NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Rally - Part One

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trI6bvTmJPs.:

To view the rest of Wayne's presentation:

Wayne Madsen - NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Rally - Part Two

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ULZvYLGVE0

Wayne Madsen - NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Rally - Part Three

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-G5QQHOBY

Proof of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center buidings on 9/11

Although seven years have passed since 9/11, millions of people
throughout the general public and even the “progressive” population still
far too little awareness of glaring flaws, errors, omissions, and
outright lies given by the official 9/11 investigation. These millions
actually believe 9/11 was investigated and the official story was proven
to be true! Therefore, it remains imperative to analyze the so-called
investigation in detail, and work to inform the public of the deception
that occurred, its implications, the role of the media, and the necessity
for calling for a real investigation which would honor the victims, their
families,.first responders, and ourselves. The only acceptable outcome is
truth and justice.

This week we’ll look at the following:

Why did it take 14 months before the Bush Administration authorized a
9/11 investigation? What were the parameters? If the American public
realized the narrow scope of the official 9/11 investigation, the
limitations imposed on it, and the role played by Executive Director
Philip Zelikow, how would they react? We will look at many facts
presented by David Ray Griffin (author of “New Pearl Harbor” and many
more 9/11 books and articles) and Philip Shenon (NY Times journalist,
author of “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11
Investigation) showing the true nature of the Kean/Hamilton/Zelikow
Commission which reveal that this was anything but an authentic
investigation.



We’ll also hear an analysis from Jersey widow, Mindy Kleinberg, which
shows how preposterous it is to believe that so many “coincidences” could
have occurred if the official account was true.




Wayne Madsen - NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Rally Part One



Part Two.



Part Three




Roland Carnaby Assasinated by Houston police





Police Cam Shooting CIA Agent Roland Carnaby Released by Law enforcement

Catholic Bishop Charles Williamson speaks out qgainst 911

finally, a Christian "leder's" voice willing to stand up for the truth about 911

The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé
David Ray Griffin. Interlink/Olive Branch, $20 (386p) ISBN 9781566567299

Author and professor Griffin (9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press) knows his work is referred to by officials and the media as conspiracy theory, and he has a rebuttal: “the official theory is itself a conspiracy theory.” In this companion volume to 2004's The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, Griffin provides corrections, raises new issues and discusses “the two most important official reports about 9/11,” the 9/11 Commission Report and the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the Twin Towers, both “prepared by people highly responsive to the wishes of the White House” and riddled with “omission and distortion from beginning to end.” Griffin addresses many points in exhaustive detail, from the physical impossibility of the official explanation of the towers’ collapse to the Commission's failure to scrutinize the administration to the NIST’s contradiction of its own scientists to the scads of eyewitness and scientific testimony in direct opposition to official claims. Citing hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, Griffin's detailed analysis is far from reactionary or delusional, building a case that, though not conclusive, raises enough valid and disturbing questions to make his call for a new investigation more convincing than ever.

Six videos of extreme importance to the 911 Truth effort

David Ray Griffin.University of Wisconsin..American Empire..ie, Fascism



Part Two David Ray Griffin..University of Wisconsin.American Empire

David Ray Griffin..University of Wisconsin..American Empire

William Barett Univ. of Wisconsin



Steven Jones, molton metal



Exposives, firemen,



inside the buildiing, get a close and intimate look during the chaos and destruction



bomb, no sceond plane, and other revelations

David Ray Griffin's latest book, "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited", is out, with Chapter 2 section highlighting my findings (Barbara Honegger) on the Pentagon bombs, (the FBI's code name for the entire 9/11 investigation is PENTTBOMB), a true breakthrough, as the definitive work by the world leader in 911 research, now makes clear that the real story of 9/11 is inside bombs at both the WTC and the Pentagon, with plane impacts the mere pre-scripted cover story necessitating the real inside-perpetrators' being in total control of the planes on the approach to their targets, proving the 'hijackers' could not have been in control of the aircraft -- if they were in the planes at all (Griffin: "There is no evidence any of the 'hijackers' ever got on any of the planes.")

Another very important new 9/11 expose book, "The 9/11 Mystery Plane" by Mark Gaffney, just came out, with a foreward by David Ray Griffin. It's a must read for anyone serious about 9/11 Truth, and covers much more than the white E-4B command and control 'doomsday plane' that circled over the White House just before and as the Pentagon was attacked (from the inside first) on 9/11. Clearly and simply written for 'the average person' and pulls no punches.

David Ray Griffin's historic Japan trip, during which he gave four public addresses to overflow audiences and met with top members of the country's Parliament.

The creation of two new 9/11 truth professional organizations, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, just officially formed, and one that will be called something like
Legislators/Politicians for 9/11 Truth that is being formed by invitation only to start, to ensure highly respected elected officials (current and former) from friendly countries are in the first roster. David met with the Japanese parliamentarian
who's already raised 9/11 Truth on the floor of their congress (Fujita (check spelling) and other members of the equivalent of their Senate about forming this new organization while there. Honegger's 'Pentagon Attack Papers' is being used in part as the reference for a coming legal action initiated by one of the founding members of Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, especially my interviews with then NORAD head Gen. Ralph Eberhardt, then Acting Asst. Sec. of Defense for Special Operations Robert Andrew, and then Pentagon Army employee April Gallop. This is very promising, and ongoing right now.

The New York City 9/11 Citizens Ballot Initiative obtained the 30,000 certified petition signatures of registered NYC voters needed to ensure an initiative calling for a new independent 9/11 investigation be placed on the ballot there. There wasn't
enough time by the Sept. 4 deadline for the initiative to go through the City Council process and make it on this Nov. ballot, but it is now guaranteed to be on the ballot in the next election held in NYC.
A federal judge ordered the Bush Admin. to release the 'original authorization' the White House claims Bush signed on Oct. 23, 2001 allegedly authorizing the 'first' illegal warrantless domestic wiretaps, which the administration has refused to turn over to Congress for the almost three years since its revelation in the press. Related,
next month, in Dec., a federal judge in S.F. will hold a pre-trial hearing on whether the retroactive immunity purportedly granted to telecoms by the FISA Amendments Act is constitutional (it's clearly not, per Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution which states
that Congress shall pass no ex post facto (retroactive) law). I'm working with Danny Sheehan to input to that case, as the court rulings in his successful Karen Silkwood case is directly relevant to the Plaintiff's (the S.F. Electronic Freedom Foundation's) arguments.

Honegger's article on the anthrax links to 9/11 is published in the Oct. issue of the independent D.C. paper The Rock Creek Free Press, which reaches over 50,000 readers in the nation's capital and is distributed at all 24 metro stops, including the Pentagon metro stop.

This links to the above item, as the 'bottom line' of Creek article is that the anthrax attacks, like 9/11, were an inside job, which the Administration has officially acknowledged, and the 'original authorization' Bush claims he signed authorizing
these illegal warrantless domestic/U.S. wiretaps was signed on Oct. 23, 2001, right in the middle of the anthrax scare, and thus almost certainly used their own inside job anthrax attacks to justify the massive illegal spy program.

We voted at the November meetiing. to inquire with the editor of The Rock Creek Free Press regularly obtaining a large number of copies of the paper for distribution here on the Monterey Peninsula. The group voted -- and donated to -- obtaining 500 copies of a great new four-page, full-color newspaper-format summary of the key evidence that the official 9/11 story is a lie, for distribution and fundraising at speaking events here on the Monterey Peninsula.

Highlight from the next day, Nov. 4: OBAMA WINS. This is critical, as one of his first initiatives is likely to be to undo20Bush's undoing of Clinton's signing of the first
step in the legal process of putting the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a key jurisdiction for future cases seeking legal accountability for the true inside 9/11 perpetrators.

Why the Pentagon was hit where it was hit

Ruining Rove’s ‘bin Laden’ October Surprise

Barbara Honegger

Barbara Honewgger is the author of "The October Surprise", the first book to expose the true origins of the Iran side of the Iran/Contra scandal; the President of 9/11 Truth Monterey; a senior military affairs journalist; and former White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President in the first Reagan Administration.

While Al Qaeda leaders appear to have posted on the Internet that they are considering a terrorist strike before the presidential election to favor John McCain (“On Al Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over Crisis, Support for McCain,” Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2008), far more likely is an attempt by the Republicans to try to pull a ‘bin Laden’ October Surprise before Nov. 4.

Indeed, with McCain crashing and burning in the polls and unable to contain his wild-eyed Mr. Hyde from bursting into full view on national television in the final presidential debate, all Bush, Rove and McCain have left is an ‘October Surprise’ – a high risk dirty trick before the election, usually in mid to late October, that can only ‘work’ if the Republicans’ fingerprints aren’t seen to be on it. But because McCain, despite his ‘I’m not President Bush’, is the candidate of the morally and financially bankrupt Republican party and voted with Bush 90 percent of the time, the only ‘October Surprise’ that could have even a hope of being effective would be one that appeared to rehabilitate Bush.

The most obvious such ‘rehabilitation’ would be one that appeared to vindicate Bush’s ‘war on terror’ by ‘finding’ ‘bin Laden’ before the election. Despite the fact that bin Laden has never been wanted for the Sept. 11 attacks by the FBI on its ‘Most Wanted Terrorists’ web page, and Director Mueller and the FBI’s chief investigative spokesman have publicly stated that the reason for this is that there is ‘no hard evidence’ linking him to the 9/11 plot (1), ‘finding’ bin Laden and charging him for 9/11 before Nov. 4 would, the Republicans are sure to believe, be to the benefit of McCain.

There’s only one problem. The real bin Laden is almost surely dead. Even before 9/11, he suffered from a serious disease that required frequent dialysis, which is impossible to obtain in a cave or in the wild mountains of the Afghan-Pakistan border. But being dead wouldn’t stop Bush, Rove and McCain from resurrecting bin Laden’s ghost for an ‘October Surprise,’ especially when they’re desperate.

So if they do, who will ‘bin Laden’ really be? Where are they going to ‘find’ a 6-foot, 4-inch Muslim who looks like bin Laden and whom they know they can control?

Funny thing, it turns out they already have him: Richard Reid, the infamous ‘Shoe Bomber,’ who’s in solitary confinement at the maximum security prison in Florence , Colorado . The New York Times, in separate articles, reported that both bin Laden and Reid happen to be 6’4” in height. And a forensic digital portrait photographer has noted the striking similarity between their images, as proven by the photos accompanying this article.

The first is the most famous public image of bin Laden,


and the second the most well known public imAge of Richard Reid.


The third is the No. 1 image of bin Laden with a 50% transparency overlay of the No. 2 photo of Reidand, to show it both ways,

the fourth is the No. 2 photo of Reid with a 50% transparency overlay of the No. 1 photo of bin Laden.


The photo journalist who did these overlays stated that when he first saw them, it sent chills up and down his spine: “Reid could easily be – and probably has been – used as a stand-in double for bin Laden,” he said.

By the way, Reid was ‘captured’ – came in out of the cold – on an airplane trying to light his shoes in a tight space next to other passengers (he might as well have had an ‘Arrest Me!’ banner plastered across his chest) the same week, in Dec. 2001, that ‘bin Laden’ ‘escaped’ from Tora Bora.

Bottom line: If Bush, Rove and McCain pull ‘bin Laden’ out of a rabbit hole between now and the election, demand to see ‘bin Laden’ in the same room at the same time as ‘Shoe Bomber’ Richard Reid.

1 http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html

There has been a coup d'etat in America

Naomi Wolf on America's emerging Fascism

Richard Gage rebuttal to NIST report on WTC7

Below is an article on Richard Gage's rebuttal to the just-released
NIST report on WTC7. Also go to his Architects and Engineers web page, www.ae911truth.org, if you haven't done so already, for more details --
especially re his press conference reacting to the report.

By the way, per the first paragraph in the below,if it was really a "new" phenomenon, then it was a weapon that caused the 'new'thermal expansion.'

There are no 'new phenomena.'

As Federal Agency Declares 'New Phenomenon' Downed WTC 7, Activists Cry Foul

Raw Story
Aug. 21, 2008

http://rawstory.com/news/20/BREAKING_NIST_%3CI%3Efinally%3CI%3E_poses_theory_on_0821.html


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, posted 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, 2 001, 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 anda 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."

Wh ile 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,20however, 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 & nbsp; 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 for20the 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.

'TAKING BACK AMERICA'

How to Prevent War with Iran, How to Get Out of Iraq, and How to Bring Accountability to Washington

Dr. Robert "Bob" Bowman to speak in Monterey
Saturday, September 6th at 7PM

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. * Flew 101 combat missions Headed 'Star Wars' program under Presidents Ford and Carter 2000 U.S. Presidential candidate * Ph.D. Cal Tech Four times keynote speaker, Veterans for Peace national convention

Monterey Senior Center
280 Dickman Avenue, Monterey (off Lighthouse)

Saturday, September 6, 2008, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m.
Doors open at 6:30 PM * $10 requested donation
No one turned away * Light refreshments

Sponsored By:

Veterans for Peace, Monterey Chapter
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Monterey Peace and Justice Center
Monterey 911 Truth


For more information, call (831) 233-1032
Visit www.ThePatriots.us for more info and city-by-city tour schedule.

THE PEANTAGON ATTACK PAPERS

THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS

by Barbara Honegger

Published in the 9/11 Expose Book
THE TERROR CONSPIRACY
by Jim Marrs

And On the Web at
Patriotsquestion911.com


Barbara Honegger, M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist with the Naval Postgraduate School (1995-present), DoD’s graduate science, technology and national security affairs university. This White Paper, as all of Honegger’s publications and presentations on September 11, are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement. Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White House Policy Analyst (1981-83); was the pioneering Irangate author and whistleblower on the October Surprise (October Surprise, Tudor, 1989; and in the Iran-Contra expose documentary film “Cover-Up”); and was called as a researcher-witness at both the October 23, 2004 and August 27, 2005 Los Angeles Citizens 9/11 Grand Jury hearings held at Patriotic Hall i Los Angeles, Calif. Much of the information and analysis contained in this evidence summary was presented at the L.A. Citizens Grand Jury hearings and at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence conference held at American Universit in Washington, D.C. in July 2005.


The San Francisco Chronicle commemorated the 100th anniversary of The Great Earthuake of 1906 with a series of front-page articles headed by a single icon—a charred clock frozen at 5:12 am, the exact moment “The Big One” hit.1 A century after that devastating event, the stopped clock serves as both the ultimate evidence and the symbol that “captures it all.”

Again, almost 100 years later, clocks frozen in time at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 both “capture it all” and are the ultimate evidence that shatters the “Official Lie” of what happened that terrible morning.

The Pentagon was first attacked at 9:32 am, much earlier than the 9/11 Commission and official cover story claim. (In this summary of evidence, the more precise time of 9:31:40 am is “rounded up” for ease of reference.)

The Pentagon and mainstream media first reported 9:43 as the time of alleged Flight 77 impact (some reports, presumably taken from official sources, were as late as 9:48 and 9:47). Over time, the time given by officials for the claimed outside impact on the building has been moved earlier and earlier, down to 9:37 (as of the time of this writing), but has never come close to the actual time of the first violent event at the Pentagon—9:32. Clearly, if the official story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 were true, Flight 77 could not have been the source of massive damage to the west side of the building a minimum of five minutes earlier at 9:32.

Converging Lines of Proof of a 9:32 Violent Event at the Pentagon on September 11, well befor the Official Story says anything hit the building:

Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks on the walls of the area of the Pentagon attacked on 9/11—including one in the heliport just outside the west face—were stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 by a violent event, almost certainly a bomb or bombs inside the building and/or in a truck or construction trailer parked right outside the west face. The first Associated Press report, in fact, stated that the Pentagon had been damaged by a “booby trapped truck.” The Navy posted the stopped heliport clock on an official website and another of the stopped clocks is in the 9/11 display at the Smithsonian Institution.2 These are just some of the west section Pentagon clocks that stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.

April Gallop, an Army employee with a Top Secret clearance, was at her desk in the Army administrative offices in the west section of the Pentagon on 9/11, the area of the building most heavily destroyed, when what she said sounded and felt “like a bomb” went off. “Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb. There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel.” Ms. Gallop has given two hours of under-oath videotaped testimony to the author 2A in which she states that the explosion went off at the precise instant she hit the ‘power on’ button on her computer in the Army administrative area, to which she had just returned that morning after months of pregnancy and childbirth leave, and that the explosion stopped her wrist watch, which also stopped at just after 9:30 a.m. 2B She has kept the stopped wrist watch in a safe deposit box as evidence of the exact moment of the initial explosion.

The FAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration] timeline document “Executive Summary—Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis––September 11, 2001” reads: “0932: ATC (Air Traffic Control) AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon.”3 The time is the critical fact here, not the claimed cause.

Denmark’s soon-to-be Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller was in a building in Washington, D.C. on 9/11 from which he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.4

On August 27, 2002, then White House Counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave the Secretary of the Navy lecture at the Naval Postgraduate School in which Gonzales explicitly and clearly states that “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”. A tape of this segment of his talk was played at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence at American University in Washington, D.C. in July 2005, and is on the public record.

The Pentagon was attacked by bomb(s) at or around 9:32 am, possibly followed by an impact from an airborne object significantly smaller than Flight 77, a Boeing 757.

We have already seen that Army employee April Gallop, whose watch was stopped by the violent event at the Pentagon shortly after 9:30, says that her military training and experience led her to immediately determine the source of the initial explosion was a bomb.

I have interviewed an Army auditor from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, who was on temporary duty assignment at the Pentagon before, on and after 9/11. He was in the Army financial management spaces only minutes before the Pentagon explosion on the morning of 9/11. He had just returned to his temporary office on the ground floor of the adjacent south side of the Pentagon by the cafeteria when he heard an explosion and felt the building shake. Immediately afterwards, he said, hundreds of panicked Pentagon personnel ran by him down the corridor just outside his office and out the South Entrance, yelling “Bombs!” and “A bomb went off!” The witness has requested that his name not be used in this summary, but is willing to testify to a grand jury or independent official investigation.

This Army financial management/audit area is part of, or contiguous to, the Army personnel offices, which was one of two main west section offices heavily destroyed in the Pentagon attack, the other being the Naval Command Center. The day before 9/11, September 10, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held a press conference at which he acknowledged that the Pentagon was “missing”—could not account for and needed to “find”—$2.3 Trillion dollars (other reports said $2.6 Trillion). Were the auditors who could “follow the money,” and the computers whose data could help them do it, intentionally targeted? It is worth noting that the Pentagon’s top financial officer at the time, Dov Zakheim, who also acknowledged the “missing” trillions, had a company that specializes in aircraft remote-control technology. As remnants found in the Pentagon wreckage have been identified as the front-hub assembly of the front compressor of a JT8D turbojet engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior jet fighter,5 and as Air Force A-3 Sky Warriors—normally piloted planes—were secretly retrofitted to be remote-controlled drones and fitted with missiles in a highly compartmented operation at an airport near Ft. Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport in Colorado in the months before 9/11,6 the question further arises as to whether Pentagon auditors and their computerized data were intentionally targeted on 9/11.

The Ft. Monmouth Army auditor and his two colleagues were also eyewitnesses to multiple teams of bomb-sniffing dogs and their K-9 handlers in camouflage uniform at the Pentagon metro station just outside the Pentagon at approximately 7:30 am on 9/11. He said that K-9 bomb squads had not been at the Pentagon metro stop before 9/11, or since, but only that day. Since K-9 dog squads don’t usually search for airliners, but bombs, a bomb attack was clearly anticipated. Ms. Gallop said she also saw the bomb sniffing K-9 teams that morning, from the top of the Pentagon metro stop looking down.

Survivor eyewitnesses from inside the west section of the Pentagon reported that the blast caused its windows first to expand outwards, and then inwards.7

Multiple witnesses said they smelled cordite after the initial explosion at the Pentagon, an explosive which has a distinct and very different smell from that of burning jet fuel.8 And as we have already noted, Ms. Gallop said there was no smell of jet fuel inside the most damaged section of the building shortly after the first violent event that stopped her watch there shortly after 9:30.

Even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told Sam Donaldson in an ABC News interview shortly after 9/11 that he first thought a bomb had gone off in the building. Donaldson: “What did you think it was?” Rumsfeld: “A bomb? I had no idea…”

It is important to note that bomb explosion(s) at 9:32 am on the ground floor of the west section of the Pentagon are not inconsistent with there having also been a later, or even near-simultaneous, impact by some airborne object -- a piloted plane, unmanned drone, or missile -- into the same or nearby section of the building, which may have been the cause of the collapse of the west wall section approximately 20 minutes after the initial violent event. Indeed, if a heat-seeking missile hit the building after the bomb(s) went off, the heat from the explosion(s) would become the target for the missile. Recall that the A-3 Sky Warrior planes were retrofitted shortly before 9/11, not only enabling them to be remotely controlled but also fitted with missiles. The round-shaped exit hole in the inner wall of the “C” Ring is evidence that a missile or a piloted or pilot-less remote-controlled plane significantly smaller than Flight 77 also struck the building subsequent to bombs going off and penetrated the inside of the third ring, as bomb detonations would not have resulted in such a near-symmetrical round-shaped opening.

I have interviewed the then Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations on 9/11, Robert Andrews—the top civilian official in charge of special operations under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld—a former Green Beret whose office was on the second floor of the south section of the Pentagon, adjacent to the west section. While drawing the path that he took that morning on a sketch of the Pentagon, he revealed the following:

Immediately after the second World Trade Center attack of 9:03 am, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld left his office on the Potomac side of the Pentagon and went (merely) across the hall on the same floor to his Executive Support Center (ESC), which is set up for teleconferencing. There, he joined the teleconference of top government officials run by Richard Clarke out of the White House Situation Room media room. Clarke, in his book Against All Enemies, confirms that Rumsfeld was among the first officials on this teleconference shortly after the second WTC tower was hit. Clarke’s account and Andrews’ confirmation of it are completely at odds with the official cover story and the 9/11 Commission, which claim that no one could locate Secretary Rumsfeld until approximately 10:30 am when he walked into the National Military Command Center (NMCC). The fact that Rumsfeld, the military’s top civilian official, was on Clarke’s teleconference with the top official of the FAA, Director Jane Garvey, also puts the complete lie to the official cover story that Air Force interceptors weren’t scrambled in time because the military and FAA “couldn’t talk each other” on 9/11. The top-most officials of the Pentagon and FAA were talking to one another constantly on Clarke’s teleconference from as early as 9:15. This taped Clarke teleconference is the “Butterfield tape” of 9/11. [During the 1970s Watergate scandal, secretly-made tapes of President Nixon’s Oval Office conversations revealed by Alexander Butterfield were the “smoking guns” which forced Nixon to resign or face certain impeachment and trial in the Senate.]

Immediately after the second WTC tower was struck at 9:03 am, Andrews and his aide left his office and ran as fast as they could down to the Secretary of Defense’s West section Counterterrorism Center (CTC), arriving at approximately 9:10. While he and his aide were in the CTC, a violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall off the ceiling and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read approximately 9:35 am but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32. He and his aide then immediately evacuated the CTC with the goal of joining Rumsfeld in his Executive Support Center (ESC) across the hall from Rumsfeld’s main office. He said that Rumsfeld was already on the White House teleconference when they arrived. En route to Rumsfeld’s ESC, Andrews said when he and his aide entered the corridor on the inside ring of the west section, “we had to walk over dead bodies” to get to the inner courtyard. (Note: This is two rings further in towards the center from the inner most hole made by whatever allegedly impacted the Pentagon that morning.)

Once in the inner courtyard, Andrews and his aide ran as fast as they could to Rumsfeld’s Executive Support Center, where he joined Rumsfeld as his special operations/counterterrorism adviser during Clarke’s White House teleconference. Andrews also said that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke with President Bush while in the Pentagon Executive Support Center. Whether this was via the teleconference or by phone or other means was not stated. The fact that Rumsfeld personally communicated with Bush on 9/11 while Rumsfeld was in his Pentagon ESC was published on an official DoD web site.9

I have written communications from a former U.S. military helicopter pilot and current executive director of one of the US’s premier aviation societies who personally knows and communicates regularly with the highest-ranking first responders at the WTC on 9/11, that the New York City Fire Department -- presumably its Fire Chief, who reported to then mayor Rudolph Giuliani -- ordered the doors to the roofs of the WTC towers locked, which blocked the only avenue of escape for victims above the plane impact floors, ensuring their horrific deaths; that at least one of the two New York Police Department helicopters seen hovering near the burning towers on television footage that morning, and probably both, was equipped with a winch and jump seat designed for the rescue of victims and in fact was the same helicopter and crew that had rescued victims from the burning WTC1 in 1993, and that these Police Department helicopters were ordered by the Fire Department not to try to rescue victims from the towers, even though there were heliports on the roofs and the winch and jump seat could have been dropped outside the windows on the sides of the towers where victims were waiting to be rescued; and that the Fire Department also explicitly refused the help of large numbers of military helicopters, whose pilots spontaneously converged on the New York area only to be ordered to wait at a nearby base. 9A

WTC janitor William “Willy” Rodriguez, the last non-emergency response person to leave the WTC alive on 9/11, has testified that he was in the first basement level of the WTC when an immense explosion went off below him in the yet-deeper subbasement level(s) of the building a few seconds before the plane hit the tower high above.10 As Robert Andrews revealed that the west side basement level of the Pentagon was damaged at approximately 9:32 am and as we know that the cause of the 9:32 Pentagon attack was not an impact event but explosives, there are thus eye- and ear witness reports of bombs going off in both the Pentagon and the WTC underground level(s) before both buildings were hit by anything from the outside.

As no “outside” terrorist, al Qaeda or otherwise, could have had access to either the Pentagon or the sustained advance access needed to pre-place explosives inside the WTC, only domestic insiders could have pre-placed the explosives in both the Pentagon and the WTC. Further, because the WTC1 deep-basement explosions(s) experienced by Willy Rodriguez happened before the tower was hit by a plane; as any incoming plane not controlled by the same party that triggered the sub-basement detonation(s) could have veered off from the building at the last second, ruining the plane-impact-as-cover-story for the later building collapse; and as the sub-basement explosions were necessary for the actual later collapse of the buildings by controlled demolition, the same domestic U.S. insiders had to have controlled both the sub-basement detonations and the incoming plane(s). Thus, even if al Qaeda hijackers were on the incoming planes, they were not in final control of the impact of the planes into the buildings, which had to have been 100 percent guaranteed by domestic U.S. insider controllers to ensure that, once the WTC1 sub-basement explosions went off, the plane did not veer off and miss the building and ruin the plane-impact-and-fires cover story for the building collapse. This fact is critical, as it may take jurisdiction for the mass murders at the WTC out of the hands from the Bush Administration’s FBI, which oversees crimes committed in the air, as a cogent legal argument can be made that the real crime of controlling the plane into the towers was committed on the ground, in a terrestrial bldg. or vehicle, where its true controllers almost certainly resided. If so, this would place the crime of the WTC mass murders squarely with the State of New York, as murder is a State crime and multiple/mass murders are the sum of individual State crimes. Because the controllers of the timing of the basement level explosives had to have also been the controllers of the final approach of the planes, and the former was arguably, and provably with legal discovery and subpoena power, on the ground and not in the air, a Manhatta grand jury can be given the case and pull jurisdiction for the Bush-Cheney Reichstag Fire out of their federal hands.

Because the real modus operandi at the Pentagon and WTC are so similar, it is logical to deduce that the same domestic-US terrorists were responsible for pre-placing and detonating the bombs—both inside the WTC and inside the Pentagon. That is, a single group of US-domestic conspirators—not al Qaeda or any other outside terrorists—must have planned both the WTC and Pentagon attacks and controlled both the approaching planes and the inside-the-building explosions in real time on 9/11.

In addition to the already legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon -- i.e. the small hole in the west side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for the plane’s fuselage, let alone wing width; no damage to the lawn where Flight 77 allegedly struck and skidded before hitting the building; wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77, a Boeing 757; Pentagon requests to TV media on the morning of 9/11 not to take up-close images, etc. -- there is also official evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the building:

In the Air Force’s own account of the events of 9/11, Air War Over America, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11, although too late, Gen. Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack there that morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building. This fighter jet—not Flight 77—is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller’s screen making a steep, high-speed 270- to 330-degree descent before disappearing from the radar. [When a plane flies low enough to go undetected, usually at or below 500 feet, it is said to be flying “under the radar.” Note: The
Pilotsfor911truth website and their “Pandora’s Black Box” video have determined from official data released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that the true altitude/height of the plane represented by the blip was 476 feet – way to high to have hit the Pentagon at all, let alone the ground floor, but, significantly, in just the height range to been seen by controllers to have just gone off radar and be said to have crashed. Military pilots—like the one sent by Gen. Arnold on 9/11 to report on the Pentagon’s damage—are trained to fly at approx. 500 feet above ground in order to evade radar detection. In fact, when the Air Traffic Controller responsible for the plane and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 330-degree maneuver (originally claimed to be a 270-degree maneuver, since updated) on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremely difficult feat was a US military aircraft, and said so at the time. It almost certainly was.

Thus, the likely reason the Pentagon has refused to lower the current official time for “Flight 77” impact, 9:37, to 9:32 am—the actual time of the first explosions there—is that they decided to pretend the blip represented by Arnold’s surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was “Flight 77.” As the official cover story claims that the alleged 9:37 impact was the only Pentagon attack that morning, yet by the time Arnold’s surveillance jet arrived on the scene the violent event had already happened, the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the earlier 9:32 time without revealing an attack on the building prior to the alleged impact.

It is significant that the The 9/11 Commission Report ignores the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to its own commission and did this only for the testimony of Secretary Mineta. The clear reason for this blatant and targeted censorship is that Mineta’s eyewitness testimony is extremely dangerous to the official cover story. The portion of Mineta’s testimony that is particularly dangerous is his claim that Vice President Cheney, in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) beneath the White House since before Mineta arrived in the PEOC at 9:20, insisted to an incredulous “young man” that “the orders (given earlier by Cheney to this same individual) still stand” when the man told Cheney that the presumed plane they had been tracking as a blip on a screen was 50, then 30, and finally just 10 miles from Washington—orders which could only have been not to shoot down the plane. Otherwise there would have been no reason for the agent to ask Cheney if they “still” stood, despite the plane’s being almost upon the capital where Cheney himself was. This is critical because of the timing that can be inferred from Mineta’s testimony: As Mineta arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 am, and as Mineta estimated the “still stand?” interaction between Cheney and the agent happened 5 to 6 minutes after that, or about 9:25, it can be inferred based on the officially given speed of the plane represented by the blip of 540 mph that whatever that fast-approaching blip represented, it arrived in the vicinity of the Pentagon at approximately 9:32—nowhere close to the original official cover story time of 9:43, or even the six-minute-earlier time the Pentagon finally settled on for an alleged impact time of 9:37.

All of this also happened at 9:32:

∑ After an inexplicable delay during which they knew that both WTC towers were under attack, the Secret Service suddenly acts as if the attacks are “real,” rushing President Bush out of the library at the Florida school where he had been reading to children.

∑ The firefighters are suddenly ordered out of WTC 1.

∑ The New York Stock Exchange is ordered closed.

∑ The takeover of Flight 93 begins with the stabbing of a flight attendant and one of the alleged hijackers announcing that there is a bomb on board, picked up by flight controllers.

Other relevant interviews:

I interviewed the famous “lone taxi driver” whose cab is the only car visible still parked on I-395 above the Pentagon lawn looking down at the west face after the other cars have left the freeway. This taxi can be seen in overhead photos taken on the morning of 9/11 and viewable on the Internet. The driver said his was the last car allowed onto that section of I-395 before police put up a barricade and that he decided not to immediately leave the scene like the others “because I realized this was history and I wanted to see for myself.” He stated that he saw no evidence of a plane having impacted the building nor any visible plane pieces on the lawn at the time he arrived, which was after the first violent event in the building, as black smoke was streaming up and to the right from inside-the-building fires. The taxi cab driver drew a diagram of what he saw that morning while overlooking the Pentagon’s west face from I-395.

I interviewed a Navy public affairs officer assigned to the Naval Command Center, one of the two major Pentagon west section areas destroyed on 9/11, the other being the Army Financial Management/Audit area as mentioned earlier. This officer was not in the building that morning but was quickly assigned as the deputy public affairs officer at the underground “back-up Pentagon” location in Pennsylvania close to the Maryland border, Site R. This eyewitness Navy officer inside Site R said Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and later Vice President Cheney were flown to the Site R underground bunker in response to Richard Clarke’s officially declaring “Continuity of Government/Continuity of Operations” (COG/COOP) on the morning of 9/11. This is confirmed in Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, in which he reports that Rumsfeld chose Wolfowitz to be the designated COG/COOP official at Site R in his stead. Perhaps significantly, Site R and Camp David are not far from the crash site of Flight 93. Details about Site R, on and after 9/11, are also in James Bamford’s book, A Pretext for War.

On February 4, 2004, I interviewed Air Force General Ralph Eberhart, Commander of NORAD on 9/11. To my knowledge, Gen. Eberhart has granted no other interview since the events of September 11. Before asking questions, I gave Gen. Eberhart copies of all the mainstream press articles published as of that date on the subject of the confusion of his NORAD Northeast Sector (NEADS) personnel who were running NORAD’s “Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior” emergency response war game exercises that morning. As of the date of the interview, therefore, the then head of NORAD was made aware of the initial confusion by his own NEADS “game” players on 9/11 between incoming exercise reports and incoming reports of the actual hijacks.

I first asked Gen. Eberhart if there was any connection between NORAD’s “Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior” exercise being run on 9/11 and the plane-crashing-into-tower emergency response exercise simultaneously being held at National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) headquarters outside Washington, D.C.12/first cite He replied, “No.” I was surprised at this, as a large portion of NRO personnel are from his own agency, the Air Force. I asked for reconfirmation, to which he again said, “No.” Laying the ground for the next question, I mentioned that NEADS’ “game” director Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins had said that she was confused as to whether initial reports of the hijacked planes on the morning of 9/11 were “real world” or “part of the game.” This, I said, showed that the NORAD exercises that morning had to have been on a hijack scenario at least similar to the actual attacks, as otherwise there would have been no grounds for confusion. After considering this for a moment, Gen. Eberhart refused to answer any further questions and abruptly ended the interview.

In addition to the already well known and officially acknowledged evidence of Bush Administration foreknowledge of the broad outlines of the September 11 attacks—advance warnings from the intelligence agencies of as many as 11 foreign countries and the content of the now-famous August 6, 2001 presidential daily brief (whose 10-page attachment still has not been made public), etc.—there is strong evidence that Bush administration insiders had near perfect—if not complete—advance knowledge of both the details and the date of the September 11 attack:

(Note: That Bush Administration insiders had advance knowledge of the date and details of an “outside” attack is not inconsistent with these insiders having facilitated and even orchestrated the attacks. That is, the plot behind the attacks of September 11 is similar to that of the Reichstag fire, through which Hitler rapidly consolidated power. Like the Nazi-facilitated Reichstag fire, there was a real though highly-unlikely-to-succeed “outside” plot about which Administration insiders gained advance intelligence. They then secretly protected and enabled this plot to ensure that it not only succeeded, but succeeded spectacularly as the psychological operation needed to justify the entire subsequent Bush-Cheney global and domestic agenda.)

1) Shortly after September 11, Newsweek reported that before 9/11, the Bush Administration initiated a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court surveillance/tap of “up to 20” suspected al Qaeda-linked terrorists then in the US, but that then FISA Court Chief Justice Royce Lamberth subsequently ordered the then-already-ongoing surveillance stopped. This can only mean one thing—that the Bush Justice Dept./FBI/NSA initiated the tap before asking the FISA Court for a warrant for it, as with the now-famous post-9/11 NSA taps initiated by the Bush administration without first applying for FISA warrants.

As “up to 20” is a clever way of saying “19” without making the link to 9/11 explicit, the Bush Administration Justice Dept/FBI/NSA almost certainly initiated surveillance of all 19, or close to all 19, of the soon-to-be alleged 9/11 hijackers before 9/11. Though Judge Lamberth ordered the surveillance ended once the administration filed the formal warrant application, there is evidence that the Bush administration ignored his order to cease the tap and continued the surveillance of the alleged 9/11 hijackers up to and including the day of 9/11.

Zacarias Moussaoui—the only person indicted by the Bush Administration for anything even related to 9/11—has stated in court filings that both he “and my (al Qaeda) brothers” then in the US were surveilled by the Bush administration before 9/11 and that the Bush administration knows he can prove it. How could this be the case? If Moussaoui was one of the “up to 20” al Qaeda-linked terrorist suspects they surveilled before 9/11 without an advance FISA warrant as reported by Newsweek, then Moussaoui was also one of the “up to 20” whose taps Judge Lamberth ordered stopped. Moussaoui, after all, was originally named as the “20th hijacker” of the 9/11 plot. Amazingly, the FISA Act requires that, if the FISA Court rejects a surveillance initiated before a warrant has been applied for, as in this case, the court has to inform the “target” of the surveillance and give him the government’s stated reason for the tap in the surveillance application. Moussaoui says that he can “prove” the Bush administration/FBI initiated surveillance on him before 9/11 because, it can be deduced, the FISA Court itself told him so after Lamberth ordered his––and those of the other “up to 20”––surveillance ended.

If this is the case, it opens the very real possibility that the FISA Court likewise informed most or all 19 of the “up to 20”alleged 9/11 hijackers before 9/11 that they were being surveilled by the Bush Administration—and the reason for such surveillance. This also throws new light on the claims by the Pentagon’s then-secret data mining task force, “Able Danger,” to have tracked lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and at least four of the other 19 hijackers beginning in January, 2000, when Atta actually did enter the country according to Daniel Hopsicker in his book, Welcome to Terrorland. The FBI falsely claimed, and still falsely claims, that Atta did not enter the US until the summer of 2000, six months later. The likely reason for this intentional lie about when Atta first entered the country is what Atta is known to have done while inside the US between January and the Summer of 2000. Hopsicker reveals that, among other activities, Atta visited Portland, Maine, in March, 2000, and perhaps even earlier. An abiding “mystery” of the official cover story is why Atta drove to Portland, Maine on September 10, the day before 9/11, and then flew from Portland to Boston early on the morning of September 11. The answer to this “mystery,” which the FBI clearly already knows, is the link between what Atta was doing in Portland before the administration admits he was even in the country, as well as what he was doing there the day before 9/11 and early on the morning of 9/11. This may all have something to do with the fact that the CIA reportedly runs secret flights out of an airport in Portland, Maine, and that “rendition” detainees have said they were flown out of the country on special jets after first stopping at Portland’s International Jet Port.12

2) The FBI’s top bin Laden/al Qaeda hunter until shortly before 9/11, John O’Neill, “happened” to be at the same hotel in the same town near Tarragona, Spain in mid-July 2001 just before lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and 9/11 plot “coordinator” Ramzi Binalshibh. Some Bush administration officials now also believe that 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) met there for what the 9/11 Commission calls “the Final 9/11 Planning Meeting.” This cannot be—and is not—a coincidence. O’Neill, who was in close contact with German intelligence—recall that Atta led the “German cell” for the 9/11 attacks—and Spanish intelligence, had clearly been alerted to the upcoming meeting and was at the hotel to surveil/tap/bug the room where the meeting was about to be held. O’Neill and his agency, the Bush administration’s FBI, thus knew every detail, or nearly every detail, of the planned 9/11 plot at least two months in advance.

Perhaps just as significantly, European media reported that bin Laden was in an American hospital in Dubai incapacitated for surgery during precisely this same mid-July, 2001, period of the Spanish “final 9/11 Planning Meeting.” Reportedly, bin Laden was visited in the hospital by the area’s then CIA station chief. The question naturally arises as to whether bin Laden was telephoned by Atta, Binalshibh, and perhaps also KSM, or visa versa, while the latter were at the “Final 9/11 Planning Meeting” in the hotel that O’Neill had pre-bugged. If so, then O’Neill, the FBI, and the highest levels of the BushAdministration
—including O’Neill’s then boss, Attorney General Ashcroft, who suddenly stopped flying commercial aircraft about this time—knew not only every detail of the 9/11 plot as of that date, but almost certainly recorded all the key “outside” conspirators plotting their “final plans” including possibly bin Laden himself, on tape—clearly another “Butterfield” tape to be demanded by subpoena.

As noted above, on 9/11 itself the US military was conducting NORAD/Air Force emergency response exercises on scenarios involving multiple hijacks, and the NRO was conducting an emergency response exercise on the scenario of a plane crashing into one of the towers at its headquarters just outside Washington, D.C.11—many NRO personnel being from the Air Force and CIA. It is next to impossible for this to have been the case unless the exercises, also referred to as war games, were intentionally scripted to mirror what had been learned from the above-mentioned detailed advance intelligence. That is, the purpose of the war games held on 9/11 was to practice how to defend against the very attacks that John O’Neill’s Tarragona meeting surveillance, the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” data-mining tracking, and the FBI’s FISA-warrant-less surveillance of the “up to 20” (“19”?) suspected al Qaeda terrorists had already revealed. You don’t practice something in a multi-million-dollar set of exercises that you “can’t imagine.” The date for the actual attacks—September 11—was then chosen to coincide with the Pentagon’s exercises, which in turn mirrored the real attack plans (see below).

Perhaps the most burning data point to prove Bush administration complicity in 9/11 is the fact that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta took to the mid-July “final 9/11 planning meeting” in Spain the information that “the date has been set” (i.e. set by someone else other than Atta), and that he, Atta, didn’t yet know it, but would “know it” in five to six weeks, or by late August, 2001.13 Atta was clearly waiting to learn the date of “his own” attack. This last piece of the puzzle fell into place during the first phase of Zacarias Moussaoui’s sentencing trial, in the 58-page transcript of 9/11”mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogation “testimony” read into the trial record by the Bush administration prosecution. In this KSM transcript, it is revealed that bin Laden and KSM “allowed Atta to choose” both the final targets for the attacks and the attack date.”14 From this, therefore, we know that neither bin Laden nor “mastermind” KSM nor “coordinator” Binalshibh set the September 11 attack date. However, from what Atta said to Binalshibh—and probably also KSM and even possibly bin Laden by phone link—at the “Final Planning Meeting” in Spain, we also know that neither did Atta. Atta was waiting to learn the date of his “own” attack five to six weeks after the mid-July “final 9/11 planning meeting,” and that date did not come from any of his al Qaeda superiors. It must be the case then, despite KSM’s claim that he “let” Atta choose the date, that none of the top “outside” terrorist conspirators set the date for the September 11 attacks, including Atta.

The key and central fact of the entire 9/11 plot is that the attack date Atta was “waiting for” was the date of the Bush administration’s planned war games, which, in a vicious circle, were scripted to mirror the content of Atta’s attack plan gleaned via advance intelligence obtained from O’Neill’s surveillance of the “final planning meeting” near Tarragona, the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” tracking of Atta, and the FBI’s warrantless surveillance of Atta and other of the about-to-be alleged hijackers. Atta was thus the sole individual to whom the date the Bush administration finally chose for its war games – 9/11 -- was leaked as soon as it was selected and he bought his one-way ticket as soon as he learned it, in late August, 2001, just as he had predicted at the “final planning meeting.” The No. 1 Bush administration conspirator, therefore, is whoever gave the administration’s own war game scenario details and date – 9/11 -- to Mohamed Atta.

Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, then head of Pakistan’s military intelligence agency ISI, is a prime suspect for the middleman who laundered this No. 1 Bush administration conspirator’s insider war game information to Atta. On the morning of 9/11 he was having breakfast with future CIA Director Porter J. Goss and Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired the joint House/Senate “investigation” of the 9/11 attacks, and had met with CIA Director George Tenet and with top officials at the Pentagon, about to conduct the war games, in the few days leading up to 9/11. He is most likely the person who was told the date and details of the Pentagon’s emergency response exercises and communicated them, directly or via an intermediary, to Atta, as Ahmed also approved wiring $100,000 to Atta shortly before 9/11. Atta then confirmed 9/11 as the date for the war games—which was the date of the attacks—in his now-famous NSA-intercepted call with KSM of September 10, in which he related “The Match is about to begin. Zero hour is tomorrow.” “Match” is a way of saying “exercise” or “war game.” This critical September 10 intercept, by the way, was almost certainly made without an advance FISA warrant, putting the lie to now CIA Director and then NSA Director Gen. Michael Hayden’s patently false claim that the “first” warrantless taps were initiated in defensive response to 9/11, and thus came after the attacks.

Another abiding “mystery” of September 11 is why Gen. Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on 9/11, claimed to the 9/11 Commission that on the morning of 9/11 NORAD was conducting, among others, a preplanned “Soviet-era” emergency response exercise15 in which US fighter jets were to defend against Russian nuclear bombers. After all, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist ten years before. He didn’t say “Russian,” he said “Soviet.” This is very strange until one discovers that, despite repeated official and media claims that September 11 was “completely unique” and that the skies over America had “never before” been cleared of all commercial and private civilian aircraft, NORAD had conducted another emergency response exercise 40 years earlier, which completely cleared the skies over the mainland US. This was on October 14, 1961, in a war game called “Sky Shield II,” which was based on a scenario of how to defend against an air attack by Soviet bombers on New York City.16 The main difference between the 1961 exercise and September 11 is that the clearing of the skies was announced in advance to the public in “Sky Shield.” This original Soviet-era exercise, which included 1,800 US and 15 Canadian military planes and was billed as “the greatest exercise ever conducted by Western air-defense forces,” is mentioned in the Air Force’s own account of the events of September 11, Air War Over America. In fact, Gen. Larry Arnold, NORAD’s commander for the continental US on 9/11 directly under Eberhart who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled to belatedly meet the hijack threat, made a point of including the eerily similar1961 Air Force war game in the book. Not only did both the 1961 and September 11 NORAD “Soviet-era” war game scenarios include attacks on New York City; in the 1961 exercise, US military planes played the role of Soviet attack bombers. That is, the US military pre-scripted both the defense and the “attack” by its own planes pretending to be Soviet aircraft. If Gen. Eberhart’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission is correct, NORAD may have been conducting a “Soviet-era” exercise much like the one in 1961, on 9/11.

In this light, it is significant that mainstream press stories contain intriguing reports that point to the possibility that there were two American Airlines “Flight 11s,” leaving from two different gates at Boston Logan airport within a few minutes of one another on 9/11, as well as emerging evidence of other of the hijacked 9/11 flight numbers possibly being “twinned,”17 or duplicated. The question thus naturally arises, were these “twin” planes US military planes “playing” hijacked airliner “attackers,” similar to the 1961 scenario except substituting commandeered airliners for Soviet bombers? And could the 9/11 exercise have included a “trigger” event to clear the skies over the mainland US so that a realistic test of US air defenses could be conducted without interference from the thousands of civilian aircraft normally in the air?

Key quotes from New York Times articles during the 1961 NORAD exercise are eerily similar to stories appearing on 9/11 [text in parentheses and italics added]: “It is not so much the fear of collisions with military aircraft that has caused civilian planes to be ordered out of the skies, as it is the knowledge that inadequate [civilian FAA] electronic flight controls will be available during the exercise to guide them. Strategic Air Command (SAC) bombers, playing the role of the marauding forces, will seek to foul communications and radar. They will drop tinsel-like pieces of metal called “chaff” overhead [like the myriad small pieces of metal scrap found on the Pentagon lawn and Shanksville, Pennsylvania “crash” site on 9/11?]…that will throw radarscopes [including the FAA’s] into a confusion of false signals.”; “All the bomber missions were laid out ahead of time and fed into the NORAD computer”; “An automated shorthand running display of the entire battle was provided at NORAD combat center and in similar centers at Strategic Air Command headquarters [where President Bush was taken on 9/11] and in the Pentagon [which was attacked on 9/11]”; “A fight plan for every aircraft [private, commercial and military] is fed into the computer’s memory beforehand. When a plane shows on the radarscope, a console operator picks up an aluminum electronic gun, points it at the blip, and squeezes the trigger. That brings the flight to the computer’s attention. If the flight [plan] is filed in its memory, the computer automatically replies, ‘Yes, I am aware of that [plane].’ It does this by marking the flight with an F for Friendly. While the computer compares the flight with its memorized data, it marks the flight P for Pending. Finally, it may mark it H for Hostile. ‘We have two minutes to identify a flight [as Friendly] before we scramble [interceptor jets]…to make a visual identification of an uncertain aircraft or to attack it.’; ‘We do not train [in exercises like the 1961 ‘Sky Shield II, or on 9/11] with Hostile symbology [showing on screens]; therefore, the Strategic Air Command’s bombers playing the role of the attacking [Soviet Russian] force [on October 14, 1961] were marked K, for Faker.’”; and “There are seventeen units of Army Air Defense Artillery with ground-to-air anti-aircraft missiles near New York [in 1961; how many more were there on 9/11, 40 years later, when none were used?]” The 1961 war game was directed by then NORAD commander Air Force Gen. Laurence Sherman Kuter from his combat operations center at NORAD’s Colorado Springs headquarters, which in the mid-1960s moved to Cheyenne Mountain, Gen. Eberhart’s command center on 9/11. It may also be significant that the Air Force’s war games simulation center is at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, which Gen. Kuter had earlier commanded and where lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta received training.

The Pentagon’s “Able Danger” data miners claim that “Department of Defense lawyers”—almost certainly from the National Security Agency, then headed by Gen. Hayden, an officer in the Air Force, the same service that planned the 9/11 war games—blocked planned meetings with the FBI at which they wanted to tell the FBI that they had “tracked” Atta and other of the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11 and ask the FBI to initiate additional surveillance on them. The fact that the FBI did initiate exactly such a surveillance of the “up to 20 Al Qaeda linked terrorist suspects” before 9/11 is strong evidence that, despite its current claims to the contrary, the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” team did communicate what they learned from tracking Atta and the others to the FBI before 9/11, and that the FBI then initiated FISA-warrant-less surveillances of Atta and others subsequently ordered stopped by then Chief FISA Court Judge Lamberth—all prior to 9/11. The fact that initially-suspected “20th 9/11 hijacker” Moussaoui officially filed claims that he “and my brothers” were surveilled before 9/11 is further evidence that the FBI continued to watch all or most of the 9/11 hijackers right up until the attacks, despite Lamberth’s order to cease and desist. FBI Headquarters supervisors David Frasca and his deputy Maltbie refused 70–– seventy––urgent requests by Moussaoui’s FBI interrogator for either a FISA Court warrant or an “ordinary” criminal warrant to get into Moussaoui’s computer and surveil anyone mentioned therein. Doing so would have clearly stopped the plot, as Moussaoui now claims to have personally known 17—almost all—of the alleged 19 hijackers.18

In addition to all the evidence that plane-impacts-plus-fire was the carefully planned cover story for the cause of collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7, as well as the west façade of the Pentagon, both of which were initially hit by inside-the-buildings bombs, not planes, the other overwhelming line of evidence for 9/11 being an “Inside Job” is the anthrax attacks.

Any evidence linking 9/11 to the anthrax letters -- dated September 11 but sent in mid- October and only to Democratic leaders in Congress, no Republicans -- is direct evidence of an inside job because that particular type of anthrax is known to have been of the highly controlled “Ames strain” developed by the US Army at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, and at the University of Iowa in Ames, Iowa. It was also high-spore-count, military-grade weaponized anthrax refined according to a trade secret reportedly held by William Patrick, former Ft. Detrick bioweapons expert, mentor of Steven Hatfill, the only “person of interest” stalked by the FBI as a suspect in the still “unsolved” anthrax case, and the close friend and colleague of Bush Administration bio-counterterrorism expert Jerry Hauer, a signer of the PNAC manifesto calling for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

On September 11, this same Jerry Hauer personally delivered anti-anthrax Cipro to Vice President Cheney’s staff at the White House. Why? The conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a suit against Vice President Cheney and other Bush Administration officials demanding to know why Cipro was delivered to the executive mansion––and only to the executive mansion—on the day of the attacks. So far the response has been deafening silence. On September 10, the day before 9/11, FEMA and other emergency response personnel arrived in New York City for a counter-bioterrorism exercise called “Tripod II” claimed by the Bush administration to have been scheduled to begin September 12. There is reason to believe that the bio-agent this drill was to practice defending against was anthrax, as Jerry Hauer was also a major planner of the New York City exercise. And there is also a strong possibility the true start date for the exercise was September 11, as many “exercise” personnel were already in place in New York City on September 10. As the Air Force’s war game scenario had just “come to life” in real attacks on 9/11, were Hauer and Cheney worried that the same thing might be about to happen with their counter-bioterrorism “exercise” Tripod II? Is this why the anti-anthrax drug Cipro was distributed to the White House, “just in case”? If so, it would be strong evidence that Tripod II was on the scenario of defending New York City against an anthrax attack. Was the “vector,” or delivery vehicle, for that emergency response exercise scenario anthrax attack to have been by air via hijacked plane(s)?

Notably, in their book on bioterrorism, Germs, Judith Miller and William Broad claim, apparently from inside sources, that Ramzi Yousef’s plans for the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 included explosively pushing large quantities of cyanide out into New York City. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the “mastermind” of 9/11, is Ramzi Yousef’s uncle. Finally, former New York City mayor Rudolf Giuliani testified to the 9/11 Commission that when WTC7, the location of his emergency operations center, collapsed on 9/11, he moved those operations to the command and control center set up on Pier 92 for the “Tripod II” bio-terrorism exercise and that it worked even better than the original. Giuliani told the 9/11 Commission, “The reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill. It had hundreds of people there—from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State [Dept.], from the [New York] State Emergency Management Office—and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was going be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the (9/11 and subsequent) search and rescue effort was completed.”

Conclusion

Covert elements of the US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the access to plant explosives inside its own most heavily defended world headquarters, the Pentagon. The US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the access to plant the explosives Willy Rodriguez heard and felt go off deep in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center. The US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC2, and in WTC7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11. The US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had access to the sulfur-enhanced military-grade thermite (thermate) detected in the WTC needed to melt the steel found molten deep in its basements weeks later. The US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, would have chosen the least populated and most reinforced section of the Pentagon––its newly upgraded west wedge—to strike, minimizing casualties. Real terrorists would have maximized them. Real terrorists also would have also maximized casualties at the World Trade Center by placing explosives so as to allow the building to fall haphazardly on other buildings and streets around it, not bring it down neatly by controlled demolition into their own footprints, which minimizes casualties. A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, steep, high-speed 270- to 330-degree dive towards the Pentagon that Dulles Air Traffic Controllers were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens that morning. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the “Friendly” signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building. Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system on 9/11. Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had access to the weaponized, military-grade US Army “Ames strain’ anthrax contained in letters mailed only to Democratic Congressional leaders. It is absurd to believe that al Qaeda would target only Democrats, especially as the US leadership at the time of the attacks was Republican. When he received the anthrax letter dated September 11, then Senate Democratic leader Thomas Daschle was calling for a Congressional investigation of 9/11 and had already been warned off from “looking too closely at” 9/11 by personal calls from both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. When he received his anthrax letter, another Democratic leader, Senator Patrick Leahy, was leading the Congressional resistance to the PATRIOT Act, a premeditated assault on Americans’ privacy and civil liberties justified by “al Qaeda’s” attack clearly drafted by the Bush Administration well before 9/11 and “in the can” awaiting its “New Pearl Harbor” trigger event.

And who in the U.S. military and intelligence chains of command and U.S. civilian leadership are among the prime suspects for these acts of High Treason? First and foremost are the signers of the pre-9/11 Project for a New American Century (PNAC) manifesto calling for “a new Pearl Harbor” to catalyze its global domination agenda, including Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Perle, then head of Secretary Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board; Jerry Hauer, one of the federal government’s top bio-terrorism experts who reportedly took anti-anthrax Cipro to the White House on 9/11; Gary Bauer, the right-wing ‘family values’ zealot who ‘happened’ to be one of the ‘witnesses’ to immediately claim publicly to have seen ‘Flight 77 hit the Pentagon’, proven by the evidence to be a physical impossibility; and then National Security Council Middle East adviser Zalmay Khalizad, soon to be the first US Ambassador to Afghanistan after 9/11 and then US Ambassador to Iraq – the very two countries whose invasions were rationalized as retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. During the Cold War, Khalizad was reportedly a liaison to then CIA “bag man” Osama bin Laden in the CIA-Pakistani ISI covert war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the crucible from which al Qaeda emerged.
‘Al Qaeda’, in fact, was originally the CIA-ISI list of anti-Soviet foreign fighters in Afghanistan.

Another key suspect is Air Force General William Hayden, now Director of the CIA and then head of the National Security Agency (NSA), which tapped the calls of lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the day before 9/11, and surely on many other occasions before 9/11 as well—all almost certainly without FISA warrants as required by law. These pre-9/11 warrant-less NSA taps put the lie to President Bush’s claim that he initiated the program of warrant-less NSA taps of al Qaeda suspects because of—and thus only after—9/11. Yet another key suspect is Army Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin, the radical Christian fundamentalist Special Operations commando recently proposed to head the Army’s Special Operations Command. Yet another i the Pentagon’s POP2 office, reportedly to plan and script “false flag” operations—attacks orchestrated by the US military but made to appear perpetrated by an outside enemy to justify US military “retaliation.” Yet another suspect is Defense Intelligence Agency Iran expert Lawrence “Larry” Franklin, who was “loaned” to Perle and Wolfowitz’s neocon associate Douglas Feith and arrested for passing national security secrets to Israeli operatives at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Franklin also was and is an officer in the Air Force reserves, which directed NORAD’s “Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior” war game exercises on 9/11.

Scrutiny should also be leveled at the scriptwriters for the NORAD and NRO emergency response exercises planned for and held on 9/11, especially members of their lead “White Teams,” which set the content and then oversee both “Red Team attackers” and “Blue Team defenders” on the actual day of an exercise, in this case on 9/11 itself. And every one of the as-yet-to-be-identified “top Pentagon officials” who on Sept. 10, the day before 9/11, according to Newsweek, suddenly cancelled their already-booked flights for September 11.19 Also National Military Command Center (NMCC) commander Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield, who on that same day, September 10, asked his deputy, Navy Capt. Charles Leidig to take over for him the next morning between 8:30 and 10:30 – precisely the time window of the “game” whose details and date had been given to Atta. Further investigation should be directed at the (government) “agency” the 9/11 Commission revealed, without identifying it by name (probably the CIA), took out the vast majority of the put options on American Airlines, United Airlines, Boeing and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in the few days before 9/11. Also, Michael Chertoff, US Attorney for the District of New Jersey during the first 1993 attack on the World Trade Center who, as a private attorney, represented Egyptian-born US resident Magdy Elamir, under investigation for illegally diverting millions of dollars and whose brother, Mohammed Elamir, funded arms smugglers linked to al Qaeda.20 Significantly, Mohamed Atta’s name in his country of birth, Egypt, was also Mohamed Elamir. In other words, the very man President Bush put in charge of the entire 9/11 “investigation” and who is now Director of Homeland Security -- the top official charged with defending the U.S. mainland from an attack by al Qaeda -- may have himself been directly involved with Al Qaeda and even with Mohamed Atta. And FBI headquarters supervisor David Frasca and his deputy Michael Maltbie, who ignored 70 pleas by Zacarias Moussaoui’s FBI interrogator to let him investigate the contents of Moussaoui’s computer before 9/11. Attention should especially be directed to Phillip Zelikow, NSC adviser along with Zalmay Khalizad to then NSC Adviser Condoleezza Rice before and on 9/11. Zelikow both orchestrated The 9/11 Commission Report cover up of the administration’s inside job and, at Rice’s personal request, rewrote the Bush administration’s official national strategic plan draft to better match the global domination agenda of the pre-9/11 PNAC manifesto. Zelikow specializes in political mythologies, clearly the most important qualification for his selection as executive director of the Official Myth of Sept. 11 – The 9/11 Commission Report. Only someone
in the inner circle of the actual criminal conspiracy would be trusted with this mission.
These are just some of the names being knitted into the scroll of the September 11 Truth Revolution.



Notes:

1) The clock stopped at the moment the Great Earthquake hit San Francisco on April 18, 1906 is at http://sfgate.com/greatquake/ .

2) The clock at the Pentagon heliport just outside the west section, frozen at 9:31:40 am by the violent event at the Pentagon, was posted on an official Navy web site at: http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2480Pentagonclock_BBC. Yet another stopped Pentagon clock is in the September 11 exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution. It was originally posted at http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=19 .

2A) Videotaped under-oath testimony of April Gallop to the author, Irvine, California, March 2007, approx. two hours.

2B) April Gallop’s watch, which was stopped just after 9:30 by the explosion that happened at the precise moment she hit the ‘power on’ button on her computer on the morning of 9/11, is evidence that the actual time of the initial explosive violent at the Pentagon was closer to 9:30 than 9:32. As the information about Gallop’s watch was obtained after the first version of this article was published, despite this, the author has retained the shorthand reference to the average time of stoppage of the Pentagon wall clocks and April Gallop’s watch as 9:32 for simplicity of discussion.

3) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) timeline document “Executive Summary Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis, September 11, 2001.”

4) Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller interview with Denmark Radio P3, September 12, 2001, 6:15 am Denmark time. “…I saw smoke and fire rising from the Pentagon at 9:32…My first impression was that a bomb had been detonated at the Pentagon.” The audio of this radio interview is in the 9/11 video documentary “Bomberne som Forsvandt” by Danish researcher Henrik Melvang, available at www.unmask.dk and at www.bombsinsidewtc.dk. See also 9/11 timeline by European researcher Jose Garcia in Reality, Truth and Evil Facts, Questions and Perspectives on September 11, 2001, Temple Lodge Publications, 2005.

5) The 9/11 Conspiracy, Catfeet Press/Open Court, James Fetzer, editor, 2006, chapter by Prof. James Fetzer; and photos of a JT8D turbojet engine and the remnant found at the Pentagon at http://www.simmeringfrogs.com/articles/jt8d.html.

6) Report by two civilian defense contractor employees at “Secret Global Hawk Refit for Sky Warrior,” http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml.

7) 9/11 -- Coup Against America: The Pentagon Analysis, compilation of Pentagon eyewitness reports, photos and analyses with hundreds of references, by Pete Tiradera, 2006, available from petertiradera@yahoo.com.

8) Pentagon eyewitness Don Perkal to MSNBC: “Even before stepping outside, I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had gone off somewhere.” Also eyewitness account of AmTrak electrical engineer Samuel Danner who was at the site and said he smelled cordite (American Free Press, July 7, 2006, reporting based on audio report by Republic Broadcasting Network, summary at http://www.total911.info/2006/07/pentagon-eyewitness-ids-global-hawk.html).

9) Author interview with former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, Monterey, California; summary posted on Naval Postgraduate School web site www.nps.navy.mil, subsequently changed to www.nps.edu. Article no longer posted; hard copy available from the author.

9A) Personal communication to the author by Rhett Flater, Executive Director of the American Helicopter Society.

10) Videotaped testimony of William (“Willy”) Rodriguez, former World Trade Center janitor and the last person to leave the WTC alive on September 11, in the 9/11 documentary “Loose Change,” second edition”, text in parentheses added: “All of a sudden we hear ‘Boom!’ in the basement. I thought it was a generator that blew up, and I said to myself, ‘Oh, my God, I think it was a generator. And I was going to verbalize it, and when I finished saying that in my mind I heard (another, second) ‘Boom!’ right on the top (above), pretty far away. And so it was a difference (in space and time) between coming from the basement and coming from the top…and a person comes running into the office (in the first basement level, from a deeper basement level) saying ‘Explosion!’…and he said ‘(it was from) The elevators!’ And there were many (deep basement WTC1) explosions.”

11) “Agency (NRO) Planned Exercise on September 11 Built Around a Plane Crashing into a Building,” Associated Press, August 22, 2002; by Jonathan Lumpkin; “They Scrambled Jets, but It was a Race They Couldn’t Win,” Syracuse Post-Standard, January 20, 2002, by Hart Seely; “Rome Staff’s Efforts on 9/11 Earn Praise, Commission Says Military Did the Best It Could with the Information It Had,” Syracuse Post-Standard, June 18, 2004, by Hart Seely; Complete 9/11 Military Exercises Timeline, Cooperative Research, at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before-9/11=militaryExercises;
Crossing the Rubicon, by Michael Ruppert, Chapter 19: “Wargames and High Tech: Paralyzing the System to Pull Off the Attacks” and Chapter 20: “Q&A: Many Asked, Some Answered––and a Golden Moment,” New Society Publishers, 2004. In the Acknowledgements to Rubicon, p. xi, Ruppert credits the author with what he refers to as “the Holy Grail of 9/11 research” (p. 336): Thanks to Barbara Honegger, who kept hammering on the wargames until we all paid notice… you showed me the most important lead I needed to put it all together.”

12) “Detainee’s Suit Gains Support from Jet’s Log,” New York Times, March 30, 2005, p. A1. Key excerpt, text in parentheses added: “Mr. Arar (a “rendered” detainee) says he followed the (Gulfstream jet) plane’s movements on a map displayed on a video screen (inside the plane), watching it as he traveled to Dulles Airport outside Washington, to a Maine Airport he believed was in Portland (Maine), to Rome, and finally to Amman, Jordan, where he was blindfolded and driven to Syria.” Though the FAA claims its records show a plane on that date making the other stops but landing in Bangor, not Portland, Maine, the detainee’s account may be accurate, as only Portland’s airport is labeled an “International Jet Port,” specializing in landings and takeoffs of just such private, corporate and government jets.

13) Ironically, at the final hearing of the Kean Commission, where its report was released to the press and public, commissioner John Lehman responded to the question, What if anything remained unknown, by noting that the Commission still wasn’t clear as to “how Atta chose the date for the attacks.”

14) Summary interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, claimed “mastermind” of the September 11 attack plot, read into the Zacarias Moussaoui sentencing trial record by the prosecution on March 27, 2006; the full text is part of the court proceedings transcript for that date available through Exemplaris.com .

15) The 9/11 Commission Report, note 116, p. 458, at http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf. Key excerpt: “On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union.”

16) Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission, by Leslie Filson, US Air Force account of the events of September 11, p. 66. Also “Civilian Planes to be Grounded 12 Hours Today in Defense Test,” New York Times, October 14, 1961, pp. 1 and 4; “Civilian Planes Halted 12 Hours in Defense Test: Joint Maneuvers Fill Air Over Canada and US with Military Craft, Cities ‘Hit’ by Bombers,” New York Times, October 15, 1961, pp. 1 and 46; “Computer is Key to Area Defense: Ever-Alert Device in (New) Jersey Joins in Air Exercises,” New York Times, October 15, 1961, p. 46; and “US-Canada Test of Air Defense Rated a Success: President Receives a Report on Maneuvers, Search is Pushed for Missing B-52,” New York Times, October 16, 1961, pp. 1 and 16.

17) For example, see “Flight 11: The Twin Flight”, by “Woody Box” at
http://new.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=04/03/14/212247, and “Flight 11 and Flight 93 ‘Survived’” at http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=858.

18) “Moussaoui, Undermining Case, Now Ties Himself to 9/11 Plot,” New York Times, March 28, 2006, pp. A1 and A14.

19) Newsweek, September 24, 2001.

20) “Michael Chertoff—Where All the Questions Should Start,” January 12, 2005, http://allspinzone.blogspot.com/ .