NASA Engineer to Speak on Destruction of WTC Buildings

Encinitas resident a leader among 900 architects and engineers

San Diego - On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, former NASA engineering executive Dwain Deets, will speak on behalf of more than 900 architects and engineers who cite evidence of explosive demolition at all three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11 and are calling for a new, independent investigation into their destruction.

Mr. Deets’ multimedia presentation will begin at 12:00 p.m. at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, on the campus of University of San Diego, 5998 Alcalá Park, San Diego, CA 92110. The event will conclude at 3:00 p.m.

An engineer with NASA Dryden Flight Research Center for more than 37 years, Mr. Deets is a board member and the writing team leader for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). Comprised of more than 900 architects and engineers listed on their website at AE911Truth.org, the organization contends that the official FEMA and NIST reports fail, for several reasons, to explain correctly the towers’ destruction. AE911Truth points in particular to the destruction of the third high-rise, World Trade Center 7, which was not hit by a plane but came down in less than seven seconds. These 900 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation.

Mr. Deets will include in his presentation an abridged version of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, featuring Richard Gage, AIA, a San Francisco Bay area architect of 20 years, the founder and CEO of AE911Truth, and a member of the American Institute of Architects.

The organization’s conclusions are shared by hundreds of scientists; senior-level military, intelligence, and government officials; firefighters; pilots and aviation professionals; scholars and university professors; 9/11 survivors and family members; and media professionals around the world.

In 1986, Mr. Deets was awarded the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics by the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics. He became aware of the many problems with the official reports concerning 9/11, and began speaking publicly on this topic in 2007. He and his wife have been residents of Encinitas for the past six years.

This event is sponsored by the Toreros for Truth, a University of San Diego club with a purpose to promote, and in part to provide, the best in investigative reporting, scholarly research and public education regarding the suppressed realities of September 11th, its aftermath and exploitation for political ends.

Please forward this Press Release to any group or individual you think might be interested- this is a free event and open to the public.

Contact: Event information: Aaron Brown; Program content: Dwain Deets
Phone: Brown: 909-576-2800 Deets: 760-445-3242
Email: TorerosForTruth@gmail.com
Event Date: Wednesday, October 21, 12:00 p.m.


Source

Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied

October 9, 2009

Yesterday afternoon, Justice Edward Lehner of the State Supreme Court rubberstamped Referee Louis Crespo’s recommendation that the decision to establish a local commission to investigate the events of September 11th not be put before the voters on November 3rd.

After showing interest in weighing both sides’ arguments in the hearing, the Judge’s short decision gives no indication of having considered the arguments put forth in the Petitioners’ memorandum of law, nor any acknowledgement of the need for a new investigation, which the City of New York callously dismissed as “irrelevant”.

On a dark day for democracy, the patriotic call for answers by hundreds of 9/11 families, first responders and survivors has been stifled, and the will of the people of New York City once again denied.

Judge Lehner ruled that modifying the petition to make it “legally permissible” would result in it being “inconsistent with the law sought by the signatories of the Petition” despite the fact that all 80,000 signatories agreed by signing the Petition that “If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”

The deadline for inclusion on the ballot falls just before the election, making it possible to appeal Judge Lehner’s decision. NYC CAN is weighing all options and will make an announcement early next week on this issue, as well as on how it will be moving forward on other fronts. Regardless of the outcome in court, the quest for answers continues full throttle. This fight is only the beginning.

Source

The Official Version of 9/11

I found this comment on a Telegraph article about Charlie Sheen's questions to the President, and just had to re-post it.

***************************

Charlie Sheen will be viewed by history as a very brave individual...

The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this...

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah...

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes...

And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip...

Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely...

Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two... and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically - through their own mass - at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground... only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI...

…Meanwhile down in Washington...

Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing...

Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little...

Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building...

...all without a single shot being fired.... or ruining the nicely mowed lawn... and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video...

...Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania...

So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later...

And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants... except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana...

...Further south in Florida...

President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children... shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger...

...In New York...

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously...

While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination...

And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports...

Source

Media Pundits Back Away From 9/11 Debate With Sheen

Initial interest waned after Sheen insisted discussion must be moderated fairly

Charlie Sheen’s challenge to media pundits to debate him on the issues brought up in his “20 Minutes With The President” letter has not been met after several news outlets expressed interest in taking part but later backed off when it became clear that the discussion would have to be fairly moderated.

Bill O’Reilly was the only pundit to express an interest in debating Sheen but all has gone quiet on that front following Sheen’s request that the debate be properly presented with each side having equal time.

Earlier this month, appearing on The Alex Jones Show, Sheen responded to personal attacks by Meghan McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, by challenging them all to a debate on neutral ground regarding the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11.

Initially, CNN’s Larry King Live show was eager to host the debate but was shocked that it could find no one who would agree to go toe to toe with Sheen and his 20 bullet points on 9/11.

E mails forwarded to us by Sheen indicate that Bill O’Reilly was initially interested and that ABC’s Good Morning America was keen to broadcast the debate.

However, as soon as Sheen outlined rules that would ensure a fair environment to discuss the issues, O’Reilly and his representatives went cold and backed away from the challenge, according to Sheen.

But at least O’Reilly had the courage to respond, unlike every other debunker who attacked Sheen yet skulked away in a cowardly fashion when they were challenged.

“We’re not naked shouting from the top of a building ‘come debate us’, we’re just issuing a very calm and reasonable offer to just sit down in an open and fair debate forum and hash this thing out,” Sheen told The Alex Jones Show yesterday.

Sheen characterized O’Reilly’s brief interest in the debate as a “nibble” and added that an agreement has not been reached on the terms that were presented to the Fox News host’s representatives.

Sheen said that the reaction to his challenge was, “Inkeeping with how this very deceptive and dangerous machine operates.”

“As long as they’ve got the media under their control then this is the mountain that we must continue to climb,” he added.

Watch Sheen’s appearance on The Alex Jones Show yesterday below. E mails exchanged between Sheen, his representative, and Bill O’Reilly’s representative are reprinted at the end.




RELATED: Charlie Sheen’s Video Message to President Obama

RELATED: Twenty Minutes With The President

——————————————————————–

From: Charlie Sheen
Date: September 18, 2009 1:47:14 PM CDT
To: Stan Rosenfield
Cc: aaron@infowars.com
Subject: debate guidelines

I’ll agree to BO on his turf if the following rules are agreed upon:

1) If BO is going to have anyone on with him then we need ample warning, as well as the disclosure of who this person is.

2)If BO, adds more people to his debate team CS can include others as well, obviously revealed prior to the event.

3) Minimum 2 segments 5 min each, preferably 3 segments. Cannot cover all this ground in ONE segment.

4) Live broadcast.

5) 1 minute allotted to each side per issue or case point, no interruptions from either side during presentation of each specific point or argument.

6) No microphone silencing or commercial send-offs during CS’s allotted debate minute(s) per debate point. No other tactics of disruption, verbal or otherwise.

Look forward to your response – cs

——————————————————————————–

From: Mitchell, Ron
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:15 AM
To: Stan Rosenfield
Subject: RE: Sheen/O’Reilly

Good Morning America would love to do this. Seems like completely neutral ground. Please let me know ASAP, and we will start to make plans.

——————————————————————————–

From: Stan Rosenfield
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 3:38 PM
To: Mitchell, Ron
Subject: RE: Sheen/O’Reilly

OK

——————————————————————————–

From: Mitchell, Ron
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:34 PM
To: Stan Rosenfield
Subject: RE: Sheen/O’Reilly

Let me come up with some ideas. I don’t think that going on CNN would necessarily be an option, though! (Sheen’s idea on that radio show)

——————————————————————————–

From: Stan Rosenfield
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 3:19 PM
To: Mitchell, Ron
Subject: Sheen/O’Reilly

Ron,

l have spoken again with Charlie and has definite interest in speaking publically with Bill

regarding 9-11.

Although he has no problem in discussing this with Bill, we would prefer to do this on neutral turf.

Let me know your thoughts.

Stan

——————————————————————————–


Source

Don’t Just Remember 9/11… Uncover It

I remember discussing the events of 9/11 a few months after it happened with an acquaintance of mine who, at the time, would have been labeled as a “conspiracy theory” nut case.

I was polite while listening to him tell me that 9/11 was an inside job by our own government to dupe the American public into willingly allowing further erosion of our civil liberties in the pursuit of “terrorists” and to rally public sentiment to support an expansion of our military presence in the Middle East through invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

At the time, I thought he was delusional. I could not imagine our own government would do anything so nefarious to the American citizenry.

Well, as more and more scientific evidence continues to pile up, as more experts release their opinions, and as more and more very credible people who were in the buildings when it happened come forward to tell their stories about what they saw and heard before, during, and after the planes struck the Twin Towers, the more it appears that the entire truth of what happened on 9/11 has yet to be told.

Now, a very professional and credible documentary has been produced in Europe. It uncovers facts not previously released in the American mainstream media or mentioned in the “official” government investigation of 9/11.

On this the anniversary of 9/11, we should honor those who died by taking a real, hard look at what happened. Ask yourself what YOU believe is the truth. I’m interested to know what you think.

Here it is…

Please forward this blog to everyone you know — as I’m sure you will agree that EVERY American needs to see this.


Source

Informant says FBI threw away chance to catch alleged 9/11 plotter

A Lebanon-native who pretended to be an Islamic extremist at the behest of American authorities claims that the FBI took him off the trail of alleged 9/11 plotter Mohammed Atta right as a window of opportunity opened to catch him.

Were it not for the FBI’s action, the informant says he is “one million percent positive” the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks could have been prevented.

The claims are part of an ABC News report, set to air on Thursday’s editions of World News Tonight and Nightline.

An advance story published on ABC’s Web site notes:

[36-year-old Elie] Assaad, who posed as ‘Mohammed’ – a personal representative of Osama bin Laden, says he’s a “million percent positive” the 9/11 attacks could have been stopped if the FBI had gone after Atta and Shukrujumah. But because Atta and his men were suspicious of the FBI undercover operative, and secretive, Assaad says his FBI agent handlers sent him after the easier target – two wannabe terrorists whose cases were easy to crack and who were both eventually convicted and sent to prison.

“I was right, I was a hundred percent right,” Assaad says of his suspicions. He says that when he learned that Atta was one of the 9/11 hijackers, when the FBI asked if he could identify any of the attackers, he was “very upset, angry” and cried.

The network also notes criticism of Assaad by defense attorneys for men who they say he entrapped.

But the informant dismisses the knocks to his credibility. “When you are working undercover, your job is to lie,” he told ABC.

This video is from ABC’s Nightline, broadcast Sept. 10, 2009

Source

Fifty questions on 9/11

It's September 11 all over again - eight years on. The George W Bush administration is out. The "global war on terror" is still on, renamed "overseas contingency operations" by the Barack Obama administration. Obama's "new strategy" - a war escalation - is in play in AfPak. Osama bin Laden may be dead or not. "Al-Qaeda" remains a catch-all ghost entity. September 11 - the neo-cons' "new Pearl Harbor" - remains the darkest jigsaw puzzle of the young 21st century.

It's useless to expect US corporate media and the ruling elites' political operatives to call for a true, in-depth investigation into the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. Whitewash has been the norm. But even establishment highlight Dr Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski, a former national security advisor, has admitted to the US Senate that the post-9/11 "war on terror" is a "mythical historical narrative".

The following questions, some multi-part - and most totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission - are just the tip of the immense 9/11 iceberg. A hat tip goes to the indefatigable work of 911truth.org; whatreallyhappened.com; architects and engineers for 9/11 truth; the Italian documentary Zero: an investigation into 9/11; and Asia Times Online readers' e-mails.

None of these questions has been convincingly answered - according to the official narrative. It's up to US civil society to keep up the pressure. Eight years after the fact, one fundamental conclusion is imperative. The official narrative edifice of 9/11 is simply not acceptable.

Fifty questions

1) How come dead or not dead Osama bin Laden has not been formally indicted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as responsible for 9/11? Is it because the US government - as acknowledged by the FBI itself - has not produced a single conclusive piece of evidence?

2) How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours - without even a crime scene investigation?

3) How come none of the 19's names appeared on the passenger lists released the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?

4) How come eight names on the "original" FBI list happened to be found alive and living in different countries?

5) Why would pious jihadi Mohammed Atta leave a how-to-fly video manual, a uniform and his last will inside his bag knowing he was on a suicide mission?

6) Why did Mohammed Atta study flight simulation at Opa Locka, a hub of no less than six US Navy training bases?

7) How could Mohammed Atta's passport have been magically found buried among the Word Trade Center (WTC)'s debris when not a single flight recorder was found?

8) Who is in the possession of the "disappeared" eight indestructible black boxes on those four flights?

9) Considering multiple international red alerts about a possible terrorist attack inside the US - including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's infamous August 6, 2001, memo - how come four hijacked planes deviating from their computerized flight paths and disappearing from radar are allowed to fly around US airspace for more than an hour and a half - not to mention disabling all the elaborate Pentagon's defense systems in the process?

10) Why the secretary of the US Air Force James Roche did not try to intercept both planes hitting the WTC (only seven minutes away from McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey) as well as the Pentagon (only 10 minutes away from McGuire)? Roche had no less than 75 minutes to respond to the plane hitting the Pentagon.
11) Why did George W Bush continue to recite "My Pet Goat" in his Florida school and was not instantly absconded by the secret service?

12) How could Bush have seen the first plane crashing on WTC live - as he admitted? Did he have previous knowledge - or is he psychic?

13) Bush said that he and Andrew Card initially thought the first hit on the WTC was an accident with a small plane. How is that possible when the FAA as well as NORAD already knew this was about a hijacked plane?

14) What are the odds of transponders in four different planes be turned off almost simultaneously, in the same geographical area, very close to the nation's seat of power in Washington, and no one scrambles to contact the Pentagon or the media?

15) Could defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld explain why initial media reports said that there were no fighter jets available at Andrews Air Force Base and then change the reports that there were, but not on high alert?

16) Why was the DC Air National Guard in Washington AWOL on 9/11?

17) Why did combat jet fighters of the 305th Air Wing, McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey not intercept the second hijacked plane hitting the WTC, when they could have done it within seven minutes?

18) Why did none of the combat jet fighters of the 459th Aircraft Squadron at Andrews Air Force Base intercept the plane that hit the Pentagon, only 16 kilometers away? And since we're at it, why the Pentagon did not release the full video of the hit?

19) A number of very experienced airline pilots - including US ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a former fighter jet pilot - revealed that, well, only crack pilots could have performed such complex maneuvers on the hijacked jets, while others insisted they could only have been accomplished by remote control. Is it remotely believable that the hijackers were up to the task?

20) How come a substantial number of witnesses did swear seeing and hearing multiple explosions in both towers of the WTC?

21) How come a substantial number of reputed architects and engineers are adamant that the official narrative simply does not explain the largest structural collapse in recorded history (the Twin Towers) as well as the collapse of WTC building 7, which was not even hit by a jet?

22) According to Frank de Martini, WTC's construction manager, "We designed the building to resist the impact of one or more jetliners." The second plane nearly missed tower 1; most of the fuel burned in an explosion outside the tower. Yet this tower collapsed first, long before tower 2 that was "perforated" by the first hit. Jet fuel burned up fast - and by far did not reach the 2000-degree heat necessary to hurt the six tubular steel columns in the center of the tower - designed specifically to keep the towers from collapsing even if hit by a Boeing 707. A Boeing 707 used to carry more fuel than the Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 that actually hit the towers.

23) Why did Mayor Rudolph Giuliani instantly authorized the shipment of WTC rubble to China and India for recycling?

24) Why was metallic debris found no less than 13 kilometers from the crash site of the plane that went down in Pennsylvania? Was the plane in fact shot down - under vice president Dick Cheney's orders?

25) The Pipelineistan question. What did US ambassador Wendy Chamberlain talk about over the phone on October 10, 2001, with the oil minister of Pakistan? Was it to tell him that the 1990s-planned Unocal gas pipeline project, TAP (Turkmenistan/Afghanistan/ Pakistan), abandoned because of Taliban demands on transit fees, was now back in business? (Two months later, an agreement to build the pipeline was signed between the leaders of the three countries).

26) What is former Unocal lobbyist and former Bush pet Afghan Zalmay Khalilzad up to in Afghanistan?

27) How come former Pakistani foreign minister Niaz Niak said in mid-July 2001 that the US had already decided to strike against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban by October? The topic was discussed secretly at the July Group of Eight summit in Genoa, Italy, according to Pakistani diplomats.

28) How come US ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine told FBI agent John O'Neill in July 2001 to stop investigating al-Qaeda's financial operations - with O'Neill instantly moved to a security job at the WTC, where he died on 9/11?

29) Considering the very intimate relationship between the Taliban and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and the ISI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), is Bin Laden alive, dead or still a valuable asset of the ISI, the CIA or both?

30) Was Bin Laden admitted at the American hospital in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates on July 4, 2001, after flying from Quetta, Pakistan, and staying for treatment until July 11?

31) Did the Bin Laden group build the caves of Tora Bora in close cooperation with the CIA during the 1980s' anti-Soviet jihad?

32) How come General Tommy Franks knew for sure that Bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora in late November 2001?

33) Why did president Bill Clinton abort a hit on Bin Laden in October 1999? Why did then-Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf abort a covert ops in the same date? And why did Musharraf do the same thing again in August 2001?

34) Why did George W Bush dissolve the Bin Laden Task Force nine months before 9/11?

35) How come the (fake) Bin Laden home video - in which he "confesses" to being the perpetrator of 9/11 - released by the US on December 13, 2001, was found only two weeks after it was produced (on November 9); was it really found in Jalalabad (considering Northern Alliance and US troops had not even arrived there at the time); by whom; and how come the Pentagon was forced to release a new translation after the first (botched) one?

36) Why was ISI chief Lieutenant General Mahmud Ahmad abruptly "retired" on October 8, 2001, the day the US started bombing Afghanistan?

37) What was Ahmad up to in Washington exactly on the week of 9/11 (he arrived on September 4)? On the morning of 9/11, Ahmad was having breakfast on Capitol Hill with Bob Graham and Porter Goss, both later part of the 9/11 Commission, which simply refused to investigate two of its members. Ahmad had breakfast with Richard Armitage of the State Department on September 12 and 13 (when Pakistan negotiated its "cooperation" with the "war on terror") and met all the CIA and Pentagon top brass. On September 13, Musharraf announced he would send Ahmad to Afghanistan to demand to the Taliban the extradition of Bin Laden.
38) Who inside the ISI transferred US$100,000 to Mohammed Atta in the summer of 2001 - under orders of Ahmad himself, as Indian intelligence insists? Was it really ISI asset Omar Sheikh, Bin Laden's information technology specialist who later organized the slaying of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Karachi? So was the ISI directly linked to 9/11?

39) Did the FBI investigate the two shady characters who met Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi in Harry's Bar at the Helmsley Hotel in New York City on September 8, 2001?

40) What did director of Asian affairs at the State Department Christina Rocca and the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef discuss in their meeting in Islamabad in August 2001?

41) Did Washington know in advance that an "al-Qaeda" connection would kill Afghan nationalist commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, aka "The Lion of the Panjshir", only two days before 9/11? Massoud was fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda - helped by Russia and Iran. According to the Northern Alliance, Massoud was killed by an ISI-Taliban-al Qaeda axis. If still alive, he would never have allowed the US to rig a loya jirga (grand council) in Afghanistan and install a puppet, former CIA asset Hamid Karzai, as leader of the country.

42) Why did it take no less than four months before the name of Ramzi Binalshibh surfaced in the 9/11 context, considering the Yemeni was a roommate of Mohammed Atta in his apartment cell in Hamburg?

43) Is pathetic shoe-bomber Richard Reid an ISI asset?

44) Did then-Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence tell the CIA in 2001 that 25 terrorist pilots had been training for suicide missions?

45) When did the head of German intelligence, August Hanning, tell the CIA that terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft?"

46) When did Egyptian President Mubarak tell the CIA about an attack on the US with an "airplane stuffed with explosives?"

47) When did Israel's Mossad director Efraim Halevy tell the CIA about a possible attack on the US by "200 terrorists?"

48) Were the Taliban aware of the warning by a Bush administration official as early as February 2001 - "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs?"

49) Has Northrop-Grumman used Global Hawk technology - which allows to remotely control unmanned planes - in the war in Afghanistan since October 2001? Did it install Global Hawk in a commercial plane? Is Global Hawk available at all for commercial planes?

50) Would Cheney stand up and volunteer the detailed timeline of what he was really up to during the whole day on 9/11?


Source

9/11 Truth Signatories Stand By Call For New Investigation

Despite a concerted effort on behalf of the establishment media to portray 9/11 truth as a taboo subject in light of the resignation of Van Jones, a Salon.com investigation has found that the vast majority of original signatories to a petition calling for a new investigation into the events of 9/11 stand by their word.

Polls have consistently shown that a significant majority of Americans question the official 9/11 story and those concerns are shared by thousands of military leaders, current and former government officials, intelligence professionals, legal scholars, as well as scores of architects, scientists and engineers.

However, the fact that Van Jones recanted his support for a new investigation and was subsequently forced to resign enabled the media to manufacture a contrived perception that merely doubting the official story in any way was an embarrassing faux pas worthy of public ostracization.

In reality, as America marks the eighth anniversary since the tragic events of that day, support for 9/11 truth is as strong as ever and it’s firmly back at the forefront of public attention following Charlie Sheen’s letter and video message to Barack Obama demanding unanswered questions about the attacks be addressed.

“Salon contacted nearly 30 of the petition’s signatories to see if they felt, as did Lerner, Zinn and Jones, that the document didn’t reflect their views on 9/11. We asked a simple question: If you had to do it all over again, would you still sign the statement?”

“Salon has not heard back from two of the statement’s most famous signatories: actor Ed Asner and comedian Janeane Garofalo. (Editor’s Note: We will update this story if they respond.) But many did respond and most — though not all — expressed their full-fledged support for the petition,” according to the report.

The article quotes people such as Gray Brechin, historical geographer and visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley’s Department of Geography, who slams the chilling atmosphere that the establishment has attempted to generate around the subject.

“Have you contacted the widows and other family members who lost loved ones on that terrible day and asked them if they recant wondering why, for example, New York City and the Pentagon — the fucking Pentagon! — were defenseless on that morning more than a month after the would-be president was informed that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the United States?” asks Brechin. “Have you asked them if they are as disloyal, or as nuts, as Van Jones for signing that petition? Have you an answer for that and other questions on that petition, which were never discussed by the mainstream media when it piled on Jones at (Glenn) Beck’s behest?”

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University, told Salon that he would happily sign the petition again, stating, “Citizens in a democratic society deserve to know the truth, and to seek the truth in matters of such fundamental national importance should be treated as an expression of patriotic duty rather than the reverse.”

Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University, also restated his support for the petition, noting that the questions it contained have still not been answered to this day.

“First of all, the statement asks for a new inquiry into 9/11. That is hardly an insane demand, considering the many obstacles and limitations that prevented the 9/11 Commission from doing a proper job,” said Miller. “That body was deliberately enfeebled by Bush/Cheney: grossly underfunded ($3 million — while, for example, the budget for the study of the Challenger disaster was $50 million, and Whitewater cost over $40 million); granted no subpoena power; forced to rush the process; denied all sorts of vital information; and otherwise slowed down, fouled up, kept in the dark.”

“Witnesses employed by the USG were daunted openly by departmental colleagues who sat in on the hearings, ostentatiously, as “minders.” (”The Commission feels unanimously,” said Chairman Thomas Kean, “that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work with or works with your agency.”) And Bush/Cheney themselves refused to testify except in tandem, with a strict limit on their time, and their testimony given off the record and not under oath,” adds Miller.

“So how could anyone regard that body’s findings as definitive — even if those findings were not rife with logical and physical impossibilities, as well as glaring omissions?”

Miller concludes by saying that instead of vilifying “9/11 truthers,” the press should actually start examining the evidence itself.

Douglas Sturm, professor emeritus of religion and political science, Bucknell University, is another distinguished individual who stands by his support for a new investigation into 9/11.

“In direct response to your query, I in no way repudiate my action signing the 9/11 statement. It stands as an appeal to investigate closely and carefully a series of questions about that tragic event that have yet to receive fully satisfactory answers,” he told Salon.

Burns H. Weston, professor emeritus, University of Iowa law school, echoed similar sentiments, stating, “Yes, I would do it all over again. It is my position that too many critical questions have not yet been officially answered, if even investigated, and that, therefore, the jury is still out on the complete truth of 9/11.”


Source

Russia Today: “Stop the 9-11 cover-up”

American citizens are pounding the streets, still searching for answers because the official version of the 9/11events has failed to satisfy many people, and there are calls for a fresh investigation into the tragedy.

The push for another investigation into the 9/11 attacks grows larger with each passing year, particularly today when the US is commemorating the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which claimed almost three thousand lives.

Manuel Badillo’s uncle died when the Twin Towers came down. He believes the US leaders had prior knowledge of the impending attacks but consciously failed to act.

He asks, “Why was there no justice yet? Why is there no accountability?”

Badillo is among roughly 80,000 New Yorkers petitioning for a new, impartial, probe to answer the questions many believe state and federal officials are failing to address.

Manuel Badillo says, “The majority of family members do not believe the story. First responders do not believe what they were told by the government. All of this turned out to be lies, what we have been told. 60% of the commissioners do not believe the story they received.”

Critics say the 9/11 Commission Report, presented as the official version of events, failed to hold a single individual accountable for the numerous warnings leading up to, on and after September 11.

The NYC Coalition of Accountability Now (CAN) is an organization that is focused on getting a referendum during this November’s mayoral election, to allow New Yorkers the chance to vote for a new 9/11 investigation.

“It’s absolutely essential for the world, for the well-being of the world, that we understand why 9/11 occurred; who was behind it,” says Ted Walter, executive director of CAN. “Because if we have a false understanding, we’re going to be basing policies on that false understanding.”

Pressure’s even coming from the west coast – Hollywood actor Charlie Sheen has written a 15-page public letter to the president calling for another 9/11 inquiry.

But a move like Sheen’s can be quite a gamble in the domain of American public opinion. Just ask Van Jones, Obama’s former ‘green jobs tsar’. He stepped down because of hysteria over his support for and association with 9/11 truth-finders.

“Van Jones should have stuck to his feelings and to his democratic actions that he took, and his intuition, because the majority of Americans, the majority of New Yorkers, all the polls show it, know the government did not tell us the entire story about 9/11,” says Manuel Badillo.

Eight years ago all New Yorkers were standing shoulder-to-shoulder on the day nearly three thousand people perished from terrorist attacks. Now the citizens are standing on one side, police officers on the other, and many are asking for accountability, a demand from which these Americans refuse to back off.


Source

Charlie Sheen Demands Obama Reopen 9/11 Investigation In Video Message

Actor Charlie Sheen has followed up on his “20 Minutes With The President” letter by directly addressing President Obama in a You Tube clip to request he use his executive power to reopen the investigation into 9/11 and its aftermath.

On Tuesday, Sheen published a fictional account of a meeting with the President on radio talk show host Alex Jones’ Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com websites in which Obama was confronted about what Sheen alleges is a cover-up surrounding 9/11. In his letter, Sheen requests a real meeting with Barack Obama.

Now Sheen has taken his challenge a step further by appearing in a You Tube video that asks Obama to “be on the right side of history” by reopening an investigation into 9/11, while highlighting that the majority of the 9/11 Commission members have publicly dismissed the official government version of the attacks as a deception, with former Senator and Commission member Max Cleland labeling the government response to the Commission’s questions as “disgusting” and “a scam”.

Sheen highlights several issues in the video, including the unexplained collapse of WTC 7, a 47-story building that was not hit by a plane yet collapsed in free fall fashion into its own footprint within 7 seconds later in the afternoon on September 11. He also cites multiple reports from firefighters, police, first responders and others who were at ground zero and who all described explosions before the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7.

He also discusses how former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds broke her gag order to go public with the revelation that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were working with the U.S. government right up until the day of 9/11.

Sheen also demands to know why NORAD’s standard operating procedure was not followed on 9/11, allowing the hijacked jetliners to find their targets, asking, “Where were the planes?”

Sheen expresses his hope that President Obama has read his letter, adding, “We have questions Mr. President, lots of questions….people of the United States and the world demand the truth sir,” adding that Obama has the power and the responsibility to initiate “a truly independent Congressional investigation into the events of 9/11 as well as its aftermath.”

“We want our country back Mr. President, therefore I’m not just calling on you I’m calling on your team, I’m calling on each and every American citizen to wake up, stand up, and demand the truth,” states Sheen in the video.

Source

9/11 Training Exercise Planned for Simulated Plane Crash Five Minutes before Pentagon Attack Took Place

Five minutes before the Pentagon was hit on September 11, 2001, a training exercise being run by a US intelligence agency just over 20 miles from the Pentagon was set to include the scenario of a small private jet plane crashing into a building. It is unclear whether the scenario was played out, or if the exercise had been called off by that time.

Important details of the exercise, which was being conducted by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) at its headquarters in Chantilly, Virginia, are revealed in a document obtained by the 9/11 Commission. The document, titled “Early Morning Flight Activity September 11, 2001,” was part of a series of 9/11 Commission records moved to the US National Archives at the start of this year. It was found there, and posted online, by History Commons contributor paxvector.

Exercise Observers Meet at 9:00 a.m.

The NRO exercise, which had been planned for several months, was set to commence at 9:00 a.m. on September 11, when its observers would meet to be briefed. The observers and exercise role players were to move to their positions for the exercise 10 or 15 minutes later. In the exercise scenario, a Learjet 35A with two pilots and four passengers on board would take off at 9:30 a.m. from Washington Dulles International Airport. This airport, which is located four miles from the NRO headquarters, is where American Airlines Flight 77–the plane that reportedly hit the Pentagon–took off from earlier that morning.

About a minute after the Learjet took off, an explosion would be heard, and the pilot would complain that one of the engines was on fire and he was losing altitude. Around 9:32 a.m., the plane would crash into tower 4 at the NRO headquarters. Since the Pentagon was hit at 9:37 a.m., this means the crash in the scenario was scheduled to occur just five minutes before the actual attack occurred at the Pentagon, which is 24 miles away from the NRO headquarters.

Several People Killed and Injured in Scenario

The Associated Press has revealed that no real plane was going to be used in the exercise, and the crash was to be the result of mechanical failure, not terrorism. But the consequences of the simulated crash would be similar to those of the actual 9/11 attacks, albeit on a smaller scale. The newly released document describes the scene: “Various parts of the aircraft struck the outside portions of the building, spraying jet fuel. The final portions of the wreckage were scattered around the entryway between tower 1 and 2. Jet fuel was burning uncontrollably in the vicinity of the flagpoles. There are a number of injured and dead NRO employees.” Some stairwells and exits at the NRO headquarters were going to be closed off in order to simulate the damage from the crash, thereby forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate their building.

Exercise ‘Inputs’

The document reveals that the exercise was set to include numerous “inputs,” which appear to have been communications and other actions intended to make it appear more realistic to its participants.

Planned inputs included, at 9:30 a.m. a smoke generator was going to be started, to simulate the fire resulting from the crash. At 9:32, numerous phone calls would begin flooding in, from people reporting fires in various locations in the building. At 9:34, after someone reported that a small civilian jet had crashed, NRO personnel were to be instructed to evacuate their building.

At 9:37, the first engine from Fairfax County Fire Department was scheduled to arrive on the scene. (It is unclear whether real fire department personnel were going to participate in the exercise. The document states that “inputs from simulated Fairfax responders” were to be used “if Fairfax does not play.”) At 10:03, four more fire department trucks and emergency medical technician vehicles would respond to the crash. By 10:30 all the simulated fires would have been put out, but it would be confirmed that at least four NRO employees died in the crash. The exercise was set to end at 11:45 a.m.

Exercise Canceled

The exercise was reportedly called off in response to the morning’s real world attacks. However, the specific time when it was canceled is unclear. NRO spokesman Art Haubold has said only that “as soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise.” It is therefore unknown whether the simulated plane crash was played out, or whether the exercise had been brought to an end before it took place. After the exercise was canceled, all but the NRO’s most essential employees were sent home.

The Highly Secretive National Reconnaissance Office

The National Reconnaissance Office is a highly secretive organization. The New York Times called it “probably the most secretive of the intelligence agencies.” Until 1992, its existence had not even been officially disclosed. It is an agency of the US Department of Defense, and is responsible for ensuring “that the US has the technology and spaceborne and airborne assets needed to acquire intelligence worldwide.” According to the New York Times, the NRO “designs, builds, and operates spy satellites that photograph and overhear what other countries are up to.” It employs some 3,000 people, who are drawn from the CIA and the military.

Source

Former High-Ranking Intelligence Officer: Cheney Responsible for 9/11

David Steele is a former 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer.

Steele has previously written that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”.

This month, Steele went further, writing:

Pakistan briefed Cheney [about the plans for the terrorist attacks ahead of time] …nations also got wind of this and warned the CIA. We also had two walk-ins to the FBI, one in Orlando, one in Newark, that were dismissed by the FBI because the names were all virgins and not in the FBI data base—the arrogance of stupid bureaucracy.

Cheney saw an opportunity for what Bush called his trifecta, and gave it to him by giving the go-ahead to ISI and Al Qaeda, and ordering up a terrorism exercise that allowed him to send all relevant close-in air defense strip alert craft away from the target areas, and to disable the NORTHCOM normal response to flight path diversion.

While the details might be open to debate, many other very high-level intelligence officers have said the “official” explanation for 9/11 makes no sense. And see this and this.

Source

Between the Lies (2009) - full length film

Composed almost entirely of news broadcasts from 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13, this film shows the media lies that stuck with the public and more importantly, the truths that were quickly forgotten. Downloadable versions available below the fold.

http://www.archive.org/details/Between_the_Lies

HQ AVI (874MB):
http://www.archive.org/download/Between_the_Lies/between_the_lies_xvid_860kbps.avi...
mirror:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9ICEZATF

DVD image (4.1 GB):
http://www.archive.org/download/Between_the_Lies/between_the_lies_plus_extras.iso...

The DVD contains a chapter menu and three extras (NYC-CAN promo, 10 minute presentation about WTC7 and the trailer from 9/11: Press for Truth. The AVI file contains only the film.

Many thanks to Nate and Justin for getting this done.

Source

Susan Lindauer Reveals Facts about 9/11 Warning

Former Accused Iraqi Agent Reveals Facts about 9/11 Warning

By Michael Collins
Tuesday, 3 March 2009, 10:28 am

I first wrote about Susan Lindauer's struggle against the Bush-Cheney regime in October 2007, "American Cassandra: Susan Lindauer's Story." This was initially published in "Scoop" Independent Media (complete series) and carried by a wide variety of concerned Internet news sites and blogs. This interview follows the full dismissal of charges against her just before President Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009 . This is the first in depth interview that Lindauer has offered regarding 911. Below is part one of the interview.

I asked Ms. Lindauer to make her own statement about why she's willing to go into detail now about 911 and the governments handling of pre 911 intelligence.

"For five years, I was the poster child for President Bush's retaliation against Americans who opposed his War Policy in Iraq. In March, 2004 the Justice Department indicted me for acting as an "unregistered Iraqi Agent" (not espionage), because I delivered a prescient letter to my second cousin, Andy Card, former Chief of Staff to President Bush, warning of the dire consequences of War.

"More dangerously, I had decided to talk. In February, 2004 I approached the senior staff of Senators Trent Lott and John McCain and asked to testify in front of the new blue ribbon Presidential Commission on Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence. Within a month, I was astounded to wake up one morning to hear FBI agents pounding on the door of my house in Maryland with an arrest warrant.

"The indictment called me "Symbol Susan." It was a bizarre notation unsupported by any evidence or action in the indictment. It did however have one crucial purpose?to communicate a warning that anybody breaking ranks from the Bush White House should expect to be brutally crushed like I was.To speak the truth under President George Bush was the worst crime of all. It was treason.

'But what exactly was the U.S. government trying to hide?

"The answer is more far reaching than you would expect. In the first article of this series written and edited with the help of Michael Collins, we talk about the 9/11 warning that my team delivered to the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department in August, 2001.

"For those who think you've heard the whole story of 9/11, you might be surprised."

Susan Lindauer, March 1, 2009

Interview of Susan Lindauer by Michael Collins

Michael Collins: What confirmation can you provide that you actually warned about 9/11 several months before the attack?

Susan Lindauer: On June 17, 2008 the Court granted the Defense our first and only pre-trial evidentiary hearing in five years, which allowed my attorney to begin confirming that my relationships with my intelligence handlers were fully authentic and involved counter-terrorism.

Dr. Parke Godfrey, an associate professor of computer science at York University in Toronto, testified under oath that starting in the year 2000, and several times in the spring and summer of 2001, I warned him that we expected a major attack on the southern part of Manhattan, and that the attack would encompass the World Trade Center. Dr. Godfrey assured the Court that he had told the FBI about my 9/11 warning during a sit down interview in Toronto in September, 2004, which was jointly attended by a member of the Canadian Royal Mountie Police.

It's worth noting that Dr. Godfrey is a scientist and a precise, deliberate and methodical thinker, who chooses his words carefully.. In style, he's been compared to Dr. Spock of Star Trek fame. He does Leonard Nimoy proud. He would make an outstanding witness at any congressional hearing.

Quoting from his testimony in June 2008, he said that I told him, "A massive attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan that would involve airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon."

He testified that I told him "the attack would complete the cycle of the first bombing of the World Trade Center . It would finish what was started in the 1993 ( World Trade Center ) attack."

Dr. Godfrey testified that I first mentioned the possibility of an attack in the year 2000, which coincided with the Lockerbie Trial. Then throughout the spring and summer of 2001, I described the threat much more specifically as "involving airplanes" and the World Trade Center .

In August 2001, I told him the attack was "imminent."

He testified that I urged him to stay out of New York City .

Collins: What was your background that made it possible for you to issue this 9/11 warning?

Lindauer: Throughout the 1990s, the U.S. used me as a back-channel to Libyan and Iraqi officials at the United Nations, seeking to leverage my anti-sanctions and anti-war activism to establish contacts within nations under sanctions, in support of anti-terrorism goals.. I established contact with the Libyan Embassy in May, 1995, for the purpose of starting negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial. In that capacity, I met with Libyan diplomats approximately 150 times over the next eight years. I established contacts at the Iraqi Embassy in August, 1996. In addition to providing a back channel for terrorism intelligence from Baghdad , I conducted preliminary talks to resume the weapons inspections with Iraq 's Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Saeed Hasan, and other senior Iraqi officials. Our purpose was to guarantee that Iraq would agree to rigorous U.S. standards for transparency in the inspections process before the matter went to the U.N. Security Council.

It must be emphasized that all of my work was heavily supervised by handlers from the U.S. Intelligence Community. And most unusually, from our first meetings, Iraqi and Libyan diplomats fully understood my motivations to assist in facilitating an end to sanctions, and that I would function as a back channel to contacts tied to the United States government. We wanted diplomats to use me for that purpose. There was no deceit involved.

Collins: Who was your CIA handler?

Lindauer: Dr. Richard Fuisz (FUZE) is the most fascinating individual I have encountered in my life.

Dr. Fuisz was a major CIA operative in Syria and Lebanon in the 1980s. Dr. Fuisz coordinated the hostage rescue of Terry Anderson et al out of Beirut , Lebanon . His team located their make-shift prisons and called in the Delta Force for a daring raid. He testified before Congress about U.S. corporations that supplied Iraq with weapons systems before the first Gulf War. He got outed as CIA by Damascus after stealing the blueprints for Syria 's brand new telecommunications system.

Finally, Dr. Fuisz claims to know the real story of Lockerbie, including the identities of the terrorist masterminds, whom he insisted were not Libyan at all. It was he who suggested that somebody needed to approach Libya about the Lockerbie Trial. An individual who passionately opposed sanctions and recognized possible terrorist scenarios, he thought, would be ideal to start up the talks.

That was me. Despite my ordeal, I am extremely proud of our work together. I remain deeply grateful that Dr. Fuisz invited me to embark on this extraordinary adventure inside the most interesting Middle Eastern embassies at the United Nations. I loved every moment of it.

Collins: What first triggered your concern about a possible attack involving airplanes and the World Trade Center? How did Lockerbie figure into the 9/11 warning?

Lindauer: The Lockerbie Trial in the year 2000 got us thinking of what the next terrorist scenario would look like. The bombings of Pan Am 103 in December, 1988 and UTA (French airlines) in September, 1989 were the last attacks involving airplanes prior to September 11, 2001 . Our team worried openly that the Trial of the two accused Libyans would inspire a sort of "tribute attack" to the success of Lockerbie.

The problem is that while most Americans have refused to accept that Libya 's man, Mr. Megraghi was innocent of the crime, it happens to be true. And terrorists groups know that. They know very well who was responsible for planting the bomb on Pan Am 103, and they know that those individuals have never been brought to justice. Indeed, throughout the Trial, when the U.S. made such a poor showing of forensic evidence against the accused Libyans, that U.S. failure was gossip throughout the Middle East . As Dr. Fuisz used to say, terrorist groups thought that for all the mighty resources of U.S. Intelligence, the U.S. was either too stupid to catch them. Or we were afraid because the real terrorists are "too big."

Either of those beliefs stood to create a huge and irresistible provocation to the younger generation of jihadis. It was an easy step to anticipate that younger terrorists would be inspired to launch a tribute attack to the "heroes" who came before them. On that basis, we drew up an extreme threat scenario that the next major attack would most likely involve airplane hijackings or airplane bombings.

That is exactly what happened by the way. Back in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden called Ahmed Jibril "a hero" and "the greatest fighter against Israel who ever lived."

Sure enough, my own extensive sources in the Middle East have repeatedly told me that Ahmed Jibril was the true mastermind of Lockerbie. And so we find the 9/11 puzzle fits together exactly.

Collins: When did your concern jump from "hypothetical scenario" to the belief that an attack was actively being planned?

Lindauer: I remember it all vividly. In April, 2001 I received a summons to visit Dr. Fuisz at his office in Virginia . We met almost weekly anyway. On this occasion, he phoned my home and asked me to come right away. He also inquired how quickly I was making my next trip to New York to see the Embassies. He wanted to talk to me before I left, and he wanted me to go soon.

Of course I visited him immediately. Dr. Fuisz demanded that I must warn diplomats at the Iraqi and Libyan Missions that their nations would suffer a major military offensive if it was discovered that either had possessed intelligence about possible airplane attacks, and failed to notify the United States through my back channel.

I was reluctant to deliver such a harsh message. I have always been an anti-war activist. That's a major reason for my success in dealing with the Arabs, because they appreciate the consistency of my opposition to violence on both sides. So, on my next trip to New York , I soft pedaled Dr. Fuisz's warning. I requested that diplomats send messages to Baghdad and Tripoli seeking intelligence on possible airplane attacks. But I made no threats of violent reprisal against them.

When I got home to Washington , I met with Dr. Fuisz, who demanded to know how diplomats had responded to his threat. I had to admit that I had stopped short of actually threatening them. But I assured him that I had requested their cooperation.

At that point, Dr. Fuisz became enraged. As I recall, in all our years together, there was never any other time that he lost his temper and yelled at me. He stormed up and down the room. He demanded that I must return to New York immediately, and I must tell diplomats "the United States will bomb them into the Stone Age, worse than they've ever been bombed before, if they don't help us identify any terrorist conspiracies involving airplanes. They will lose everything. We will destroy them." He was not pacified until I promised to deliver that message exactly as he had communicated it. He expressed great satisfaction when I promised that I would make sure they understood the warning came from him, not me, backed by forces above him.

Dr. Fuisz was determined the Arabs should know the threat was deadly serious.

Right then I knew terrorists were actively plotting an attack. This was more than checking our trap lines, or putting out inquiries. Something was moving. Dr. Fuisz was firing back to stop cooperation.

Reinforcing that tension, throughout the summer of 2001, Dr. Fuisz continued to prod and push hard for any fragment of intelligence from Iraq or Libya involving airplane hijackings or airplane bombings. He urged me not to filter intelligence or test its accuracy before informing him. During numerous meetings, he tried to explain how urgently he needed to collect even fragments of intelligence, whether it appeared to make sense to me or not. He begged me to hold nothing back.

That's when I knew that something bigger was going on. Dr. Fuisz was already onto it. Again and again, our talks turned to airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings in a reprise of the 1993 World Trade Center attack. It sounds uncanny but we all understood exactly what was going to happen.

In turn, I shared those fears and dangers with other friends and family, including Dr. Parke Godfrey.

All of us took the danger very seriously. Our team was strong, proactive and fiercely protective of American security.

Collins: Ultimately, did Libya or Iraq provide any intelligence regarding the attack?

Lindauer: No, they did not. After the attack, it became clear that neither country could have been party to the conspiracy. Gadhaffi and bin Laden hated each other. Back in 1995, Libya was the first country in the world to warn Interpol about Osama, and urge an international warrant for his arrest. Saddam's government hated him, too. Baghdad considered Osama's extreme brand of Sunni fundamentalism to pose a serious destabilizing threat to Iraq 's moderate Sunni elite. Osama was a wrecking ball to Arab governments. They all despised him.

In fact, we pushed Iraq so hard for intelligence in the months before 9/11 that afterwards Iraqi diplomats aggressively challenged our U.S. claims of ignorance. A couple of diplomats put it to me bluntly: "Obviously you knew it was coming, because you kept telling us about it. So why didn't you stop it? Why didn't you do something before this, instead of blaming us now. You should be blaming yourselves."

No, even before the 9/11 attack, I deduced that Dr. Fuisz's advance intelligence was derived from an entirely different source. It just happened to be one I had not expected.

Collins: All right. Who did you warn about this attack?

Lindauer: By early August, 2001, our team was gravely concerned that an attack was "imminent."

When Robert Mueller was nominated to be Director of the FBI, we dallied with going to his confirmation hearings to put a buzz in the ears of congressional staffers about our fears.

Instead, Dr. Fuisz instructed me to telephone U. S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's office.

In mid-August, I phoned the staff of his private office at the Justice Department, which probably consists of about 20 people. Identifying myself as an asset covering Libya and Iraq , I made a formal request that his private office issue an emergency alert throughout the department for any fragment of intelligence pertaining to possible airplane hijackings or airplane bombings. I explained that we expected a major attack involving that scenario, and we urgently needed cooperation from all other agencies.

Ashcroft's office told me to contact the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department, and repeat what I had just told them. I did so immediately.

Collins: What happened after that?

Lindauer: I didn't stop there. Most Americans would be stunned to know that in mid-August, 2001, our team was so convinced a 9/11 style attack was imminent that I visited my second cousin, Andy Card at his house in Arlington, Virginia, so that we could warn him.

I parked on the street and waited in my car, chain smoking for almost two hours. Occasionally, I could see neighbors peering out of their windows. In my head, I rehearsed what I would tell the police if they showed up to investigate this strange car parked outside the house of the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States .

Unhappily, he did not return home, and I finally left without sharing our fears.

Driving away, I remember feeling that I was making the greatest mistake of my life. Throughout all these years, it is one of my few regrets.

Collins: Who appears to have been Dr. Fuisz's other source on 9/11?

Lindauer: Dr. Fuisz never formally revealed his source to me. But within about 30 minutes after airplanes struck the Twin Towers , he blurted something to me over the phone.

He told me the Israeli Mossad had advance warning about the attack. As I recall, he said it before the buildings collapsed.

He asked me if I thought it was "an accident that a man and woman happened to be waiting on the sidewalk with a video camera, ready to record the attack." He was highly agitated. He challenged me "how often a bystander has a camera cued up to record a car accident?"

Then he said, "Those are Israeli agents. It's not an accident. They knew this attack was coming. And they were waiting for it."

I was outraged and shocked by the images on the television. I shot back something to the effect of, "You mean, we've been looking for an attack all this time! And the Israelis knew about it? And they didn't tell us?" In retrospect, outside the passion of that particular moment, the Israelis may have told us much more than Richard Fuisz may have known.

Immediately the phone line cut dead between us.

I called him right back. Very calmly, he said, "Susan, we must never talk about that again."

There's a couple more details regarding this Mossad team with the video camera. Dr. Fuisz was able to announce their identities before the media publicized who they are. The attack was so new when he said it, that it seemed to me that he already knew about them.

I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

Collins: Thank you Ms. Lindauer. Part two of this series Susan Lindauer will describe the extraordinary efforts by the Justice Department to deceive U.S. Judge Michael Mukasey in the Southern District of New York of the authenticity of Ms. Lindauer's 9/11 warning.

Source

Remote In-Flight Course Changes Facilitated By 9/11 Model Aircraft Circa 2001

The capability to remotely transmit altered aircraft flight plan data via remote data link transmissions directly into Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft Flight Management Computers (FMCs) for use by aircraft auto-pilot functions, was technologically available circa 2001.

Developed in 1999 and technologically supported by the FANS-capable (Future Air Navigation System) Honeywell Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) for Boeing 757s and 767s by 2000, Dynamic Airborne Reroute Procedure (DARP) technology enables aircraft course changes via modified flight plan waypoints remotely transmitted and installed into aircraft FMCs by VHF or SATCOM (satellite communications) transmission uplinks.

"Dynamic Rerouting, meaning the ability of controllers ... to change a filed routing once the flight is in progress ... "The new flight plan with all new waypoints goes into the data link to the comm satellite and is then downlinked into the FMSes of the individual aircraft," ... "And 'Wow,' say all the old pilots, 'Untouched by human hands!'" ... Our [dispatch] computer uplinks a route into the FMS that is identified as 'Route 2.' [You're already flying 'Route 1.']" [1]

A January, 2002 description of the capabilities of the Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) for Boeing 757s and 767s:

""AOC (airline operations center) data link is an optional feature of the Pegasus FMC. This feature provides data link communication of ... route modifications ... directly into the FMC (flight management computer)."[2]

A May, 2000, explanation of the capabilities of the Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) for Boeing 757s and 767s:

"A route request may either be a route modified by the crew, or a route which has been sent to the airplane from the Airline Data System."[3]

"The route can be sent by airline operations directly to the ATC Facility via AIDC, for example, for review and uplink to the aircraft."[4]

"At the time of the airworthiness approval of the 757/767 (Pegasus ‘00) FANS 1 FMC, the operational requirements ... for providing ... Dynamic Airborne Route Planning (DARP) based on FANS 1 communication capability were not determined."[5]

June, 2001:

"Dynamic rerouting (DARP) is not fully operational - Technology is available."[6]

The May, 2000, description of the capabilities of the Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) for Boeing 757s and 767s continues:

"Three independent VHF systems (radios and antennas) are installed on the airplane to provide line of sight voice and data communication."[7]

"Satellite communications (SATCOM) may be provided for remote communications where terrestrial contact is unavailable, or by airline policy regardless of the state of other communication capabilities."[8]


The May, 2000, description of the capabilities of the Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) for Boeing 757s and 767s continues:

"The FMC has the capability to store 2 routes, designated as route 1 and route 2. The route which defines the flight plan along which the airplane is to be flown is the active route."[9]

A Federal Aviation Administration publication description of the capability to remotely modify active flight plans already being executed by certain aircraft Flight Management Systems:

"Planned Airborne Re-route Procedure – DARP (Data link Aircraft): AOC (airline operations center) will plan the re-route and uplink the route to the aircraft, commencing from the waypoint on the current route, ahead of the Aircraft and finishing at destination. Note: Some Flight Management Systems allow AOC uplinks to the Active Route. It is recommended that all AOC route uplinks are directed to the Inactive Route."[10]


Honeywell and Rockwell Collins flight management systems are common to the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft and certified for use in 1996 and 1998 and in 2000 via retrofit:

"The Honeywell "Pegasus" flight management system earned its first FAA certifications March on the Boeing 757, 767 ... Airlines get FANS-1/FANS-A capability ... FANS-1 ... allows operators to obtain more economical routings and to utilize satellite navigation."[11]

"Rockwell's Collins Commercial Avionics, based in Cedar Rapids, has made major announcements of the selection of its Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR) landing system by two of the world's leading aircraft manufacturers, Airbus and Boeing ... Subsequent certifications are planned for Boeing's ... 757 and 767 ... The Multi-Mode Receiver ... expands capabilities required by the air transport industry as the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is phased into operation."[12]

"Operators of 757s and 767s may also choose to upgrade to the recently certified Future Air Navigation System (FANS) FMC (Pegasus), which is Y2K-ready and available. Service bulletins for the 757 and 767 FANS retrofit will be issued upon operator request."[13]


Boeing 757s and 767s containing such Flight Management Computers and Multi-mode Receivers, can precisely self-navigate entirely under augmented GPS-guided autopilot control, to destinations still out of sight and along routes that reportedly never vary more than 18 meters.

"Guided entirely by autopilot, an Air China Boeing 757 jet last month snaked along a narrow river valley between towering Himalayan peaks ... the airplane automatically followed the twists of the valley, descending on a precisely plotted highway in the sky toward a runway still out of sight ... Using global-positioning satellites and on-board instruments, Naverus' navigation technology pinpoints the location of a fast-moving jet to within yards ... "You're watching the whole thing unfold. The airplane is turning, going where it's supposed to go ... it's all automatic.""[14]

"For this RNP approach in Tibet, an Air China Boeing 757 was relying on dual GPS receivers, flight path computers and inertial reference systems ... the aircraft we are on is equipped with Honeywell Pegasus flight management systems and Rockwell Collins multi-mode receivers."[15]

Augmented GPS service activated in August 2000 supports extremely narrow navigation corridors:

"Precise satellite-guided flight paths look like discrete pipelines ... never vary more than 18 meters - half the wingspan of a Boeing 737."[16]

Augmented GPS service (Wide Area Augmentation System or WAAS) activated in August, 2000 supports aircraft navigation corridors as narrow as 243 feet and a 95% rate of aircraft containment.

"August 24, 2000 - WASHINGTON, DC — After a successful 21-day stability test of the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) signal in space, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) declared that it is now available."[17]

"WAAS also supports required navigation performance (RNP) operations, says Raytheon, providing a precision navigation capability down to RNP 0.02 (an accuracy of 0.02nm)."[18]

1 nautical mile = 6,076 feet

RNP 0.02 = RNP (0.02 nautical mile radius) x 2 = RNP (121.5 foot radius) x 2 = a 243 foot wide corridor.

RNP .02 / Boeing 767-200 / World Trade Center Tower

"Accuracy and integrity are expressed in terms of nautical miles and represent a containment radius of a circle centered around the computed FMC position where there is a defined containment probability level of the actual aircraft being inside the containment radius. For accuracy the containment probability level is 95%."[19]


On May 1, 2000 - 16 months prior September 11, 2001 - President Clinton announced that intentionally introduced position and timing errors in GPS data (Selective Availability or SA) would end. SA was implemented to deter abuse of GPS in the national security interest.

"Today, I am pleased to announce that the United States will stop the intentional degradation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) signals available to the public beginning at midnight tonight. We call this degradation feature Selective Availability (SA). This will mean that civilian users of GPS will be able to pinpoint locations up to ten times more accurately than they do now ... My decision to discontinue SA was based upon a recommendation by the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Departments of State, Transportation, Commerce, the Director of Central Intelligence, and other Executive Branch Departments and Agencies.""[20]

References:

[1] FANS: Where Is It for Business Aviation? http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=...

[2] 767 Flight Deck and Avionics - January 2002, Page 123 http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/boeing/B767/misc/0001/

[3] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 41 (Boeing, May 12, 2000) http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf

[4] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 41 (Boeing, May 12, 2000) http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf

[5] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 3 (Boeing, May 12, 2000) http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf

[6] FANS Implementation in South Pacific (June, 2001) www.cena.fr/pages/1actu/atmrd/6lun18_06.pdf

[7] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 49 (Boeing, May 12, 2000) http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf

[8] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 50 (Boeing, May 12, 2000) http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf

[9] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 50 (Boeing, May 12, 2000) http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf

[10] THE TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING OF THE INFORMAL PACIFIC ATC COORDINATING GROUP (November 2007) http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/.../documents/IPACG/IPACG27/WP11_DAR...

[11] HONEYWELL ANNOUNCES ORDERS FOR NEW-GENERATION "PEGASUS" FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SEPT. 7, 1998) http://www.aviationnow.com/shownews/farnday1/pressr15.htm

[12] Rockwell's Collins Landing System Picked for Both Airbus and Boeing Planes (September 6, 1996) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18652301.html

[13] Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure (Boeing) http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_03/sy/sy01/story.html

[14] Kent company bringing a navigation revolution http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003316294_nave...

[15] Air China's First RNP Approach Into Linzhi Airport, Tibet http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id...

[16] A fuel-saving flight plan http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0807/gallery.copeland_naveru...

[17] AMENDED VERSION: Wide Area Augmentation System Signal Now Available http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=5249

[18]UPS wins FAA certification for wide-area GPS receiver http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2003/01/07/159964/ups-wins-faa-cert...

[19] RNP Capability of FANS 1 FMCS Equipped 757/767 http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/reference/documents/RNP757767.pdf

[20] STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT REGARDING THE UNITED STATES' DECISION TO STOP DEGRADING GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM ACCURACY http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FGCS/info/sans_SA/docs/statement.html

Source