Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots

by Jim Fetzer(with Preston James)

One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known… nothing of significance, that is.– E. Martin Schotz, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996)

North Tower destruction on 9/11
9/11 appears to have been a classic “false flag” operation in which an attack is planned by one source but blamed upon another.  In this case, the evidence suggests neo-cons in the Department of Defense and their allies in the Mossad were actually responsible for the execution of the atrocities of 9/11.  That story was buried, however, in a surfeit of alternative explanations for which the evidence was far more tenuous but which were of much greater political utility.  And in each case, qualified experts uncovered evidence that induced sincere but false beliefs that they were “the real deal”.

The situation encountered with regard to 9/11 turns out to be far more sophisticated than the efforts that were made to divert attention from the conspirators in the case of the assassination of JFK, where “Track #1”, as we might call it, implicated Lee Harvey Oswald as “the lone assassin”.  Track #2 suggested that he working for Fidel Castro and that Cuba had done it.  Track #3 was redirected domestically to encompass the mob, while Track #4 targeted the Soviet Union.  But these were superficial distractions for which most of the evidence was flimsy and inconclusive. 9/11 presents a greater challenge to unpack, because in this case, planted evidence was more extensive and appeared to be real.

Deep black covert operations, of course, are by their very nature shrouded in layers of secrecy, protected by the “need to know” and sensitive compartmented information (SCI).  Since WWII, however, major covert operations have become increasingly sophisticated and new models have been developed which take full advantage of the extensive national security laws and practices guaranteed under the National Security Acts of 1947 and 1952. The experts who create these plots are specialists in PSYOPS, which entails accessing, stimulating and manipulating the subconscious minds of the target population as a single unit in order to create beliefs and instill motivations in the public mind that are necessary to support of their actions but would normally be viewed as unacceptable.

When basic primal survival fears are activated in the “group mind” of the masses, this fear induces the motivation for a population to willingly give up their rights and liberty even for merely the promise of more protection from the boogeymen.  This principle is the basis for successful PSYOPS. The use of multi-track intermeshed, deep-black covert operations also creates massive cognitive dissonance among federal investigators, private researchers and the public, which typically eventually results in folks abandoning the issue and going away in “quiet desperation”,  which is the actual intended result of those who plan and activate them. This is related to Maslow's "hierarchy of needs".

Deep Black/False Flag Ops

The “shroud of secrecy” they afford provides perfect cover to plan and carry out these sophisticated multi-track deep black covert operations and keep them secret–even from those operatives who are involved as well as the government’s own agents who do the investigations.  The “national security” cover can be dropped on any matter that is at risk of being disclosed to the public and then can be invoked again at any time.  Thus, alphabets who discover what really happened can be silenced and the media can be gagged with the delivery of a “national security letter”.

One of the greatest advances in deep black, false flag/stand-down covert operations has been the development of a new, more complex design, best referred to as “multi-track, enmeshed”.  This involves using a complicated design with independent covert operations, each of which could individually do the job if they were actually “taken live”.  These operations, however, are designed to be enmeshed at the nexus of the actual target, at which point some are de-activated and one or more taken live.

This can completely confound even the most seasoned investigators, thus creating so much conflict among researchers that these emergent conflicts between them provide the best cover possible for what was actually done and how it was done.  Multi-track and interwoven deep black covert operations are therefore designed from the very start to obfuscate the actual operation that is selected and taken live, thereby denying most intel and government officials as well as the public any real knowledge of the actual operational purpose and information about the covert operation or why a particular covert operation was taken live as the predominant op.

As an illustration, when we attempt to peel the 9/11 onion, we discover there are at least five different alternative theories for which evidence has emerged, where each of them has sincere supporters who falsely believe that they have found critical evidence about that happened on 9/11. Each of these is actually one plot of many plots, which were deliberately contrived to creating sufficient confusion that everything about 9/11 turns out to be believable and nothing is knowable.  Such deep black covert op designs can thereby provide sufficient “after the fact” cover to keep the truth buried in confusion forever.

Palestinians Did It

Cover Story #1: Palestinians Did It!  Efforts were being made before the Twin Towers were destroyed to imply Palestinian responsibility for commandeering those planes and committing those crimes, which may have taken the lives of as many as 3,000 citizens and employees.  Those who were watching closely saw archival footage of Palestinians rejoicing on a festive occasion being broadcast as though it were contemporaneous to convey the impression—meant to be indelible—that the Palestinian people had taken pleasure at inflicting misery on America.

An early report from CNN even asserted that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility for 9/11—and that was before Flight 175 had hit the South Tower!  So during that brief interval between the first hit on the North Tower at 8:46:40 and the second on the South Tower at 9:03:11, a propaganda operation to implicate the Palestinians was well under way.  The immediate availability of this report and video footage indicates the direction in which responsibility for these attacks was originally intended to be cast.

And that might have become the official cover story, were it not for observant residents near Liberty State Park in New Jersey who watched as five young men, dressed in Arab garb, filmed the destruction of the Twin Towers, cheering and celebrating, which came across as odd behavior, under the circumstances. When they were apprehended in a white van from Urban Moving Systems, the driver would inform the arresting officer that they were not the problem: “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.”

They were found to have $4,700 in cash, box cutters, and foreign passports in their possession.  Urban Moving Systems would subsequently be identified as a Mossad front.  After 71 days of incarceration, the Dancing Israelis would be released and return to Israel, where three of them would go on TV there and explain that their purpose had been to document the destruction of the Twin Towers.  Once they had been arrested, however, the story was quietly dropped. It was just too revealing that Israel had been profoundly involved in the events of 9/11.

Arab Hijackers Did It

Cover Story #2:  19 Arab Hijackers Did It.  If these attacks could not be blamed on the Palestinians without revealing Israeli complicity, the fall back was effortless.  We know “the official account”—that nineteen Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial carriers, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan.  It would turn out that 15 of the 19 alleged terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and none were from Iraq.
But that would not matter in the grand scheme of things, where Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would push 9/11 as a justification for attacking Iraq.  Not only was the public being fed false information about weapons of mass destruction and collusion with al Qaeda, but the national press was oblivious to the obvious question that remained unaddressed by government officials or the main stream media:  If 15 of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the UAE, one from Lebanon and Egypt, then why were we attacking Iraq?

Osama bin Laden with al Qaeda
Even our own FBI would eventually acknowledge that it had no “hard evidence” that Osama bin Laden had had anything to do with 9/11. But the range of evidence that exonerates al Qaeda and implicates the Bush/Cheney administration in these crimes has become as broad as it is deep.  Elias Davidsson, for example, has shown that the US government had never produced evidence that the alleged (Muslim) “hijackers” were even aboard those four planes. David Ray Griffin, the leading expert on 9/11 in the world today, has shown that the alleged phone calls from those planes were faked, where even our own FBI has confirmed that Barbara Olsen never spoke to her husband, Ted.

Leslie Raphael has offered reason after reason for concluding that the Jules Naudet film was staged. The evidence that no planes crashed in Shanksville or hit the Pentagon is beyond reasonable doubt, where others have shown that the videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower are fake, which may have been a brilliant stroke to generate dissension within the 9/11 Truth movement, since the truth of video fakery has proven to be politically divisive. The scientific evidence disproving the official account is also abundant and compelling. Given what we know now, anyone who continues to believe the “official account” of 9/11 is either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired.

Pakistan/Turkey/Saudi Arabia

Pakistani General Mahmoud Ahmed
Cover Story #3.  The Pakistanis Did It. This track was based upon the supposition that well-financed Pakistani intel were able to buy expensive “K Street” lobbyists and gain influence with high officials in the government and Department of Defense, who had much to gain from a “staged terror attack” such as 9/11. It was the next layer of the onion to be peeled when and if the Arab hijackers story wouldn’t work any longer and  was initiated by the revelation that Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, had wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, allegedly the lead hijacker, at the direction General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). As Michael Meecher has observed, it is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count.  It certainly raises the prospect that the ISI was deeply involved and possibly responsible for the events of 9/11. Even if it were true, however, it cannot begin to account for the causal nexus that brought about 9/11 or identify those who were “pulling the strings”.

“Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers,” Meecher writes, “was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to “retire” by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn’t the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?”  Although a number of reasons have been advanced for not taking this story seriously, Meecher mentions  a number of sources who have information that might or might not implicate the ISI and expose those who were behind 9/11, the most important of whom appears to be former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, who has recently been speaking out.

Edmonds, a 33-year-old Turkish-American linguist, who is fluent in both Turkish and Azerbaijani, has tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. While Sibel has been under gag orders forbidding her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or of the countries involved, she has said. “My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information … if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] … and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up”.

Revelations claimed to emerge from her case have been described as being explosive, including “that foreign operatives who were working in the translation department been tried to recruit her for their operations; that there exists a nuclear spy ring aided and abetted by high ranking US government officials who have been selling America’s nuclear secrets on the black market; that foreign language intelligence directly pertaining to 9/11 was deliberately withheld from FBI agents in the field; that Osama bin Laden had an ‘intimate relationship’ with the United Stages government right up until 9/11.” While most of this is probably true, the theory of the case that she appears to imply—that Turkey (with assistance from actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia) had been using Bin Laden and the Taliban as a proxy terrorist army to promote its own agenda—may be true in its own right, but based upon the totality of what we know now, does not begin to approach an explanation for the stand-down by NORAD, for example, or of how the demolitions were situated or the post-attack cover-ups.

The US “Let it Happen”

Cover Story #4: It was allowed to happen.  The distinction between “LIHOP” (let it happen on purpose) and “MIHOP“ (made it happen on purpose) has been powerfully reinforced by the “Able Danger” contretemps. As a highly classified, anti-terrorist intelligence operation, Able Danger fell under Special Operations (SOCOM) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) control. When claims arose that the US had had advanced knowledge of 9/11 and had allowed it to happen, a 16-month investigation by the Senate Intelligence committee reported in December 2006 that there had been no knowledge of the 9/11 attacks by US authorities.

The evidence, however, indicates that was not the case—and, indeed, that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated and staged by elements within the Department of Defense with help from their friends in the Mossad.  As the 10th observance of 9/11 approaches, we know that there were a minimum of two independent deep cover covert operations which were operating on dual track, parallel and also interwoven.  The first one was the creation and tracking—principally by the Mossad—of some “low tech” terrorist cells, which were set up, financed, and trained by US and other intelligence agencies.

Coleen Rowley (center)
“Able Danger” discovered this low-tech terror cell sub-track, which we can call “Track A”.  The operation was designed to be discovered to create false cover, so that when 9/11 succeeded, it could be shown by information discovered by a bona fide intelligence group that this terror cell was responsible. That would be the role played by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, other members of the “Able Danger” team, and Coleen Rowley of the FBI in Minneapolis.  Track A, however, was designed to be discovered and then the investigation stopped, creating the image of high-level US incompetence that had allowed this terror cell to succeed in hijacking aircraft with box-cutters and then flying those aircraft into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

When the folks from “Able Danger” swear that they uncovered “a real terrorist cell plot”, they are telling the truth.  It was set up this way as a false track.  When Coleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not obtain a search warrant for the hard drive of Zacarias Moussaui because he was involved in this terror cell, she was telling the truth.  But Track A was set up as a false track to be terminated before the 9/11 attacks to provide a convincing cover story for the highest levels of US intelligence and make the government appear to be merely hugely incompetent.  After all, how could government officials of this incompetence have staged a successful and effective covert operation?

The US “Made it Happen”

Actual Story: The US “Made it Happen”. Track B, by comparison, was a high-tech track designed to use readiness exercises on 9/11, including some 17 anti-terrorist drills on 9/11 that disrupted communication and coordination between NORAD and the FAA, by taking some of them live and substituting high-tech weapons in order to target the Twin Towers and the Pentagon by that means. Track B involved the use of numerous different demolition means, including incendiaries and multiple modes of destruction, most of which alone would be insufficient cause for the detonation of the Twin Towers, which was arguably used to induce false leads confusing investigators and researchers.

A perfect example turns out to be the “hard science” 9/11 Truth group’s insistence that nanothermite was the principal element used in the demolition of the Twin Towers.  This position, which has assumed a status akin to that of a dogma within the 9/11 movement, turns out to be unsustainable in light of research that has established that nanothermite is non-explosive—or, at best, a feeble explosive—and cannot have been responsible for blowing the towers apart, for ejecting massive steel assemblies hundreds of feet, or for the pulverization of concrete or the destruction of steel by means of shockwaves.  To a bona fide explosives expert, the claim that nanothermite provided the explosive energy or enough shockwave velocity to perform these tasks had to be an obvious deception.  If it was deliberately planted to divert research on 9/11 along an ultimately unproductive line, it may have succeeded beyond the wildest intel dreams as a classic “red herring”.

The clear, green Pentagon lawn: Where's the plane?
Another example, surprisingly, is the Pentagon attack, where some of those within the 9/11 community have argued strenuously for not going there, because the Department of Defense might spring a new video on the public that proves a Boeing 757 actually did hit the building.  The evidence contradicting that contention is abundant and compelling, however, including the expert assessment of Major General Albert N. Stubblebine, USA (ret.),  perhaps the world’s leading expert on image analysis and interpretation, who has concluded that no plane hit the Pentagon. When you take all the evidence into account, the case against a plane is staggering, but internal dissension has precluding using it— and other powerful proofs of governmental fakery —and has taken this evidence out of the public domain:

“From the photographs I have analyzed very, very carefully,” Stubblebine has explained, “it was not an airplane.” During an interview in Germany, he explained that there should have been wing marks on the fa├žade of the Pentagon.  “If it had wings, it would have left wing marks.  [There are] those who claim that the plane tilted and hit the ground first and lost a wing.  But airplanes have two wings, and he could not find indications of any wing in any of those photographs.”  Regarding the Twin Towers, he added, “Look at the buildings falling—they didn”t fall down because of an airplane hit them. They fell down because explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God’s sake.”

Whistleblowing as Deception

The politics of 9/11, however, are far more murky than the science. So when folks from Able Danger swear that they uncovered a real terror cell plot, they are telling the truth.  It was set up this way as a false track.  When a Colleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not get a search warrant for Moussaui’s hard-drive because he was involved in this terror cell, she is telling the truth.  When a Sibel Edmonds is gagged by court order and tries to tell how certain how administration officials were communicating with this terror cell, she is telling the truth.  Indeed, the effort to mislead our own experts even extended to Richard Clarke, who has explained that he himself had been given the false impression that, apart from a few analysts, the CIA had been unaware of what was going on prior to 9/11, which was intended to support the theory of US incompetence.

Clarke, who was the nation’s leading anti-terrorism expert, recently observed, “It’s not as I originally thought, which was that one lonely CIA analyst got this information and didn’t somehow recognize the significance of it,” Clarke said during an interview. “No, fifty, 5-0, CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew these guys were in the country was the CIA director. … We therefore conclude that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information. … It is also possible, as some FBI investigators suspect, the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence in order to get around that restriction … These are only theories about the CIA’s failures to communicate vital information to the bureau … Perhaps the agency decided that Saudi intelligence would have a better chance of recruiting these men than the Americans. That would leave no CIA fingerprints on the operation as well.”

Indeed, as Ian Henshall has observed, if you substitute the Mossad for the Saudis, you have the explanation for the dancing Israelis, who were apprehended for filming and celebrating during the destruction of the Twin Towers and were released later under orders from Michael Chertoff, then an advisor Attorney General John Ashcroft and a dual US-Israel citizen, who would become Director of the new Department of Homeland Security—which leads directly to reports like those from Dr. Steve Pieczenik that 9/11 was indeed “an inside job” and studies like those from Alan Sabrosky, Ph.D., who has explain that 9/11 involved complicity between neo-con Zionists in the Department of Defense and the Mossad, where Israel had very powerful motives for 9/11 and, along with the Bush/Cheney administration, has been its primary beneficiary.

But Israel cannot have done this alone.  The NORAD “stand down” and the attack on the Pentagon required complicity at the highest levels of the Department of Defense. And the benefits to the Bush/Cheney administration have likewise been enormous. As Patrick Martin has observed, “Without 9/11, there would be no US occupation of Iraq, putting an American army squarely at the center of the world’s largest pool of oil. Without 9/11, there would be no US bases across Central Asia, guarding the second largest source of oil and gas. And without 9/11, the Bush administration would have been unable to sustain itself politically, faced with a deteriorating economy and widespread opposition to its tax cuts for millionaires and social measures to appease the fundamentalist Christian Right.”

The Fourth Reich

Indeed, the extreme motivation of a small number of radical Israelis and their lobbies like AIPAC to manipulate US foreign policy in the Mideast may have created a huge future trap for them in their role as “classic cutouts”, which can be later exposed in a limited hangout admission in order to direct blame toward the Mossad and the small number of radical Jews involved, who do not represent most Jewish folks at all, thus directing blame away from from those who used them in their cutout role and who were actually at the top of the command structure. This limited hangout disclosure could then later be used to blame all Jews and add them to the large and growing Homeland Security watch-list list of possible domestic terrorists such as Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, returning veterans, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists and tax protestors, and member of any current social group that is trying to gain exposure and cessation of rampant government corruption and creeping tyranny of the government at all levels, which of course encompasses those dedicated to 9/11 Truth.

Richard Clarke, anti-terrorism czar
It does not take a PSYOPS expert to discern the pattern here when Richard Clarke resuscitates the incompetence theory, according to which the US “let 9/11 happen”. Even on the assumption that he is sincere, we have a fall-back position intended to minimize concern for complicity by the Bush/Cheney administration and its friends in the Mossad—who, moreover, do not necessarily represent the highest level of control over the atrocities of 9/11.  Because Clarke was in the crucial position of being the nation’s anti-terrorism czar, his affirmations about incompetence between agencies, such as the CIA and the FBI, come across to the public and can be widely promoted as admirable and courageous acts of whistle blowing, when their role in deceiving the public drowns amidst the anguish and concern that “if only we had done better” and “we must not let this happen again”, oblivious of the role that his reports are playing in burying the truth about 9/11.

We have now reached the point in America where any citizen or group wanting to obtain needed social justice, or the cessation of undeclared, unprovoked, and unConstitutional wars, in violation of international law and the UN Charter, are now placed on a secret watch list and considered as “potential domestic terrorists” by Homeland Security, which some—with ample justification—view as “The New American Gestapo.”  If the US has been hijacked by offshore corporate and banking interests, which have their own anti-American agenda and are now in the process of Nazifying America, as some astute researchers have suggested, then certainly this could lead to a “Fourth Reich” run by offshore banks and large international corporations and we could see a replay of the unlimited persecution of minorities and special scapegoats such as specific groups such as Muslims, Jews and Christians who dissent from The New Tyranny.

So if you have wondered why covert operations like 9/11 are so difficult to unravel or why it is all but impossible to convince the feds who investigated it that this was actually a US false flag/stand-down/inside-job, deep-black covert operation, the answer to that question appears to be that the plan was designed from conception to obfuscate what happened, not only regarding the public but also the government’s own experts, who would be assigned to investigate them—and even to keep most of those who had an actual part in those operations in the dark, so only those at the highest levels of the government knew what happened and,  even among them, only a few probably knew the full dimensions of the plan.  The objective throughout, accordingly, has always been to keep the public in a state of uncertainly, where everything about these events is believable and nothing is knowable—which is the ultimate objective of disinformation.

Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, is a former Marine Corps officer and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Preston James is the pseudonym of a Ph.D. in social psychology, who has become an expert on psy-ops, “false flag” and covert operations by the US government. 

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

9/11 J'accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and O'Brien

by Jim Fetzer

As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (2005), the editor of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), the chair of the Madison conference (2007) and the co-chair of The Vancouver Hearings (2011), it has been astonishing to me to discover that the atrocities of 9/11 were not simply allowed to happen but come closer to having been produced as a Hollywood- style spectacle, with phantom flights, faked phone calls, and fabricated crash sites. 

Anyone who wants to continue in a state of naive belief in their government as a nurturing institution that is dedicated to the best interests of the American people and to promoting their welfare should read no further, because 9/11 appears to have been a national security event that was approved at the highest levels of the Bush/Cheney administration, including the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA and The White House itself. When consideration is given the the totality of the evidence, no alternative explanation is reasonable.

For those who find this difficult to believe, check out “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job” by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, who undertook the systematic study of reports from Willie Rodriquez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and reported that an enormous explosion had taken place in the subbasements even before there were any effects from the impact of a plane. They used very precise seismic data from a lab run by Columbia University and compared it with very precise FAA and military radar data and discovered that he was right: there had been explosions in the subbasements of both towers, which occurred 14 and 17 seconds prior to the hits of those planes on either tower.

But this is only the tip of an enormous iceberg, which we can now seen encompasses the faking of the major events of 9/11, including the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, the hit by Flight 77 on the Pentagon, and both Flights 11 hitting the North Tower and Flight 175 the South. It seems incredible, I know, but the evidence is there and, as I explain here, we know who the perps were who brought us 9/11. They were among the most familiar faces on our political stage at the time, actors one and all.

Evidentiary Submission #1

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.
Philip Zelikow
I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MN/ANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Philip Zelikow
Title at the Time of his Offense: Executive Director, The 9/11 Commission

Probable Cause: In his capacity as Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission and the principal author of its report, Philip Zelikow caused false claims to be disseminated about the events of 9/11, including the following:
(1) that Flight 11 had hit the North Tower;
(2) that Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon;
(3) that Flight 93 had crashed in Shanksville; and,
(4) that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower.
Information published in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004) regarding (1) though (4) is demonstrably false because:
(a) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) records show that Flight 11 was not scheduled for 9/11;1

(b) BTS records show that Flight 77 was likewise not scheduled for 9/11;2

(c) FAA Registration Records show that the plane corresponding to Flight 93 was not deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005;3

(d) FAA Registration Records show that the plane corresponding to Flight 175 was likewise not deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005; 4

(e) Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established that Flight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, subsequent to the time it was reported to have crashed in Shanksville,PA ; 5 and,

(f) Pilots for 9/11 Truth has also established that Flight 175 was in the air, but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after the time it was reported to have crashed into the South Tower. 6


SUMMARY: Planes that were not even in the air cannot have crashed on 9/11; and planes that crashed on 9/11 cannot have still been in the air four years later. Zelikow appears to have been selected for his appointment as Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission, at least in part, because his area of academic expertise prior to joining the Bush administration turns out to have been “the creation and maintenance of, in his words, ‘public myths’ or ‘public presumptions’”.7 In addition to using flights that did not occur and crashes that did not take place, specifically:
(5) contrary to (1), Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(6) contrary to (2), Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(7) contrary to (3), Flight 93 did not crashed in Shanksville; and,
(8) contrary to (4), Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower;
there is abundant additional proof that what the public was presented in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004) is itself a “public myth”, whose framework of four alleged “hijackings” and “plane crashes” is itself a contrived fabrication, which makes the person responsible for that report an accessory after the fact, as a person who assists in the commission of a crime by helping to cover it up.

Further proof that THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT was intended to deceive the American people includes that the government has not been able to prove the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes;8 several of them turned up alive and well after 9/11;9 and the phone calls alleged to have been made from the planes were faked10. Virtually everything it claims about 9/11 is false.

1 Edward Hendrie, 9/11: ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC (2011), p. 8.
2 Hendrie, p. 9 The BTS would subsequently revise its data base and thus make itself an accessory after the fact. See
3 NOTE: The official FAA site,, shows no records for any of the four planes.
4 NOTE: The official FAA site,, shows no records for any of the four planes.
5 United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash – According To ATC/Radar
8 Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11″,
9 David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), pp. 19-20; sources, p. 298.
10 David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”,

Evidentiary Submission #2 

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.
Richard B. Cheney
I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MN/ANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Richard B. Cheney
Title at the Time of his Offense: Vice President of the United States 

Probable Cause: In his capacity as Vice President of United States, Richard Cheney issued orders that a plane approaching the Pentagon not be shot down, which thus allowed the plane to approach the building unimpeded. This appears to have been the plane that flew toward and then swerved over the Pentagon, while explosives were set off in the building, in an elaborate charade, which was used as the pretext for the following “declaration of war”, and to justify invasions of Afghanistan and of Iraq; and subsequently made false claims about the events of 9/11. Consider the following:

Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified to The 9/11 Commission about his experience in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Richard Cheney, as (what would be identified as) American Airlines Flight 77 approached the Pentagon. According to Mineta, the vice president was asked about orders concerning the approaching aircraft:
There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’ Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. 11
Commissioner Lee Hamilton queried if the order was to shoot down the plane, to which Mineta replied that he did not know that specifically.12 That interpretation, moreover, appears to be inconsistent with the aide’s concern. Since planes were being used as weapons, an order to shoot it down should not have caused any concern: You lose the pilots and the passengers, but not the personnel and the property that is being targeted. Instead, 125 lives were lost at the Pentagon. 13

Mineta’s testimony to the Commission on Flight 77 differs rather significantly from the account provided in the 22 January 2002 edition of The Washington Post, as reported by Bob Woodward and Dan Balz in the series “10 Days in September”.14 This article reports that the conversation between Cheney and the aide occurred at 9:55 am, about 30 minutes later than the time Mineta cited (9:26 am) during his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. However, Cheney’s earlier arrival was independently confirmed both by Condoleezza Rice15 and by Richard Clarke.16

Cheney’s remarks on “Meet the Press” (16 September 2001) support the earlier entry,17 as does a newly discovered Secret Service document.18 The Woodward and Balz article thus appears to have been an effort to conceal his earlier arrival at the bunker, when the exchange with the aide occurred. Remarkably, the day after I appeared on “Hannity & Colmes” and reported Mineta’s testimony on FOX NEWS, 19 The White House announced that he had retired from the government. 20

SUMMARY: News leaks are a tried and true method for disseminating both true information (when it would be helpful) and false (when it would be more helpful). The Woodward and Balz article appears to have been intended to defect public attention from Cheney’s presence prior to the alleged hit on the Pentagon, since his order—that it not be shot down—facilitated the fabrication of a fake attack. It therefore reflects the consciousness of guilt, as did the abrupt “retirement” of the Transportation Secretary immediately after I publicized his story on FOX NEWS.

The Pentagon is among the most heavily defended building in the world. If the order had been to shoot it down, it would have been shot down. The plane now appears to have been a prop in an elaborate charade. This makes Cheney not only an accessory after the fact but an accomplice to the mass murder of 125 persons. While this aircraft itself does not appear to have been their cause of death (because they appear to have been killed by a series of explosions that simulated a plane crash), many of the dead were budget analysts and financial experts attempting to locate the $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld reported missing on 9/10.
11 Mineta’s testimony is at
14 Dan Balz and Bob Woodward, “10 Days in September”, The Washington Post,
15 David Ray Griiffin,“9/11 Contradictions: When Did Cheney Enter the Underground Bunker?”
16 Griiffin,
19 22 June 2006, First appearance on “Hannity & Colmes” discussing Mineta’s 9/11 testimony:
20 23 June 2006, Announcement of Mineta’s retirement:

Evidentiary Submission #3 

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Donald Rumsfeld
I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Donald Rumsfeld
Title at the Time of his Offense: United States Secretary of Defense

Probable Cause: In his capacity as the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld actively participated in arranging for the occurrence of the Pentagon attack and by making false claims about the events of 9/11, including the following:
(1) The SOP for interdicting hijacked aircraft was change on 1 June 2001 so that it would now require the personal authorization of the Secretary of Defense;1

(2) Rumsfeld claimed to be unaware of any threats to the Pentagon, where he was located during the 9/11 attacks, until Flight 77 crashed into the building;2

(3) Rumsfeld. Condoleezza Rice, and other officials claimed they had no idea that planes could be used as weapons, which is contradicted on many grounds;3

(4) The “official account” of the Pentagon attack is not only wholly unsupported by the available evidence but is neither aerodynamically nor physically possible:
(a) the plane is alleged to have skimmed the lawn at over 500 mph, but that is not aerodynamically possible due to the phenomenon of “ground effect”,4 which would preclude the plane getting any closer than 60’ of the ground;
(b) the plane is alleged to have taken out a series of metal lampposts without affecting its flight path, which is physically impossible, because they would have ripped the wing off the plane and caused its fuel to have exploded;5
(c) the alleged “hit point” in the building is too small to accommodate a 100 ton airliner, where there is no massive stack of aluminum debris, wings, tail, bodies, seats or luggage, and not even the engines were recovered;6
(d) even though the Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, the only frame that it has released shows the image of a plane far too small to have been a Boeing 757, so the government’s own evidence contradicts its own story;7
(e) after the civilian lime-green fire trucks had extinguished the modest fires, the Pentagon lawn was clear, green, and unblemished by any debris from the crash of a large airplane, which should have been widely distributed;8
(f) Major Gen. Albert Stubblebine, USA (ret.), who was formerly in charge of all us military photographic intelligence, confirmed that no large plane had hit the Pentagon based upon his careful study of photographic evidence;9
(g) Other witnesses and evidence, including April Gallup, photographic and video evidence, substantiates that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and that, according to BTS records, Flight 77 was not even in the air on 9/11;10
(5) Secretary Rumsfeld predicts the Pentagon may be hit and is missing in action for at least 20 minutes before emerging on the lawn helping to carry the injured;11

(6) In his first public response, he accents that Secretary of the Army Tom White was responsible for “incidents like this”, shrugging off his own responsibility;12

(7) Tom White, a former Enron executive, had been appointed to that position on 31 May 2001, the day before the new hijacking instructions had been issued.13

SUMMARY: Even this brief and partial survey indicates that Donald Rumsfeld was too clever by half, appointing a patsy to take the blame the day before he changed the hijacking SOP, which appears to have been part of the plan to be sure there would be no NORAD response to the alleged hijackings. The claims made about “the Pentagon attack” are not only provably false but are not even aeronautically and physically possible. No reasonable alternative competes with the conclusion that Rumsfeld was a principal in planning the atrocities of 9/11, which not only caused the deaths of 125 persons who were in the building at the time but betrayed his responsibilities to the people of the United States as their Secretary of Defense, and deserves prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.

5 Nicely illustrated by a Lockeed Constellation hitting wooden telephone poles: (turn down the audio first)

Evidentiary Submission #4 

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.
Andy Card and George Bush
I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: George W. Bush
Title at the Time of his Offense: President of the United States

Probable Cause: In his capacity as President of the United States, George W. Bush participated in planning the occurrence of and made false claims about the events of 9/11 to conceal their origins, an especially revealing example of which is a statement he made implicating himself. On 4 December 2001, in Orlando, FL, he said the following about his visit to Booker Elementary School on 9/11:1
“I was sitting outside the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower. You know, the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly myself. And I said to myself, ‘Well, there’s one terrible pilot.’ It must have been a terrible accident.”2
The alleged first hit on the North Tower took place at 8:46 AM/ET to be followed by the alleged second on the South Tower at 9:03 AM/ET.3 Bush’s motorcade had left the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort to head to Booker at 8:35 AM/ET.4 He arrived there at 8:55 AM/ET.5 Bush was told of the second hit at 9:06 AM/ET.6
Once he learned there had been two attacks, there was no rational justification to think the first had been “an accident”. Bush and Condoleezza Rice would initially feign that of the first hit, but they could not possibly have known.7 And he cannot have seen the Naudet video, which would not be broadcast until 1 AM/ET, 9/12.8

(a) An effort has been made to dismiss Bush’s remark about having seen the first hit “on television” as having been a mistake;9
(b) but he would repeat the same story during a town meeting in Ontario, CA, 5 January 2002, including having viewed it on TV;10
(c) a National Geographic Special that almost certainly included his recitation of his television viewing experience has been pulled;11 and,
(d) another—which is an obvious attempt to revise history–has been made available instead, where he recounts his story very differently:12
“I had been notified that a plane had hit the WTC. At first I thought it was a light aircraft. And my reaction was, ‘Man, either the weather was bad or something extraordinary happened to the pilot’. I then informed some of my staff members to provide help to New York City—whatever help was needed—and walked into the classroom”.

SUMMARY: President George W. Bush committed a gaffe when he spoke about his experiences on 9/11, candidly revealing that he had seen the first hit on TV, which has to have occurred while his motorcade was en route between Colony Beach and Tennis Resort and Booker Elementary School. This means that the Secret Service had a television camera focused on the North Tower when only those involved in planning the events of 9/11 would have had reason to watch the side of WTC-1. He could not have seen the hit on TV any other way. Eager to convey the impression he thought it was “an accident”, he revealed too much.

Removing “George W. Bush: The 9/11 Interview” and the substitution of another in which he contradicts his previous reports displays consciousness of guilt and the desire to tamper with evidence. But it was a risk that had to be run, because his having watched the first hit on Secret Service television was such an obvious indication of governmental complicity in 9/11. Given our other findings, such as:
(1) the fabrication of the four “crash sites” (see Evidentiary Submission #1);
(2) the failure to prove any of the “hijackers” were aboard any of the planes;13
(3) the faking of the phone calls alleged to have been made from the planes;14
and further forms of proof,15 it becomes increasingly apparent that the atrocities of 9/11 was a national security event that was approved at the highest levels of the American government, including The White House, NSA, CIA, Joint Chiefs and Department of Defense, where even the president appears to have been an accessory to the crime and to have committed treason against the United States.

3 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), for example, p. 285
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
11 “George W. Bush: The 9/11 Interview” (NO LONGER AVAILABLE)
12 “The President looks back”,

Evidentiary Submission #5

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.
Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MN/ANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, Minnesota Air National Guard (MN/ANG)
Title at the Time of his Offense: Pilot of C-130H circling the Pentagon on 9/11

Probable Cause: Among the most striking and indisputable aspects of 9/11 was the utter failure of NORAD, the NMCC and the FAA to coordinate any military response to (what were alleged to have been the hijacking of four commercial carriers, spanning an interval of time from 8:14 AM/ET, when the first reports of the possible hijacking of Flight 11 surfaced until after the Pentagon had been “hit” by Flight 77 at 9:38 AM/ET, over 1:14 hours later, even though a response to a hijacking should have taken less than 10 minutes.1 The failure to follow SOP is so blatant that there is no reasonable alternative to a deliberate “stand down”.2

THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), minimizes the absence of response and the time available to scramble fighters as if it was an innocuous event.3 One of the most peculiar aspects of the Pentagon attack is how our nation’s military leaders could not have known that a plane was approaching the building.4 This appears to be untrue on at least two grounds: first, that Vice President Cheney had been informed by an aide that a plane was headed toward the building by an aide and issued an order that the plane not be shot down (see Submission #2).

Another is that Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien was piloting a military C-130H cargo plane (call named, “Gofer 06”) in the vicinity of the Pentagon, where he and his crew were reported to have witnessed the crash of Flight 77 into the building as well as the crash of Flight 93 into the ground at Shanksville.5 Since O’Brien is said to have followed Flight 77—and to have identified it as a Boeing 757—it appears to be impossible that Pentagon officials, with whom he was in radio communication, could not have known a plane was approaching. The “official account” cannot be true, since it violates laws of aerodynamics and of physics (see Submission #3).

At 9:42 AM/ET, the FAA directed that all planes in the air should land6—minutes after the purported plane crash—but Gofer 06 remained airborne, apparently to perform a task essential to the cover-up. That no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon is not only established by the impossibility of the official trajectory—just skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out a series of lampposts without damage to the plane or affecting its trajectory—but also by the virtual absence of debris appropriate to the crash of 100-ton airliner: no massive pile of aluminum debris, no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats or luggage, such as would be expected.7 Not even the engines, which are virtually indestructible, were recovered from the site.

Photographs of the clear, green, Pentagon lawn—over 30 minutes following the attack, when a section of the building collapsed—display a stunning absence of debris.8 9 As even Jamie McIntrye reported live on CNN, there was no indication that any large plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.10 Pieces of plane fuselage and other debris would show up on the lawn, even though no plane had crashed there, which raises the question of where it came from. It would have been awkward to have officers or enlisted men carry pieces of debris out on the lawn, but it would not have been difficult to have dropped it from the C-130H that O’Brien was piloting. One especially notable piece of fuselage has been tracked back to the crash of a Boeing 757 that had occurred in Cali, Columbia, in 1995.11

SUMMARY: Debris that appeared on the Pentagon lawn more than 30 minutes after the alleged crash of Flight 77 cannot have come from a non-existent crash and must have been planted by military personnel or dropped from the C-130H that was circling the building. When I explained to the BBC that it had to have come from the plane for its second “Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On”, they featured Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, who expressed disgust at the implication that he had participated in faking the plane crash by dropping debris from his plane.12 13

But there is no reasonable alternative. The allege crash did not occur and any claims to have seen the plane hit the building cannot be true. It would have been impossible for the cargo door of his C-130H to open for the drop and the pilot be unaware of it; moreover, the C-130H is a special version with electronic warfare capabilities and may have played other important roles on 9/11.14 The evidence thus substantiates that Lt. Col. O’Brien remained airborne because he was “on a mission”, complicit in the crimes of 9/11, and actively engaged in their cover-up.

1 An excellent discussion is David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), Chapter 11. “NMCC” is the National Military Command Center.
2 Ibid., especially pages 146-153; and
3 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), Chapter 1, especially pages 24-40.
4 David Ray Griffin, 9/11 CONTRADICTIONS (2008), Chapter 11.
5 That claim is disputed at
12 is as close as I have been able to find it.
14 Email correspondence with military aircraft expert, Dennis Cimino (3 and 4 August 2012)

Jim Fetzer is a former Marine Corps officer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Senior Editor for Veterans Truth Network. He has written dozens of articles on subjects like 9/11 and JFK.