On 9/11 the Bush administration declared a State of Emergency (SOE), which was formally proclaimed on September 14, 2001, and extended by Bush repeatedly thereafter, most recently on August 28, 2008. 1 Under cover of this SOE, Bush secretly enacted many …

On 9/11 the Bush administration declared a State of Emergency (SOE), which was formally proclaimed on September 14, 2001, and extended by Bush repeatedly thereafter, most recently on August 28, 2008.¹ Under cover of this SOE, Bush secretly enacted many extreme measures, ranging from suspension of habeas corpus to preparations for martial law in America; all these were undertaken as part of secret so-called “Continuity of Government” (COG) procedures associated with the SOE, and first instituted on 9/11.^{2 and 3}

The National Emergencies Act, one of the post-Watergate reforms so detested by Vice-President Cheney, requires specifically that

Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.
(50 U.S.C. 1622 (2002)⁴

Last fall one of us appealed on the Internet for the Democrats in Congress to take this statutorily required step, and also to learn what secret COG measures were being enacted under the SOE.⁵ There was no response.

In February 2009 we sent to officials in Washington the following appeal to consider terminating the State of Emergency. The appeal was sent to President Obama’s staff in the White House, and to the staff of Nancy Pelosi, Peter DeFazio, and Dennis Kucinich in Congress. Almost two months have passed, and there has not yet been any response from the addressees.

We are now appealing to the readers of this post to contact their representatives in Congress, and demand that they consider the termination of the State of Emergency, as is required of them by law.

This is the letter sent February 10, 2009 by Peter Dale Scott and Dan Hamburg:
Will Obama and Congress End the State of Emergency?

On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That state of emergency was formally put in writing⁶ on 9/14/2001 consistent with Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.).

The state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11/01 to the present. It was most recently extended on August 28, 2008 for an additional year:

Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 28, 2008.

Under a series of Presidential Decision Directives, the Bush administration enacted secret emergency powers, reportedly affecting the U.S. Constitution, which even the members of the House Homeland Security Committee have not been permitted to review.

Congress has a statutory obligation to address this situation. Section 1622(b) of the National Emergencies Act states that: “Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.”

We now have a new President, supported by a new Congress, elected with a campaign promise of “Change.” In this changed atmosphere, two questions need to be answered to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the American people:

Will President Obama allow the state of national emergency, first declared by President George W. Bush on 9/14/01 and re-declared seven times, to remain in effect?

Will Congress meet their statutory responsibilities under Section 1622(b) of the National Emergencies Act, and meet to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated?

Dan Hamburg, former US Representative (CA-01)
Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley

Our appeal to readers: Please contact your Representative and Senators (with a copy to the Homeland Security Committee Chairs (contact info below), utilizing this information and requesting a specific response to these two questions. You may also wish to follow up with a phone call to their offices, asking to speak with the staffer who can answer your questions about national emergencies. Submit responses you receive and/or answers to the questions you ask, to responses@911truth.org for posting here. Please also post this appeal to your websites, and forward to your email lists.

Find your reps’ contact info here: votesmart.org

Congressman Bennie Thompson, Chairman
House Committee on Homeland Security
176 Ford House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5876
Fax: (202) 225-5898
Committee Membership Roster (Is your Rep on this Committee?)

and
Senator Joseph Lieberman, Chairman
Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4041
Fax: (202) 224-9750
Committee Membership Roster(Is your Senator on this Committee?)

ENDNOTES

¹ Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/08/20080828-7.html.
² Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007), 9-11, 183-87, 210-14, 233-42.
³ Investigation into Whether America is Still a Constitutional Government, www.constitutionally.blogspot.com
⁴ National Emergencies Act, (50 U.S.C. 1622 (2002)), http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C34.txt
⁵Peter Dale Scott, “Bush Extends 9/11 National Emergency Yet Again,” Global Research, September 4, 2008, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10065.
⁶ Declaration of National Emergency by Reason Of Certain Terrorist Attacks, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/08/20080828-7.html.

More information on National Emergency Powers, from a Congressional Research Report last updated August 30, 2007, is available at OpenCRS.com. A related CRS Report, Martial Law and National Emergency, is available at www.fas.org

STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

We felt compelled to write to you regarding your recent call for the formation of a “Truth Commission”. According to your press comments, this Commission is supposed to look at the following:

March 3, 2009

An Open Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy
March 3, 2009

Dear Senator Leahy,

We felt compelled to write to you regarding your recent call for the formation of a “Truth Commission”. According to your press comments, this Commission is supposed to look at the following:
* the politicization of prosecution in the Justice Department
* the wiretapping of U.S. citizens
* the flawed intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq
* the use of torture at Guantanamo and so-called black sites abroad
These are serious allegations of criminal activity by certain members of the Bush Administration. While we applaud your initiative in looking into these matters, we feel this approach is wrong.

As the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you already have the responsibility and legal authority to investigate matters relating to federal criminal law without having to form a special commission. You are also bound by your oath of office to support and uphold the Constitution by ensuring that those who govern also abide by the rule of law.

Furthermore, a “Truth Commission” will not fix the real problems that our country faces, nor will it guarantee that we will get to the truth. The 9/11 Commission, which you want to model your commission after, is a perfect example of that flawed process.

The 9/11 Commission was mandated to follow the facts surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 to wherever they might lead and make national security recommendations based upon those facts. Sadly, prior to even beginning their investigation, like you, the 9/11 Commissioners agreed amongst themselves that their role was to /fact find, not fault find/.
This decision resulted in individuals not being held accountable for their specific failures. These people were shown to be incompetent in the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report but were left in their positions, or worse, promoted. No one should be allowed to make this compromise on behalf of the American people. How can any agency be deemed fixed or reformed if the people working there are inept? How can anyone feel safer?
At the 9/11 Commission hearings, little actual evidence was ever produced. Many individuals were not sworn in, critical witnesses were either not called to testify or were permitted to dictate the parameters of their own questioning, pertinent questions were omitted and there was little follow-up. Whistleblower testimony was suppressed or avoided all together. The National Security Agency, an intelligence agency that is responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign intelligence, was barely investigated at all.

With the narrative of the 9/11 Commission’s final report predetermined and with the preexisting intention to never hold anyone accountable in place, the 9/11 Commission was doomed to fail as a real investigation. The end result of the 9/11 Commission’s work was that some of the recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions. Since their mandate of a complete accounting was ignored, the recommendations were incomplete at best.

There was clearly no desire on the part of Congress to force the Commission to meet its legislative mandate. Accordingly, there were no repercussions for the fact that the investigation and its recommendations were incomplete. It could be surmised that holding no one accountable was more important than uncovering and disclosing the truth. This could compromise the future safety of American citizens. Why then would you want to model another Commission after it? Why would you want another Commission at all?

Senator Leahy, in light of the fact that the 9/11 Commission’s worst offense was not fully investigating the September 11th attacks, completing that investigation should also be included on your list of matters to be examined.

America’s founding fathers, prescient in their fears of unrestrained power, created three separate but equal branches of government. They had hoped to maintain and enforce the limits of the Executive Branch.
The Bush Administration was allowed to circumvent too many Constitutional restrictions effectively undermining America’s system of justice, our nation’s integrity and commitment to the rule of law. The Bush Administration’s seizing of power proves the adage that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

The days of no fault government must end; and where there is clear criminal activity, people must be prosecuted. The law must be upheld without exception before we can be assured of the safety of the nation. These duties cannot be ignored for the sake of expediency.
Senator Leahy, our nation needs you to investigate and, if warranted, refer the cases for criminal prosecution in transparent trials. We do not need another meaningless commission resulting in no accountability at the taxpayers’ expense. Show all Americans that you have the courage to uphold the law, bring accountability to those who abuse their positions of power and prevent such abuses from happening again.

The November 2008 elections proved that Americans want the rule of law restored for those in Washington who are elected to represent us. You, Senator Leahy, are in the position to lead the way and work toward the change we were promised.

Sincerely,

*September 11th Advocates
*Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

ENDS

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story
that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and
attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson,
that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday
morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson
reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone
from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all
passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were
herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only
weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”
2

Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the
only evidence that American 77, which was said to have
struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had
disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been
reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had
crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson
had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report
that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab
Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s
support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted
Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the
sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers
had box cutters. 3

However, although Ted Olson’s report
of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of
the official account of 9/11, this report has been
completely undermined.

Olson’s
Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of
undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told
CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on
a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September
14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached
him by calling the Department of Justice collect.
Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he
surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her
credit cards.” 4 However, this version of Olson’s story,
besides contradicting his first version, was even
self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed
to activate a passenger-seat phone.

Later that same day,
moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second
call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals
from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that
well.” 5 After that return to his first version, he finally
settled on the second version, saying that his wife had
called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the
passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse. 6

By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a
technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed
in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were
impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that
“the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t
work that well” was a considerable understatement). The
technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude
airline flights was not created until 2004. 7

However,
Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was
contradicted by American Airlines.

American
Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version

A 9/11
researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757,
noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not
have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that
had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer
service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not
have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77
used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls
during the terrorist attack.” 8

In response to this
revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that
Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used
her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario
is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed
in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the
FBI.

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the
FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted
Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias
Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence
presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on
phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on
American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call
to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of
course) lasted “0 seconds.” 9 According to the FBI,
therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his
wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back
on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of
that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that
his wife had called him twice from Flight 77. 10 And yet the
FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006,
indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an
amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of
Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized
claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had
received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

Olson’s
Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson’s
story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who
wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon
attack put out by the Department of Defense. 11

According
to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight
personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of
the plane by armed hijackers.” 12 This is an inherently
implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that
60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay
by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have
been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This
scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the
alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11
Commission pointed out that even “[t]he so-called muscle
hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the
majority of them were between 5′5″ and 5′7″ in height and
slender in build” 13), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic”
Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was
described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile
opponents. 14 Also, the idea that Burlingame would have
turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his
brother, who said: “I don’t know what happened in that
cockpit, but I’m sure that they would have had to
incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done
anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that
airplane.” 15

The Pentagon historians, in any case, did
not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame
and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the
back with the passengers and other crew members. They
instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or
murdered the two pilots.” 16

Conclusion

This
rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the
Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost
importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson,
there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington.
Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only
two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone
using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.
17 In either case, the official story about the calls from
Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of
the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should
we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact
that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other
defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds
for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal
contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such
contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11
Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the
Press.

NOTES

1 This essay
is based on Chapter 8 (“Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from
Barbara Olson?”) of David Ray Griffin, 9/11
Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press
(Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).

2 Tim O’Brien, “Wife of
Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN,
September 11, 2001 ( href="http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson"
target="_blank">http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).

3
This was pointed out in The 9/11 Commission Report,
8.

4 Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001
( href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html"
target="_blank">http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html).

5
“America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,” Larry King
Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 ( href="http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html"
target="_blank">http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html).

6
In his “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture,” delivered
November 16, 2001
( href="http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp"
target="_blank">http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp),
Olson
said that she “somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in
the airplane to call.” He laid out this version of his story
more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, “She
Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph,
March 5, 2002 ( href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html"
target="_blank">http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html).

7
I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone
calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking:
An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the
Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch,
2007), 87-88, 292-97.

8 See the submission of 17 February
2006 by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum ( href="http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html"
target="_blank">http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html).
It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions:
An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton:
Olive Branch, 2008), 75.

9 United States v. Zacarias
Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 ( href="http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html"
target="_blank">http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html
). These documents can be more easily viewed in “Detailed
Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights”
( href="http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html"
target="_blank">http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).

10
FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic],” “9/11
Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September
11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008,
( href="http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html"
target="_blank">http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html
).

11 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11
(Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense,
2007).

12 O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him
of Hijacking from Plane.”

13 9/11 Commission Staff
Statement 16
( href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf
).

14 Shoestring, “The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who
Really Killed Charles Burlingame?” Shoestring911, February
2, 2008 ( href="http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77-murder-mystery-who-really.html"
target="_blank">http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77-murder-mystery-who-really.html
).

15 “In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,”
USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at href="http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html"
target="_blank">http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html
).

16 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11
(Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007),
12.

17 Of these two possibilities, the idea that Ted Olson
was duped should be seriously entertained only if there are
records proving that the Department of Justice received two
collect calls, ostensibly from Barbara Olson, that morning.
Evidently no such records have been
produced.

name=a> STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG:
UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the
views expressed in the above article. We present this in the
interests of research -for the relevant information we
believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it
inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build
bridges between our various investigative communities,
towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered
questions which now lie before us.

Hijacker had post-9/11 flights scheduled,
files say

Newly-released records obtained through a
Freedom of Information Act request contradict the 9/11
Commission’s report on the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and
raise fresh questions about the role of Saudi government
officials in connection to the hijackers.

The nearly 300
pages of a Federal Bureau of Investigation timeline used by
the 9/11 Commission as the basis for many of its findings
were acquired through a FOIA request filed by Kevin Fenton,
a 26 year old translator from the Czech Republic. The FBI
released the 298-page “hijacker timeline” Feb. 4.

The
FBI timeline reveals that alleged hijacker Hamza Al-Ghamdi,
who was aboard the United Airlines flight which crashed into
the South Tower of the World Trade Center, had booked a
future flight to San Francisco. He also had a ticket for a
trip from Casablanca to Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia.

Though referenced repeatedly in the footnotes of the
final 9/11 Commission report, the timeline has not
previously been made available to the public.

The FBI
timeline is dated Nov. 14, 2003 but appears to have been put
together earlier (since the last date mentioned in the
document is Oct. 22, 2001) and was provided to the 9/11
Commission during its 2003 investigation. The final
Commission report cites the FBI timeline 52 times.

Post
Sept. 11, 2001 flights

The FBI timeline reveals that
Al-Ghamdi, the alleged United hijacker, was booked onto
several flights scheduled for after the 9/11 attacks, a
piece of information not documented in the Commission’s
final report. According to the FBI timeline, Al-Ghamdi was
booked on another United Airlines flight on the very day of
the attack.

On page 288 under an entry pertaining to “H
AlGhamdi,” the FBI timeline reads: “Future flight.
Scheduled to depart Los Angeles International Airport for
San Francisco International Airport on UA 7950.”

The
sourcing reads simply: “UA passenger information.”

The timeline similarly documents Al-Ghamdi’s bookings
for several other post 9/11 flights, including one on Sept.
20, 2001 from Casablanca, Morocco to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
and another on Sept. 29, 2001 from Riyadh to Damman, Saudi
Arabia. (FBI Timeline 2, p. 296 under “H Alghamdi”)

No additional information or explanation is offered in
the FBI timeline itself.

The Saudi connection

In
January 2000, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and CIA Director
George Tenet attended regular briefings as Malaysian
intelligence conducted surveillance of a “terrorist summit
meeting” in Kuala Lumpur. Among the attendees were Nawaf
al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two men who would later
allegedly hijack American Airlines Flight 77 and crash it
into the Pentagon.

A week after the Malaysian summit,
al-Mihdar and al-Hazmi traveled to the United States.
According to the 9/11 Commission report, they arrived in Los
Angeles on Jan. 15 and “spent about two weeks there before
moving to San Diego.” (9/11 Commission report, p. 215,
chapter 7). The footnote for this item shows that the
Commission relied on a different FBI report, “`Summary
of Pentbom Investigation,’ Feb.29, 2004 (classified
version), p.16.”

But the FBI timeline contradicts this
claim, placing the alleged hijackers in San Diego with
specific details. According to the timeline, the two men
resided in Apartment 152 at Parkwood Apartments, San Diego,
from Jan. 15 through Feb. 2, 2000.

“A rental
application shows that before renting Apartment 150 Parkwood
Apartments on 02/05/2000, AL-MlHDHAR and Nawaf Alhazmi
alleged that they resided with [REDACTED] from 01/15/2000 to
02/02/2000 at Apartment 152 of the same apartment
complex,” page 52 of the href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/sourcedocuments/2001/pdfs/fbi911timeline1-105.pdf"
target="_blank">FBI timeline reads.

Two pages later,
the same apartment complex is noted again, this time with
its full address: “AL-MIHDHAR and Nawaf Alhazmi resided at
Parkwood Apartments, located at 6401 Mount Ada Road,
Apartment 150, San Diego, CA. [REDACTED] was the co-signor
and guarantor on the lease agreement for this apparement.
The rental application shows that before renting Apartment
150, AL-MIHDHAR and Nawaf Alhazmi resided with [REDACTED].”
(A photograph of apartment 152 appears atop this article. An
image of apartment 150 appears on page 2.)

In other words,
according to the only public account, both Al-Mihdhar and
Hazmi were in San Diego, not Los Angeles, contrary to the
Commission’s report.

Why did the Commission use an
alternate source for the whereabouts of the two men, when
the FBI’s own timeline said they were in San Diego by Jan.
15, the same day as their arrival in the US?

Paul
Thompson, author of the href="http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Timeline-Comprehensive-Chronicle-11/dp/0060783389"
target="_blank">The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by
Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road
to 9/11–and America’s Response, has been wading through
the FBI timeline since its release. His preliminary analysis
can be found at the website of the href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/news.jsp?oid=140393703-423"
target="_blank">History Commons (formerly known as the
Center for Cooperative Research).

Thompson believes that
the possible motive for the Commission to alter the dates is
to obscure official Saudi ties to the hijackers.

He
points to the redaction of the name of a person who is a
known employee of a Saudi defense contractor, Omar
al-Bayoumi, who lived at the same location.

“We know
it’s Bayoumi,” said Thompson, “because after 9/11, the
Finnish Government mistakenly released a classified FBI list
of suspects that showed Bayoumi living in apartment #152 of
Parkwood Apartments.” That information is href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a100301suspectslist"
target="_blank">available here.

“But also important
is that it strongly suggests that the hijackers already had
a support network in Southern California before they
arrived,” Thompson continued.

“In the official
version of the story now, the hijackers drift around L.A.
listlessly for two weeks before chancing to come across
Bayoumi in a restaurant [according to Bayoumi's
account],” Thompson added. “Whereupon he’s an incredible
good Samaritan and takes them down to San Diego, pays their
rent, etc.”

“But from the FBI’s timeline, we now know
the hijackers started staying at Bayoumi’s place on Jan. 15
- the very same day they arrived,” Thompson says. “So
obviously they must have been met at the airport and taken
care of from their very first hours in the US. That’s huge
because the FBI maintains to this day that the hijackers
never had any accomplices in the US.”

Robert Baer, a
former CIA case officer in the Middle East whose href="http://www.amazon.com/See-No-Evil-Soldier-Terrorism/dp/140004684X"
target="_blank">See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground
Soldier in the CIA’s War on Terrorism became the
inspiration for the award winning film href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365737/"
target="_blank">Syriana, concurs with Thompson’s view.

“There are enough discrepancies and unanswered
questions in the 9/11 Commission report that under a
friendly administration, the 9/11 investigation should be
re-opened,” Baer wrote in an email message Tuesday night.

“Bayoumi clearly offered material assistance to [the
9/11 hijackers].”

READ THE DOCUMENTS: href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/sourcedocuments/2001/pdfs/fbi911timeline1-105.pdf"
target="_blank">PDF pages 1-105, href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/sourcedocuments/2001/pdfs/fbi911timeline106-210.pdf"
target="_blank">PDF pages 106-210, href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/sourcedocuments/2001/pdfs/fbi911timeline210-297.pdf"
target="_blank">PDF pages 211-297.

Larisa
Alexandrovna is managing editor of investigative news for
Raw Story and regularly reports on intelligence and national
security stories. Contact: href="mailto:larisa@rawstory.com"
target="_blank">larisa@rawstory.com.

STANDARD
DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not
necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above
article. We present this in the interests of research -for
the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope
that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us
further, in helping to build bridges between our various
investigative communities, towards a greater, common
understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie
before
us.

Dear
9/11 Commissioners:

Tomorrow Philip Shenon’s book, href="http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Uncensored-History-11-Investigation/dp/0446580759/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202158058&sr=8-1"
target="_blank">“The Commission” will be released. I
forward the Comment just released by September 11th
Advocates (the leading 9/11 family members behind the
Commission) along with a comment of my own here:

Some of
you have yourselves said the 9/11 Report is “not the last
word” on what happened. This is no doubt true. Horribly and
tragically true. The next question is of course: what are we
(or you) going to do about that? Will you address where you
fell short or seek to rectify the situation? For starters,
the record now shows that a few of you (you know who you
are) were responsible for leaving out details of the href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a071001blackbriefstenet"
target="_blank"> Tenet/Black meeting with Rice/Clark on July
10 ‘01 and another with Ashcroft on the 18th. And the
Commission left out details of the href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=global_guardian"
target="_blank"> Global Guardian ‘air-war exercises
(normally scheduled for October but moved to Sept), Able
Danger ID of four of the future hijackers (per 5 credible
witnesses), and the revelations of FBI translator href="http://www.justacitizen.com/" target="_blank"> Sibel
Edmonds – http://www.justacitizen.com/, several of whose
allegations had been confirmed by the likes of senior
Senators (and others have confirmed more recent claims). And
now, thanks to the CIA and FBI IG Reports we know a whole
lot more about the extent, nature and timing of the CIA’s
withholding of key information about Hazmi and Mihdhar from
FBI investigators on the trail of those tied to the Cole and
Embassy bombings. [I could go on and on and not posit a
single theory or speculate].

I am willing to concede you
were dedicated and labored hard on a difficult task but I am
certainly not willing to let you all off the hook for hiring
or not firing Philip Zelikow, for avoiding the anthrax
attack, for producing an obviously compromised and
incomplete report, for not naming names, for not issuing
needed subpoenas, for ignoring important witnesses, for
giving too much credence to tortured co-conspirators, for
concluding that the question of who funded the attacks is of
‘little practical significance,” for softening the report to
protect the Bush administration, for the embargo on
Commissioner comment until after the election, for
overlooking the href="http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm"
target="_blank">missing trillions from the DoD (See…
href="http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm"
target="_blank">http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm.)

In
the long run history will no doubt be harsh on your record
but less so, or quite the reverse, if you come forward with
candid admission of where you fell down and if you stand up
now, or when the time comes, to support a new investigation.
For God’s sake, admit that Philip Zelikow for all his
seeming intelligence, dedication and hard work had no
business running the Commission, if not for appearance’s
sake alone.

Many years after the Warren Commission issued
its own final report, the Permanent Select Committee on
Assassinations concluded there was a wider conspiracy behind
the killing of JFK. Let’s hope it we don’t have to wait as
long for a new investigation of 9/11 and let’s hope we don’t
get yet another unsatisfactory and incomplete finding should
one be convened. No doubt the families will not make the
same mistake twice and this time insist on a formal role in
an investigation. In case after case without the benefit of
classified material or ‘access’, the 9/11 families put the
government’s own investigators to shame. With your honest
help let’s hope the future writes a different story; for the
sake of all of us and our children.

Please join the now
millions of people around the world who have honestly and
thoroughly examined the findings of fact and circumstances
laid out in your Report and found them deceptive, or
incomplete, and call for a new investigation that reveals
the truth, that follows all the evidence trails, wherever
they might lead.

Regards,
Kyle F.
Hence
Executive Producer
href="http://www.911pressfortruth.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.911pressfortruth.com

Philip Shenons new book, “The
Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11Investigation,
serves to justify our suspicions and the concerns of
the Family Steering Committee, that we attempted to publicly
air during the course of the 9/11 Commissions tenure.

One
of the most egregious revelations put forth by Mr. Shenon is
the fact that Philip Zelikow was hired as the Executive
Director of the 9/11 Commission, despite his direct ties to
the Bush Administration. In 2000-2001 he served as a member
of Condoleezza Rices National Security Council (NSC)
transition team, where he was allegedly the architect of the
decision to demote Richard Clarke and his counter terrorism
team within the NSC. Furthermore he was a member of the
Presidents Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) from
2001-2003, where* *Zelikow drafted most of the 2002 National
Security Strategy of the United States, creating the
pre-emptive Iraq war strategy. These areas were within the
scope of the Commissions mandate and as such were of
critical importance to determine what, if any, impact they
had on the governments ability to prevent the 9/11
attacks.

As the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission,
Philip Zelikow was given the responsibility for choosing the
entire direction of the Commissions investigation.
Essentially, Mr. Zelikow determined who was or was not
interviewed as a witness, and which information was or was
not looked at. He also influenced which documents would be
requested from the various agencies. It seemed to us, that
allowing an individual with this much involvement in the
Bush administration to run the investigation, might give the
appearance of impropriety and could ultimately taint the
Commissions findings.

In a statement issued by the Family
Steering Committee of March 20, 2004 we
wrote:

“It is apparent that Dr. Zelikow
should never have been permitted to be Executive Staff
Director of the Commission. As Executive Staff Director,
his job has been to steer the direction of the Commissions
investigation, an investigation whose mandate includes
understanding why the Bush Administration failed to
prioritize the Al Qaeda threat. “

In the
same statement we also called for:

“Zelikows
immediate resignation; Zelikows testimony in public and
under oath; and the subpoena of Zelikow’s notes from the
intelligence briefings he attended with Richard Clarke.
“

Commission Chairman Tom Kean and Vice-Chair
Lee Hamilton instead chose to have Mr. Zelikow recuse
himself from the areas of the investigation that dealt with
the transition period. However, they allowed Mr. Zelikow to
be one of only two people (Ms. Gorelick was the other) to
review the Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs), reports that
went to the heart of what the White House and its National
Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, knew prior to 9/11.
While investigating the events that led up to the September
11th attacks, Philip Zelikow was called as a witness by the
9/11 Commission though transcripts of his testimony were
never made public.

Despite our vehement objections, Mr.
Zelikow was allowed to remain in his position as what seemed
to be the gatekeeper of the 9/11 Commission. Mr. Shenons
book illustrates just how deeply and insidiously the
Commission’s basic fact-finding work was compromised by
Zelikows conflicts. He recounts that even after his recusal,
Mr. Zelikow continued to insert himself into the work of
“Team 3,” of the Commission. This team was responsible for
examining the White House, and therefore, the conduct of
Condoleeza Rice and Richard Clarke during the months prior
to 9/11.

According to the author, Team 3 staffers would
come to believe that Mr. Zelikow prevented them from
submitting a report that would have depicted Ms. Rice’s
performance as “amount[ing] to incompetence, or something
not far from it.”

Evidence of the possible duplicitous
nature of Mr. Zelikows role on the 9/11 Commission was
further exemplified by his numerous conversations with Karl
Rove, President Bushs Senior Political Advisor. When
questioned about his contact with Rove, Zelikows response
was to tell his secretary to stop logging his
calls.

Contrary to former Commissioner John Lehmans recent
comment on MSNBC that Zelikows conversations with Rove are a
red herring, these contacts with Rove should have been /a
red flag/. Negotiating for or procuring of White House
documents for the Commission should have been done through
the Office of White House Counsel NOT the Presidents
political advisor. Consequently, knowing how this would
appear, one must ask why Zelikow was speaking with Rove?

It is abundantly clear that Philip Zelikow should have
immediately been replaced when the first rumblings of his
impropriety and conflicts of interest surfaced. When all of
this information became clear, the Commissioners and the
press should have called for Zelikows resignation. We did.
Shamefully, most were silent.

Further evidence of
political maneuvering came to light in the story of
Commissioner Max Cleland. Cleland was publicly critical of
the Commission and the Bush White House. According to
Shenons book, when it became obvious that Max Cleland would
continue to be loudly critical, Commission Chairman Tom Kean
and Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton sought the help of Senator Tom
Daschle to find Cleland a new job. Thus, Max Cleland was
quietly removed and silenced with a new job in the Bush
Administration.

Also revealed in Shenons book is the fact
that the Commissions staff never ventured to the National
Security Agency (NSA), the chief collector of intelligence
information, in order to review their voluminous treasure
trove of documents. At NSA Headquarters, 27 miles from the
Commissions offices, there was a gold mine of information
detailing terrorists threats and connections, including
those of al Qaeda. General Michael Hayden, who headed the
NSA at the time, was eager to cooperate and share what his
organization had with the 9/11 Commission, but Executive
Director Zelikow was not interested.

A lone staffer, who
understood the importance of these archives, had the
information moved to a reading room within walking distance
of the Commissions offices. Even then, she was the only
member of the Commission to take the time to read these
documents. By her own admission, this insightful staffer had
concerns as to how much she, on her own, would be able to
glean from these jargon filled documents. Why didnt Phil
Zelikow make reviewing these vital NSA documents a
Commission priority? It seems clear that not every fact and
lead was followed in this investigation compromising the
validity of the Commissions final report and its
findings.

Moreover, the Pre-9/11 story largely revolved
around second and third hand knowledge of interrogations of
tortured individuals, detainees that were being held in
secret locations.

According to many sources at the CIA and
deep within the government, confessions extracted from
individuals who are tortured are generally deemed useless. A
tortured detainee will say anything in order to make the
torture stop and therefore, the confession cannot be
trusted. One needs to look no further than the Army Field
Manual on Interrogation (FM 34-52), which states in Chapter
1:

“”Experience indicates that the use of
force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources
for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor
technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage
subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to
say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”
“

How could the Commission have based their
entire pre-9/11 narrative on these unreliable,
torture-induced confessions?

We believe that author Phil
Shenon has revealed information which only scratches the
surface as to what went on behind the scenes of this
investigation.

Why, when this Congressionally mandated
Commission could have done much to fix the fatal flaws in
our in government by conducting a real investigation and
making vital recommendations, would they instead allow it to
become a sham. This investigation was meant to fix the
loopholes that allowed our Country to be so vulnerable. Why
would they choose instead, to succumb to political
machinations? What would we find out if a real investigation
into September 11, 2001 were ever done?

The bottom line is
that the most deadly attack on American soil since Pearl
Harbor remains dangerously unexamined. This can only be
remedied with an investigation guided by the facts and
conducted outside the reach of those with a vested interest
in suppressing the truth.

*Patty Casazza*
*Monica
Gabrielle *
*Mindy Kleinberg *
*Lorie Van Auken *

STANDARD
DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not
necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above
article. We present this in the interests of research -for
the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope
that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us
further, in helping to build bridges between our various
investigative communities, towards a greater, common
understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie
before us.

]]> http://unansweredquestions.org/?feed=rss2&p=600 0 http://unansweredquestions.org/?p=599 http://unansweredquestions.org/?p=599#comments Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:00:00 +0000 admin http://unansweredquestions.org/index.php/2008/02/01/uq-wire-commission-confidential-rove-zelikow/ There need to be hearings now about this deeply compromised commission. Rove and
Zelikow must be issued subpoenas, as should the telecom companies to get their cell
phone records of all communications between Zelikow and senior officials at the White …

There
need to be hearings now about this deeply compromised
commission. Rove and Zelikow must be issued subpoenas, as
should the telecom companies to get their cell phone
records of all communications between Zelikow and senior
officials at the White House. Accountability and
transparency are hallmarks of a healthy government beholden
to the people it serves. With this Commission we got
neither and as a result the entire Commission Report must
be called into question. A new investigation is now
required to do what the Zelikow Commission did not do,
fulfill its mandate to provide a “full accounting of the
facts and circumstances” surrounding the September 11th
attacks.

9/11 CitizensWatch, which I served as
Co-Director, was the first to formally call for the
resignation of Zelikow, closely followed by the Jersey
widows of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee. We were far
more right and justified than we even knew at the time. And
now that we know this about Zelikow and we know that the
Commission failed to answer 70% of the questions posed by
the Family Steering Committee the case is now clear the
U.S. Government must convene a new investigation, this time,
co-chaired by a member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee
and a formally appointed public advocate who sits with the
Commissioners. But first hearings are in order and should
be conducted immediately by the House Oversight Committee
and Senate Government Affairs Committee. It’s time to do
right by the victims, their families and the nation and
re-open this 9/11 investigation. Chairman Kean and
Vice-Chair Hamilton should be called upon to fully support
this new investigation in light of their betrayal of their
promise to conduct a full and fair independent
investigation.

9/11 CitizensWatch will soon issue an open
letter to the Congress on this issue. And one to the former
Commissions and staff. Look for it ahead of the release of
Shenon’s book on the 5th.

Regards,

Kyle F. Hence
9/11
Citizenswatch
target="_blank">http://www.911pressfortruth.com

Also,
check out:
href="http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Book_Director_of_911_commission_secretly_0131.html"
target="_blank">http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Book_Director_of_911_commission_secretly_0131.html

Washington DeCoded -

http://www.washingtondecoded.com

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful .
. .
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure
wind.
George Orwell, 1946

Commission Confidential
EXTRA By Max
Holland

href="http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2008/01/commission-conf.html"
target="_blank">http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2008/01/commission-conf.html

In
a revelation bound to cast a pall over the 9/11 Commission,
Philip Shenon will report in a forthcoming book that the
panel’s executive director, Philip Zelikow, engaged in
“surreptitious” communications with presidential adviser
Karl Rove and other Bush administration officials during
the commission’s 20-month investigation into the 9/11
attacks.

Shenon, who led The New York Times’ coverage of
the 9/11 panel, reveals the Zelikow-Rove connection in a
new book entitled The Commission: The Uncensored History of
the 9/11 Investigation, to be published next month by Twelve
Books. The Commission is under an embargo until its February
5 publication, but Washington DeCoded managed to purchase a
copy of the abridged audio version from a New York
bookstore.

In what’s termed an “investigation of the
investigation,” Shenon purports to tell the story of the
commission from start to finish. The book’s critical
revelations, however, revolve almost entirely around the
figure of Philip Zelikow, a University of Virginia professor
and director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs prior
to his service as the commission’s executive director.
Shenon delivers a blistering account of Zelikow’s role and
leadership, and an implicit criticism of the commissioners
for appointing Zelikow in the first place, and then
allowing him to stay on after his myriad
conflicts-of-interest were revealed under
oath.

Shenon’s narrative is built from extensive
interviews with staff members and several, if not all, the
commissioners. He depicts Zelikow as exploiting his central
position to negate or neutralize criticism of the Bush
administration so that the White House would not bear, in
November 2004, the political burden of failing to prevent
the attacks.

The Commission includes these specific
revelations:

–Kean and Hamilton appreciated that Zelikow
was a friend and former colleague of then-national security
adviser Condoleeza Rice, one of the principal officials
whose conduct would be scrutinized. Zelikow had served with
her on the National Security Council (NSC) during the
presidency of Bush’s father, and they had written a book
together about German reunification. The commission
co-chairmen also knew of Zelikow’s October 2001 appointment
to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
According to Shenon, however, Zelikow failed to disclose
several additional and egregious conflicts-of-interest,
among them, the fact that he had been a member of Rice’s
NSC transition team in 2000-01. In that capacity, Zelikow
had been the “architect” responsible for demoting Richard
Clarke and his counter-terrorism team within the NSC. As
Shenon puts it, Zelikow “had laid the groundwork for much of
went wrong at the White House in the weeks and months
before September 11. Would he want people to know
that?”

–Karen Heitkotter, the commission’s executive
secretary, was taken aback on June 23, 2003 when she
answered the telephone for Zelikow at 4:40 PM and heard a
voice intone, “This is Karl Rove. I’m looking for
Philip.” Heitkotter knew that Zelikow had promised the
commissioners he would cut off all contact with senior
officials in the Bush administration. Nonetheless, she gave
Zelikow’s cell phone number to Rove. The next day there
was another call from Rove at 11:35 AM. Subsequently,
Zelikow would claim that these calls pertained to his “old
job” at the University of Virginia’s Miller
Center.

–The full extent of Zelikow’s involvement with
the incumbent administration only became evident within the
commission on October 8, 2003, almost halfway into the
panel’s term. Determined to blunt the Jersey Girls’
call for his resignation or recusal, Zelikow proposed that
he be questioned under oath about his activities. General
counsel Daniel Marcus, who conducted the sworn interview,
brought a copy of the r�sum� Zelikow had provided to Kean
and Hamilton. None of the activities Zelikow now detailed,
his role on Rice’s transition team, his instrumental role
in Clarke’s demotion, his authorship of a post-9/11
pre-emptive attack Doctrine, were mentioned in the r�sum�.
Zelikow blandly asserted to Marcus that he did not see
“any of this as a major conflict of interest.”
Marcus’s conclusion was that Zelikow “should never have
been hired” as executive director. But the only upshot
from these shocking disclosures was that Zelikow was
involuntarily recused from that part of the investigation
which involved the presidential transition, and barred from
participating in subsequent interviews of senior Bush
administration officials.

–Some two months later, as Bob
Kerrey replaced disgruntled ex-Senator Max Cleland on the
panel, the former Nebraska senator became astounded once he
understood Zelikow’s obvious conflicts-of-interest and his
very limited recusal. Kerrey could not understand how Kean
and Hamilton had ever agreed to put Zelikow in charge.
“Look Tom,” Kerrey told Kean, “either he goes or I
go.” But Kean persuaded Kerrey to drop his
ultimatum.

–In late 2003, around the time his involuntary
recusal was imposed, Zelikow called executive secretary
Karen Heitkotter into his office and ordered her to stop
creating records of his incoming telephone calls. Concerned
that the order was improper, a nervous Heitkotter soon told
general counsel Marcus. He advised her to ignore Zelikow’s
order and continue to keep a log of his telephone calls,
insofar as she knew about them.

–Although Shenon could
not obtain from the GAO an unredacted record of Zelikow’s
cell phone use–and Zelikow used his cell phone for most of
his outgoing calls–the Times reporter was able to establish
that Zelikow made numerous calls to “456″ numbers in
the 202 area code, which is the exclusive prefix of the
White House.

–Even after his recusal, Zelikow continued
to insert himself into the work of “Team 3,” the task force
responsible for the most politically-sensitive part of the
investigation, counter-terrorism policy. This brief
encompassed the White House, which meant investigating the
conduct of Condoleeza Rice and Richard Clarke during the
months prior to 9/11. Team 3 staffers would come to believe
that Zelikow prevented them from submitting a report that
would have depicted Rice’s performance as “amount[ing] to
incompetence, or something not far from it.”

–In Without
Precedent, Kean and Hamilton’s 2006 account of the 9/11
panel, the two co-chairmen wrote that Zelikow was a
controversial choice

. . [but] we had full confidence in
Zelikow’s independence and ability–and frankly, we wanted
somebody who was unafraid to roil the waters from time to
time. He recused himself from anything involving his work on
the NSC transition. He made clear his determination to
conduct an aggressive investigation. And he was above all a
historian dedicated to a full airing of the facts. It was
clear from people who knew and worked with him that Zelikow
would not lead a staff inquiry that did anything less than
uncover the most detailed and accurate history of
9/11.

Shenon’s radically different account of the
commission’s inner workings promises to achieve what none
of the crackpot conspiracy theorists have managed to do so
far: put the 9/11 Commission in disrepute.

href="http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2008/01/commission-conf.html"
target="_blank">http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2008/01/commission-conf.html

STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org
does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the
above article. We present this in the interests of research
-for the relevant information we believe it contains. We
hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us
further, in helping to build bridges between our various
investigative communities, towards a greater, common
understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie
before us.

On Tuesday (1/22) bookstores across the U.S. released N.Y.
Times best-selling author Steve Alten’s THE SHELL GAME, a
fictional thriller that deals with the end of oil and the
next 9/11…a false flag event designed to lead us into a
war/chemical attack on Iran. Can a novel help educate the
masses that have avoided the message of 9/11 truth
movements?

Change is avalanching upon our heads, and most people are
grotesquely unprepared to cope with it. –Alvin
Toffler

When Steve Alten sent me a review
copy of The Shell Game, despite glowing reviews of it from
people I know and respect, I sighed and squirmed in my
chair. Anyone who knows me well knows that I don’t DO
fiction-or to be more specific, I resist it because of the
difficulty I usually experience with trying to organize the
characters of a novel in my mind. Nevertheless, I emailed
Steve and assured him that I would review the book and
began skimming it with dread. Peeking into the pages with
immense caution and aloofness, something completely
astounding happened: I found myself inexplicably riveted.
That someone like me could not put the book down speaks
volumes, and no one was more surprised than I was.

As
reviewer Bill Douglas points out, Shell Game opens from the
perspective of the neocons “THEN, the novel proceeds to
dis-assemble that `reality’ taking the reader on a
journey that shows the ugly underbelly of false flag
terrorism, diminishing civil and human rights, and the lies
that led into past wars, and portend to lead us all into
future wars.”

Early on in the book, we hear protagonist
Ace Futrell, a petroleum geologist and former college
football star, testifying before Congress regarding the
precariousness of world oil supplies, his grim report
engulfed and lost in a morass of political posturing by both
parties. Futrell is married to Kelli Doyle, who had worked
undercover for the CIA and the neocons, but is now gravely
ill with terminal cancer. In her final days, Doyle is
penning an expose entitled “To The Brink Of Hell: An
Apology To The Survivors” in which she is disclosing the
machinations of empire which are driving humanity to the
collapse of civilization.

The first sentence reads:
“Frankly, I hope this scares the hell out of you.” In
another portion of Doyle’s tell-all memoir she unleashes a
litany of the lies of empire, noting that “All presidents
lie.”

Roosevelt, she says, lied about Pearl Harbor,
Lyndon Johnson about Vietnam, Reagan about Iran-Contra, and
Clinton about personal affairs in the Oval Office. Yet she
emphasizes that:

“…it was the lies coming
from the Bush-Cheney White House after the events of
September 11, 2001 that led us to the invasion if Iraq and
to a crossroads in western civilization that will affect
you and your loved ones and a billion more innocent
people.”

“Did the U.S. intelligence community know al
Qaeda’s attack was coming? “

“Yes. “

“But did we try to
stop them? “

“Yes, but we were prevented from doing
so.”(77)

Doyle’s subsequent revelations then
echo the exhaustive research of Mike Ruppert in Crossing The
Rubicon and the work of countless other 9/11 truth
researchers, which explains the posting of the Bill Douglas
review on 9/11 Blogger. In fact, Alten’s mesmerizing novel
is already being embraced by many in the 9/11 Truth
movement and is likely to take root in its fertile
soil-possibly giving birth to a movie version of Shell Game
which would be nothing less than a two-hour nail-biter. Like
any good story, The Shell Game is not linear but rather
unfolds in a spiral of intrigue that culminates in a second
9/11-this time a nuclear one occurring in Los Angeles. But
first and second 9/11’s are not the principal focus of
Alten’s captivating novel. He has painstakingly clarified
the corruption, greed, and power-driven madness that makes
such catastrophes possible in the twenty-first century and
intertwines these with the reality of a planet in the throes
of unprecedented resource depletion. One is tempted to ask,
“With all we actually know, how could this happen?” until
Ace Futrell in Shell Game is rudely awakened by a
conversation with Kelli’s cousin, Jennifer.

This fictional
dialog could not be more timely than in the non-fiction
election year of 2008, and Jennifer, a former campaign
strategist trained under Karl Rove, enlightens Ace
regarding the duplicity of the mainstream political
process. Insisting that Jennifer explain why in the face of
all of the evidence regarding climate change and energy
depletion, Congress essentially takes no meaningful action,
he asks: “So, despite all the evidence of climate changes,
despite rising gas prices, despite air pollution and
respiratory problems…despite the fact that the world is
running out of oil and we’re ill prepared for what will
happen next-nothing will change?” Jennifer
replies:

“Not in Washington. Ace, it’s not
about the problem, it’s all about the message. Most
candidates’ policies run counter to their own voters’
interests. They get elected on sound bites and staying on
message. Repeat the biggest lie often enough, and the
public will accept it as truth. Give me enough money to
blitz the media, and I could get Elmer Fudd elected,
assuming he occasionally went to church and could lose the
lisp….You begin with the message, something you can sell.
Doesn’t matter if it’s true. Then you spend a million
dollars in ads hammering it into the American psyche.
(133-134) “

In my opinion, The Shell Game was
worth the read for this particular dialog alone between Ace
and Jennifer of which I have quoted only a small portion.
Without having access to a former campaign strategist’s
explanation as Ace has in the story, I grasped the same
realities several years ago which is one of a plethora of
reasons that I personally have no intention of ever again
voting in a federal election in America-at least until the
present political system has thoroughly collapsed.

The
Shell Game’s value lies not only in underscoring the
catastrophes toward which the human race is hurtling but in
analyzing the mindset of empire that has made them
inevitable. Alten’s novel feels eerily prescient and
replete with tragic scenarios that now seem
probable-perhaps unstoppable.

The book ends with the
closing comments of Kelli Doyle’s memoir, simply: “Will we
ever learn?”

I sit with that question, and as I do,
another question comes: “How do we learn? What will it take
for us to learn?”

Other civilizations have created and
maintained natural cultures and lived harmoniously with
each other and the ecosystems for millennia, so we know
that such functioning among humans is possible. It is
absolutely possible that humans can once again create and
maintain similar cultures for significant periods of time,
but can we do this without having to experience the
collapse of the current civilization? I think not, yet as
one who sincerely believes in miracles, I dare not preclude
the possibility. However, I’m no longer willing to say that
“time is running out” because time has already run out. I
must now answer Kelli Doyle’s question with another
question: What will it take to wake us up? What will it
take for us to learn? Shell Game demonstrates some
horrifying possible answers to those questions. It will not
offer solutions, but it will take you on a spellbinding
adventure that even a fiction-phobe like me could not
resist.

*NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT!*

1. Call your local
bookstore and make sure they have copies.

2. Buy as many
as you can afford. Use them as gifts to convince loved ones
about a truth they have, up until now, refused to see. These
first editions are special. Special covers. Special looks.
The second editions are already being printed.

3. Send an
e-mail to everyone you know to BUY THE BOOK! We GUARANTEE
they will love it!

4. Go to href="http://www.theshellgame.net/"
target="_blank">http://www.TheShellGame.net and grab the
links to the two 90 second book trailer videos. POST THEM
EVERYWHERE! Spread the word anyway you can. When you read
the book, you’ll realize exactly what’s at
stake.

*WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO DRIVE THIS BOOK TO THE
TOP OF BEST-SELLER LISTS?* When a book appears on the NY
Times best-seller list, a new mainstream machine kicks in!
The books receive better front of store shelf space. More
chains buy the book. Airport stores and grocery chains buy
in. Talk shows like Letterman and Leno wait for a book to
hit best-seller status before arranging interviews. If the
9/11 movement can launch The SHELL GAME onto the list, the
mainstream machine will carry it to a million readers who
might otherwise NEVER research the truth. The success of
THE SHELL GAME raises everyone’s boat. Pre-season’s over!
The clock is
ticking!

STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org
does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the
above article. We present this in the interests of research
-for the relevant information we believe it contains. We
hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us
further, in helping to build bridges between our various
investigative communities, towards a greater, common
understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie
before us.

]]> http://unansweredquestions.org/?feed=rss2&p=598 0 http://unansweredquestions.org/?p=596 http://unansweredquestions.org/?p=596#comments Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:00:00 +0000 admin http://unansweredquestions.org/index.php/2007/12/13/uq-wire-ny-judge-rules-against-9-11-widow/ NEW YORK-Ellen Mariani is vowing to appeal a federal court order “preventing her from having a direct role in the 9-11 wrongful death action arising from her husband’s murder on United Airlines Flight 175,” her new attorney, Bruce Leichty …

NEW YORK-Ellen Mariani is vowing to appeal a federal court order “preventing her from having a direct role in the 9-11 wrongful death action arising from her husband’s murder on United Airlines Flight 175,” her new attorney, Bruce Leichty of California, informed American Free Press.

Flight 175 was flown into the south tower of the World Trade Center, according to the official account of the 9-11-01 terrorist attacks.

This order of Judge Alvin Hellerstein has temporarily derailed Mariani’s attempt to challenge the mysterious settlement of her deceased husband’s claims against United Airlines, said Leichty. But he vowed that his advocacy on behalf of Mariani’s interests has just begun, and said that Hellerstein’s order shows “blatant prejudice” against the 9-11 widow.

“This New York federal court is supposed to be one of the most distinguished in the nation,” he said, “but it doesn’t take any more than a glance at this order to see its utter intellectual bankruptcy, and one could reasonably suspect that the true motivation for the order is to suppress Ellen Mariani’s ongoing efforts on behalf of 9/11 truth.”

Mariani retained Leichty to advise her on a tangled legacy of ineffective and disloyal legal counsel and to protect her remaining interests as both a beneficiary of her husband’s estate and a 9-11 truth advocate, according to Mariani. Shortly after retaining Leichty, she was informed that the claims of her husband’s Estate had been settled without her participation. (AFP Oct. 1, 2007).

“The timing was very curious,” Leichty informed AFP. “Judge Hellerstein also took the unusual steps of closing both the case that Ellen had filed in 2001-the first wrongful death case filed against the airlines after 9-11-and the case that had been filed by her stepdaughter, Lauren Peters.”

These two cases were closed subject to the condition that any party who objected by October 31 could ask the judge to restore them to his calendar, Leichty noted. When Mariani objected, however, she was rebuffed. Federal court cases are usually not declared “closed” at all until there is either a judgment or a dismissal, which can be entered after a settlement. But Leichty said neither a judgment nor a dismissal was entered in the more active of the two Mariani cases that Judge Hellerstein closed.

“When I saw the judge’s order closing these two cases and spoke with Ellen, and realized that she had not been provided any details on a settlement, we both smelled a rat,” Leichty said. He then recognized that Judge Hellerstein might not regard Mariani as a party in her deceased husband’s action. She is a beneficiary of her husband’s Estate, but the administrator of that estate has the responsibility for litigating Ellen’s late husband’s claims.

Leichty filed amotion on Oct. 31 with the cooperation of New York lawyer Carl Person, to explicitly make Mariani a party in the pending NewYork 9-11 litigation. That motion for intervention was backed up by Mariani’s testimony that she was deprived of a voice in the litigation in 2004, and by evidence that Mariani’s own claim for her loss of spousal consortium had nonetheless survived intact and needed to be protected by direct intervention.

But, as Leichty noted, Judge Hellerstein on Nov. 5 ruled that the intervention motion would be denied on the sole ground that Mariani was not a party. “This is circular logic and nonsense since all intervention motions are filed by persons who are not yet parties,” Leichty pointed out.

According to Leichty, Mariani has the option of appealing this order and also of protesting the way that the estate’s claims have been handled in New Hampshire Probate Court, where Mariani says that the current administrator has squandered his opportunity to get at the truth about 9-11 and also the value of her claims and those of the estate, by never seriously preparing for trial.

“The New Hampshire administrator is a lawyer named John Ransmeier who has repeatedly turned a blind eye to Ellen’s requests since his appointment,” Leichty alleged.

Mariani was essentially forced to step down from her position as administrator of the estate in 2004 under “highly questionable circumstances” after she began investigating possible U.S. government complicity in the events of 9-11 and the cover-up, said Leichty. At the time, her attorney in New Hampshire was a prominent former gubernatorial candidate, Paul MacEachern, who suggested Ransmeier as a replacement administrator.

“First MacEachern failed to protect Ellen, but even after that, based on a clear order of the New Hampshire Probate Court, John Ransmeier had his own duty to join Ellen as his co-plaintiff or to at least protect her consortium claim, which he has failed and refused to do,” alleges Leichty.

Instead, according to Leichty, Ransmeier’s attorneys entered into an engagement agreement without Mariani’s consent with Donald Migliori, an attorney from a large South Carolina law firm, Motley Rice, which employs one of Mariani’s former attorneys as a 9-11 plaintiffs’ litigator-former George H.W. Bush Department of Transportation appointee Mary Schiavo.

Mariani had accused Schiavo, among other things, of convening a secret meeting with defendants’ counsel without her knowledge, after which Schiavo terminated Mariani as a client. Schiavo has the highest security clearance permitted to plaintiffs’ attorneys in the 9-11 litigation.

According to Leichty, his complaints about this conflict of interest “have fallen on deaf ears.”

Leichty says that the estate and its attorneys have confirmed to him that there is nothing yet in writing-about 12 weeks after the alleged settlement-to show that the case of Mariani’s deceased husband has indeed been settled, except for a single line written by attorney Migliori.

Leichty also discovered that when Migliori purported to settle the case for the estate, Migliori was the last remaining “plaintiffs’ liaison” attorney in the consolidated New York litigation-and the liaison attorneys had assumed responsibility for conducting any trials required.

Migliori told Judge Hellerstein that he settled 13 other cases along with Mariani’s.

“Speaking as someone who has both tried and settled cases, the circumstances raise the question about what kind of pressure Ransmeier and Migliori were under to agree to whatever settlement the airline and security company defendants were offering at the time,” said Leichty.

While Ransmeier is defending the [undisclosed] value of the settlement, Leichty and Mariani say the proposed amount is much smaller than what one would expect from a wrongful death action arising out of an event as epic as 9-11.

Hellerstein has said during the 9-11 litigation that he does not favor trials but that plaintiffs should settle and “move on” with their lives, Mariani observed. “Money is the universal lubricant,” he was quoted as saying at one hearing.

Leichty believes that the litigation in Hellerstein’s courtroom has been stacked against truth advocates from the inception, because much of the evidence discovered is subject to confidentiality orders, or has been kept from view by the government by being labeled “sensitive security information,” and also because Congress capped the liability of the airline and security company defendants at the amount of their insurance policies.That in turn has created “a limited pool of money for claimants, who have reason to fear that if they wait for a trial, the pool will be exhausted,” said Leichty, who added that only law firms with the ability to finance the huge cost of the litigation could meaningfully participate-and for that reason they also have a built-in incentive to settle rather than risk trials.

Leichty said that the plaintiffs’ attorneys, including Mariani’s attorneys, have not argued the constitutionality of the secrecy and cap provisions as they should have.

“The probate administrator may still need Ellen’s consent to finalize his settlement, so she is not powerless,” added Leichty, “but the hour for truth advocates is late.”

Mariani has resisted pressure to simply “play along”-at considerable cost to her and at some future risk, noted Leichty.

Mariani said she is dependent on the efforts of 9-11 truth advocates to continue battling the various elements who would like to “buy off gadflies” and sweep the events of 9-11 under the rug forever.

“I will never give up,” said Mariani. “With enough support, I intend to do whatever I can to get to the truth of what happened to my husband on September 11, 2001, and to hold accountable all of those responsible.”

For those who would like to support Mariani’s ongoing efforts, please send letters of support and donations to Ellen Mariani, P.O. Box 2792, Parker, CO 80134.

Mark Anderson can be reached at truthhound2@yahoo.com.

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute – as long as full credit is given to American Free Press – 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.

Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up”

September 23, 2007 – Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[1]

During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award[2] in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.

In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote[3]: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole “war on terror” was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people—indeed the people of the world as a whole—with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of `paranoid conspiracy theorists,’ my highest possible recommendation.”

William Christison, a 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis also describes the 9/11 Commission Report as a “joke” and offers even more outspoken criticism. In a 2006 audio interview[4] he said, “We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all.”

Earlier this year, in an endorsement of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Christison wrote[5], “[There's] a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.” And in an online essay[6] in late 2006, he wrote, “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.”

Prior to his retirement from the CIA in 1979, Christison served as Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 200 analysts who collected intelligence and provided analysis on all regions and every country in the world. Prior to that, he served as one of only a handful of NIO’s in the intelligence community. NIO’s are responsible for the intelligence community efforts in a particular area and are the principal advisors to the Director of Central Intelligence. Christison was NIO for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa.

Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former senior CIA official who calls the 9/11 Commission Report a “coverup” and who signed the petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[7] Goodman was the Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004.

In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission Report[8], Goodman said, “I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission. … The final report is ultimately a coverup. I don’t know how else to describe it.” Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University.

Robert Baer is another well known CIA veteran who has questioned the official account of 9/11. A 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East, Baer was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997. After retirement, he wrote two best-selling non-fiction books about the CIA, See No Evil and Sleeping with the Devil, the former of which was the basis for the Academy Award-winning movie Syriana, starring George Clooney. Baer was also the writer and on-camera commentator for the Emmy Award-nominated documentary Cult of the Suicide Bomber.

Baer has repeatedly questioned whether al-Qaida could have accomplished 9/11 alone. The 9/11 Commission Report categorically found al-Qaida to be entirely responsible for 9/11, stating, “Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government — or government official — supplied any funding.” However, this 9/11 Commission finding directly contradicts the earlier finding of the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee’s 2002 Report[9] (p.415) of “sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers.”

In a 2002 essay[10] for The Guardian, Baer wrote, “Did bin Laden act alone, through his own al-Qaida network, in launching the attacks? About that I’m far more certain and emphatic: no.” In subsequent interviews, Baer has suggested that support for the attacks could have come from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

In 2006, during an interview by Thom Hartmann[11], Baer, after commenting on the financial profits being made from 9/11, was asked: “What about political profit? There are those who suggest that … someone in that chain of command … had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen — and really didn’t do much to stop it — or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush’s … failing presidency.” Baer replied: “Absolutely.” Hartmann then asked, “So you are personally of the opinion … that there was an aspect of ‘inside job’ to 9/11 within the U.S. government?” To which Baer replied, “There is that possibility, the evidence points at it.” When Hartmann continued, “And why is it not being investigated?” Baer replied, “Why isn’t the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn’t anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been no — any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder.”

In his blurb for the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Baer wrote[12]: “Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation …, we will never know what happened on 9/11.”

“I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war,” wrote well-known intelligence analyst Robert David Steele in 2006 in a review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley[13]. Steele is the author of numerous books on the intelligence services and is currently the CEO of OSS.net, a proponent of Open Source Intelligence. Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine Corps. He also served as the second ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 – 1992 and was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Steele continued, “I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers.”

In a subsequent interview on the Alex Jones Show[14], Steele said, “The U.S. government did not properly investigate this [9/11] and there are more rocks to be turned over,” and added, “I’m absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that, as far as I’m concerned, means that this case has not been properly investigated. There’s no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition.”

In late 2004, a group of 25 intelligence service and law enforcement veterans sent a joint letter to Congress[15] expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation. Their letter was apparently entirely ignored. Among the signers were four CIA veterans; Raymond McGovern and Melvin Goodman (both mentioned above) and Lynne Larkin and David MacMichael.

Lynne Larkin was a CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA foreign stations before being assigned to the CIA’s Counter-Intelligence Center. There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which, among other functions, provided direction to other federal agencies for coordinating intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

David MacMichael, PhD, is a former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served as a U.S. Marine Corps officer for ten years and for four years as a counter-insurgency advisor to the government.

Their letter read:

“[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. …

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission’s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …

The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations. …

The Commission, with its incomplete report of “facts and circumstances”, intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. …

We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part.”

And they and thousands of dedicated, loyal, and experienced military officers, intelligence service and law enforcement veterans, and government officials still stand ready to provide assistance for a thorough, impartial, and honest investigation into the terrible acts of 9/11.

Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by hundreds of credible individuals can be found at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com

NOTES:
[1] Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11. Oct. 26, 2004 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

[2] I Do Not Wish to be Associated with Torture by Ray McGovern March 2, 2006 http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18096

[3] Ray McGovern’s blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. March, 2007 http://www.interlinkbooks.com/product_info.php?products_id=1545&osCsid=5a22b94fffd724962a118f454c5d7194

[4] William Christison interviewed by George Kenney on Electric Politics. Sept. 29, 2006 http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/09/the_case_for_intellectual_inte.html

[5] William Christison’s blurb for David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking March 2007 http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/product-description/156656686X

[6] Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11 by William Christison Aug. 16, 2006 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm

[7] Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11. Oct. 26, 2004 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

[8] The 911 Commission Report – One Year Later, a Congressional Briefing July 22, 2005 http://www.vt911.org/McKinneyReport20050722transcript.pdf

[9] Congressional Reports: Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 December, 2002 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

[10] See No Evil (part 2) by Robert Baer in The Guardian January 12, 2002 http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,631434,00.html

[11] Robert Baer interviewed on The Thom Hartmann Show June 9, 2006 http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/former-cia-member-robert-baer-comments.html

[12] Robert Baer’s blurb for the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking March 2007 http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/product-description/156656686X

[13] Robert David Steele’s review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley Oct. 7, 2006 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0930852370

[14] Robet David Steele interviewed on The Alex Jones Show Oct. 27, 2006 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/271006googlecia.htm

[15] Letter to Congress signed by 25 intelligence service and law enforcement Sept. 13, 2004 http://www.pogo.org/m/hsp/hsp-911commission-040913.pdf

Alan Miller is author of the website http://www.PatriotsQuestion911.com

STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.

EXCLUSIVE! “The Real Spitzer Scandal” a 9/11 Spitzer Scandal

The Spitzer scandals continue.

On the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 attack, Brooklyn activist newspaper the/ New York Megaphone/ breaks this exclusive story:

NY Governor Eliot Spitzer filed an amicus brief on 1/15/03 on behalf of the World Trade Center’s controversial lease-holder, the real estate magnate Larry Silverstein. This document shows that Spitzer, as Attorney General, helped Silverstein get the whopping $4.5 billion windfall for the 9/11 attacks. The record is clear: Spitzer helped reverse a lower court’s decision, by making credible Silverstein’s argument that the two different plane crashes on 9/11/01 should be compensated as two different terrorist attacks.

This amicus brief has never been reported before today, in print or online. It was discovered in the court archives on the 17th floor of the 2nd Circuit Court (NYC), and released to the/ New York Megaphone/ by attorney Carl Person. In reporter Sander Hicks’s exclusive story, author and lawyer Carl Person says:

“I was surprised to see that Spitzer had used his position as attorney general to support one private litigant over another. Normally, this is not done.”

Hicks’ story also covers Governor Spitzer’s recent scandals with police spying on rival Joe Bruno, the Roger Stone voice mail threat, as well as new information and interviews regarding the Spitzer links to Kroll executives Michael Cherkasky and Jerome Hauer. Hicks hands in an original interview with Jerome Hauer, probing his documented links to anthrax suspect Steven Hatfill. Hauer is widely believed to be the source of the White House’s foreknowledge about the anthrax attacks on 9/11/01.

In 2004, Eliot Spitzer was asked to investigate 9/11 by 66% of New Yorkers. Those pleas were ignored. 51% of the USA wants Bush and Cheney investigated for 9/11, according to a Zogby poll last week.

This is the 6th issue of the New York Megaphone, a quarterly newspaper published by activist writers and “Citizen Journalists Pursuing the Unreported Story” at the Vox Pop coffeehouse and community center in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn. http://voxpopnet.net

“The Real Spitzer Scandal” is currently distributed in a print run of 40,000 for the Fall NY Megaphone, distributed throughout NYC. Circulation is estimated to be over 62,000. “The Real Spitzer Scandal” is also online, free and in full, at http://www.nymegaphone.com/node/24 This issue of the New York Megaphone also includes a wide variety of quality original reporting, small business features, and humor.

Hicks’ original interview with “bio-terror expert” Jerome Hauer is at http://www.voxpopnet.net/podcasts/hauer.mp3

The Spitzer/Silverstein Amicus Brief is at:

http://voxpopnet.net/Documents/spitzerbrief.pdf

The story was reported and written by Sander Hicks, with reporting help from Igor Kossov and Kempshall McAndrew.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.