“They say history repeats itself. That’s his story. You haven’t heard my story.”
“They say history repeats itself. That’s his story. You haven’t heard my story.”
June 28, 2012
Sometimes it takes just one individual to step forward and ‘speak truth to power’ to break the spell of public denial and silence surrounding a tragic and unspeakable event.
One of the key components of maintaining any official government narrative of historical events, is that every member of the establishment must remain on the same page as to who, what, when, how… and why a said event took place.
This could not be any more relevant than in the cases of both 9/11 and 7/7, because maintaining total cohesion of the official narrative is necessary in order to hold in place agreed upon terror threat assessments and the public security policies which follow.
At least one police professional in Britain has stepped forward to refute the government’s orthodoxy of ‘Radical British Muslims’ carrying out one of the worst and violent atrocities in the country’s history, and this is his story…
In July 2010, a long serving UK Police Principal Intelligence Analyst, Tony Farrell, woke up to a terrible realisation that the cosy, comfortable law enforcement world he had always believed he was part of, had just turned upside down. Awakened, Tony Farrell as Head Intelligence Analyst for South Yorkshire Police in the North of England immediately knew that his previously rewarding and enjoyable career was about to come to an abrupt end with an almighty crash.
After unwittingly tuning into the Alex Jones Show in June 2010, Farrell suddenly awoke to a very different reality after watching documentaries such as Invisible Empire and Police State 4. It was thereafter he dropped upon the apparent lies surrounding the official explanations of the 9/11 attacks. He could no longer pretend it was not real. The compelling evidence showing the despicable Government account of events regarding 9/11 soon became all too plain to see. Rocked to the core, it wasn’t long before he realised the same was true for 7/7 in his own country. Farrell’s conscience became deeply troubled as, in his position as a Principal Intelligence Analyst of a large UK Police Force, it was required him to regurgitate back to his bosses a government narrative that the main threat of terrorism in the UK came from Islamic extremists and al-Qaeda.
On the fifth anniversary of the London 7/7 Bombings in 2010, when being pressurised into reflecting the putrid lies about terrorism in a threat assessment matrix, Farrell – feeling cornered, alone and isolated – refused to prostitute either himself or his intelligence analysis profession, and told his bosses that the real threat came from within.
Three times he offered up his full analysis to his bosses; three times they collectively closed ranks. His employers tried to make out that he had gone mad, but the Occupational Health Doctor gave Farrell a clean bill of health. This forced his employers to back him – or sack him. They duly sacked him for an ‘incompatible belief’ – a belief which his dismissing officer admitted ‘could be correct’.
For a full year, Farrell battled alone, keeping his case very low profile hoping his previous employers would see sense, be reasonable and reinstate him given his long exemplary record and his honestly held opinions offered up to his previous employers in accordance with professional standards for honesty and integrity.
After contacting alternative media broadcasters Tony Gosling and Richard D Hall, Farrell was soon invited on Alex Jones’ show in July 2011, and suddenly became an emergent, if rather surprisingly (as a member of the UK police establishment), different type of figure within the UK’s Truth Movement after a self-imposed year in quarantine.
Amidst the institutional denials, the answer was nowhere to be found and so despite the admittance that nobody had tried to grapple with Farrell’s shocking analysis.
‘Protected disclosure’ in the public interest
The main thrust Farrell had was that he was making a ‘protected disclosure’ about the threat assessment matrix which was being abusively misapplied in UK Police Forces to skew the terror threat, conceal monstrous police state crimes against democracy and unfairly blame Muslims for the atrocities they plainly did not commit. And therein lies the rub: such deceit was allowing a UK Government Counter Terrorism Strategy to be implemented which was tantamount to demonising British Muslims and creating a climate of hatred and fear and facilitating growth areas in secret and unaccountable policing.
On 15th June 2012, represented by British Barrister Michael Shrimpton QC, Farrell had his appeal heard ex-parte before the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a London court. QC Shrimpton is a National Security Author and Strategic Intelligence expert, and has previously appeared on the Alex Jones Show to discuss the death of Dr. David Kelly that occurred on July 17, 2003. While losing the appeal on the day, QC Michael Shrimpton correctly raised the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 as a new issue.
Farrell’s comprehensive analysis of the London 7/7 Bombings had been submitted before the Judge to the Employment Appeal Tribunal but this could not be considered in the hearing as a new issue but it can be the basis of an argument to the Court of Appeal. Michael Shrimpton had this to say about the hearing on 15th June 2012:
“Interestingly the learned judge did not say that the Public Interest Disclosure Act point was a bad one, indeed he ruled that it was a fresh point. With respect he was right about that, and on reflection right to say that there would need to be a re-hearing to determine the issue of reasonableness, but the authorities on which he relied seemed to me to relate to cases where the employee had been professionally represented at first instance. With respect the Employment Tribunal could and should have taken the point of its own motion in a case where Mr. Farrell did not have the benefit of legal representation.”
Indeed, Farrell may not have the establishment on the ropes… yet, but via his legal case and his other media and public efforts, he is certainly making his presence felt in standing up for truth and justice.
Farrell concludes,“As a professional member of the police force, I’m sworn to a duty of care and to protect the public’s interest. It’s out of concern for the public’s safety that I’m doing this – we need to do something about this, because it’s dangerous if we don’t”.
Do YOU know how to use the phrase “begging the question”? No? That’s okay; most people don’t.
It is commonly misused, as people typically confuse it with “raising the question.” But that’s simply incorrect.
Why do people continue to use this confusing phrase if they don’t know what it means? My running theory is that people use it because they assume it makes them sound smarter.
I went to a small liberal arts school as an English Literature major, so I was used to hearing people misuse words and phrases all the time in order to sound intelligent.
There was this one guy who would babble on for at least five minutes, using long words and confusing phrases. I used to think that I just didn’t understand him because he was incredibly brilliant. I finally came to realize that I didn’t understand him because what he was saying didn’t make any sense, and he was using the phrases and words completely inaccurately.
Here is how a typical literature or literary criticism class would go, after which the room was filled with bewilderment that he had had the gall to say something so ridiculous:
HIM: Well, all language is transparently referential, as my fellow colleages know, and so that begs the question: on a meta level, does language have any real meaning at all?
ME (in my head): WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT?! IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE!
In the long run, misusing phrases like “begging the question” doesn’t make you sound smarter. It makes you sound dumber.
But, please, don’t feel badly about yourself. Even New York Times writers admit that this is a common mistake among their team, and they’re the freaking New York Times. Philip B. Corbett lists some instances of the phrase’s misuse in the paper.
I also really appreciate Corbett’s example of a misuse and correct use of “begging the question” in the New York Times blog.
Person A: I can’t understand why all the news media give so much coverage to Lindsay Lohan. It’s ridiculous.
Person B: I’m sure they do it just to sell papers and magazines.
Person A: Yeah — which begs the question, why do people want to read about her?
Nope, that DOESN’T beg the question. It RAISES the question.
So, what is the actual definition of “begging the question”? It’s a type of logical fallacy where a statement refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion.
WHAT?! What the FUDGE does that even mean, you ask?
Well, here’s Corbett’s example of the proper use of “begging the question”:
Person A: I can’t understand why the news media give so much coverage to Lindsay Lohan. It’s ridiculous. She’s not that important or newsworthy.
Person B: What? Of course she’s important and newsworthy! Lindsay Lohan is a big deal. Why, just look at the newsstand. People magazine, The Post, you name it. She’s everywhere.
Hah! Person B says that Lindsay Lohan SHOULD get a ton of news coverage because she gets a ton of news coverage. Person B is using the assertion to prove the assertion.
So, why do we even use this phrase in the first place? Where does it come from?
It all began with Aristotle around 350 BC. He describes “begging the question” as a “material fallacy” in his book Prior Analytics. He notes that “begging the question” is related to “circular reasoning,” but they are actually not the same thing.
Because of the phrase’s widespread misusage, academic linguist Mark Liberman has suggested abandoning it entirely. He reasons that because of all the shifts in language and language meaning over the years, the relationship of the phrase’s literal meaning to its figurative meaning is unintelligible, and now only serves to confuse people.
Corbett also notes that “the phrase is so widely misused, some readers may be confused even when it’s used correctly.”
There are, however, SOME people who actually know what this phrase means. These people banded together and started the BTQ Group (in case you haven’t figured that out, BTQ stands for “Begging The Question”). They understand that this phrase’s misuse is a huge issue, and began making these easily printable BTQ cards to help fix it.
Now that you, my dear readers, understand what “begging the question” is (and trust me, you’re way ahead of 95 percent of people), you can hand out these cards every time someone misuses it. You’ll spare yourself from looking like the grammar nerd in the room (if you are comfortable with being that person) and you’ll spare the speaker from embarrassment (unless, of course, you think they deserve to be publicly embarrassed).
This group even sells merchandise so you can help spread the good word.
Still kind of in the dark as to what exactly this phrase means? This comic from Ryan North breaks it down pretty easily. He even uses dinosaurs!
What phrase are you sick of hearing be misused? Let me know in the comments, and I might address it in my next column!
The official account of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 leaves many questions unanswered. The work of independent investigators has also failed to address those questions. In an attempt to find answers, an alternative account of the Pentagon attack is considered.
An alternative account would be more compelling than the official account if it explained more of the evidence without adding unnecessary complications. Considering means, motive and opportunity might allow us to propose a possible “insider conspiracy” while maintaining much of the official account as well.
A few of the more compelling unanswered questions are as follows.
These questions should be considered along with the fact that U.S military and “Homeland Security” expenditures since the 9/11 attacks have totaled approximately $8 trillion. This paints a picture that calls for an in-depth investigation into the people running the Pentagon, to see if they might have had the motivation and ability to plan and execute the attack.
What happened during the Pentagon renovation project should be of great interest. A preliminary investigation raises the possibility that the work done during that time could have provided the cover for an effective insider conspiracy. We should examine the people involved in planning the renovation project in order to begin answering the question of who might have benefited from the attack.
The history of the renovation project
Construction of the Pentagon began on September 11, 1941. It was completed in February 1943, and was called The Pentagon because it was a five-sided building that had five concentric rings (A through E) and five floors. Truly massive, with over 6 million square feet of gross area, the building met the basic needs of the Department of War, later ironically called the Department of Defense (DOD), for the next fifty years.
The renovation project was originally planned during the first Bush Administration, when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense (SECDEF). Because of this, Dick knew enough about the scope of the project that he could have, in later years, incorporated it into plans for an insider attack. It also happens that the ownership of the building was transferred, in November 1990, from the General Services Administration to the DOD, keeping the renovation project under full control of the military establishment.
The work began in 1993 with the construction of a power plant and then moved on to the basement levels of the building where the new National Military Command Center (NMCC) was being built. Over the ensuing four or five years the project was fraught with cost overruns and unexpected delays.
Early in the project, oversight was provided by John Deutch, the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF). Deutch came to the job after a career in academics and at the Department of Energy. He was associated with Mitre Corporation, which in 1999 was in collaboration with a company called PTech to “look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.” Investigator and author Jamey Hecht has written that “The Ptech story is a crucial piece of 9/11 because the software was used to simultaneously coordinate the FAA with NORAD and the Secret Service.”
Deutch also worked with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), which has many connections to 9/11. After his tenure as DEPSECDEF, in May 1995, Deutch became Director of the CIA. He left the CIA almost two years later and became a director at Citigroup, a company that was saved in 1998 by Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia in a deal brokered by The Carlyle Group. Deutch was allowed to keep his top-secret clearance for nearly three years after leaving the CIA (until August 1999), while he was being investigated for leaks of classified information. Attorney General Janet Reno refused to prosecute Deutch and he was ultimately pardoned by President Clinton. During this time, Deutch also became a director of Raytheon and a member of the Bilderberg Group.
Throughout the Pentagon renovation project, oversight continued to be provided by the DEPSECDEF. The next in line for the job was John White, a Marine Corps officer whose career had included nine years with the RAND Corporation. After his work at the DOD, he went on to join Deutch and others at Global Technology Partners, which was described by one of its senior partners as “an exclusive affiliate of Rothschild North America.”
In the summer of 1997, the renovation project was turned over to White’s successor, John J. Hamre. As the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions and Technology, Hamre had already been involved and was a powerful figure in the department. Procurement was among the most important roles in DOD.
After his time as DEPSECDEF, Hamre became a trustee of Mitre Corporation at the time of its collaboration with PTech. Later, Hamre would become a director for ChoicePoint and SAIC. Coincidentally, the Choicepoint subsidiary, Bode Technologies, was hired to do DNA testing of victims after the 9/11 attacks. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State who was among those who failed to protect the nation on 9/11, was also a director at Choicepoint and an advisor at Raytheon.
Therefore the backgrounds of the people who first planned and managed the renovation project suggest that some of them could have formed an effective Pentagon conspiracy. Of course, the Pentagon is the center of the U.S. military industrial complex and therefore the people running its programs would have stood to benefit from the extraordinary increase in military spending after 9/11.
The new plan and the environment in which it was drafted
In 1997, a new plan for the renovation project was crafted by Hamre, reportedly in response to the mid-1990s terrorist attacks in Oklahoma City and abroad. This new plan appeared to be an effort to improve the resistance of the exterior of the building to an explosive impact, with additional actions taken to reduce the possibility of fire damage. The following improvements to the building were planned:
To manage the project, Hamre created a new position called the Pentagon Renovation Program Manager. The person selected for the job was Walker Lee Evey, a former Vietnam combat commander and NASA contract negotiator. Evey had been with the 1st Infantry Division in Quan Loi, Vietnam, in 1968 and 1969. He was later a top procurement officer with Air Force Systems Command but left the military in 1987 to join NASA. He returned to the Air Force in 1996 as a high-ranking acquisitions official working for Darleen Druyun, who later went to prison for conspiring with Boeing to defraud the American people.
Immediately before being hired to manage the Pentagon renovation project, Evey worked on a top-secret Air Force “black project” in California that involved satellites. Although reports don’t identify the project, descriptions match the Milstar satellite system, a cooperative effort between the Air Force, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the U.S. intelligence center at Fort Belvoir.
Milstar is primarily a communications system that allows “satellites to communicate globally without using a ground station.” Theoretically, onboard Milstar terminals could have been used on 9/11 to communicate changes to the flight plans of the hijacked aircraft. Milstar operates with a low risk of detection or interception, was designed to operate for weeks without ground contact, and is “used to relay the most sensitive information between the President and the armed forces.”
In late 1995, Druyun had boasted about all the new DOD projects related to precision guidance of aircraft and munitions. These projects included Milstar, Peace Shield (a Saudi airspace control project with Boeing) and the nationwide Global Positioning System (GPS).
Although Evey knew about satellites, surprisingly he did not know anything about construction when he was hired to lead the Pentagon project. It was in November 1997 that Druyun asked Evey about the job, although Evey made it clear that he “didn’t know how to do construction.”
Evey’s education was in psychology and he had no experience related to the renovation of buildings. After a discussion with Druyun, and having resigned himself to the assignment, he thought — “Gee, if I’m going to do design and construction, I’d better start learning about this stuff.” It seems reasonable to suggest that Evey was hired for his abilities to maintain costs and control suppliers but also to maintain secrecy and control psychological reactions. The latter skills would come in handy for someone in the lead position of providing official answers to questions about the 9/11 attack, given that it was an inside conspiracy.
Note that 1997 was the year that the think tank called The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was born. A Statement of Principles was published by PNAC in June of that year, which called for the U.S. government to actively work at shaping a new century favorable to American principles and interests. Key to PNAC objectives was a “need to increase defense spending significantly.”
This was also the same year that SECDEF William Cohen suggested that Andrew W. Marshall, the long-time director of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, might be ready for retirement. Marshall had been appointed to that role in 1973, effectively serving as the leader of a private think tank that drove policy within the Pentagon. He has been reappointed by every president since then and, through the 1990s, he was the leading figure in the calls for a revolution in military affairs (RMA).
Cohen’s attempt to push Marshall out was unsuccessful due to backlash from a cadre of Marshall’s loyal protégés, who were also PNAC members. That group included Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowtiz and Richard Armitage, all of whom played leading roles in the defense failures on 9/11. When asked about 9/11, Marshall said nothing had changed for him because – “It was obvious that we were wide open to attack.”
At the time of the planning and implementation of the Pentagon renovation, Marshall and his allies were aggressively advocating their RMA but neither the public nor the government was supportive. Marshall’s colleagues at the RAND Corporation were framing the RMA as a means to transform the world from one of nation-states to one ruled by a new international order.
Central to the RMA was the call to increase the production and use of satellite, weapons-guiding, and communications technology. PNAC’s report of September 2000, called Rebuilding America’s Defenses, strongly aligned the objectives of the group with the RMA plan, and made clear that the much needed transformation would not occur “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor.”
At the time of the 9/11 attack, a dozen PNAC signatories worked in leadership positions at the Pentagon, including members of the Defense Policy Board like Fred Ikle and Richard Perle. It was known that Rumsfeld deferred to Perle on many issues in 2001, sometimes in an obsequious manner. Coincidentally, Shelton Lankford, a leading voice in the call for truth about the Pentagon attack, worked for the neocon and Psyops pioneer Ikle, and a “who’s who” of Perle associates, at Telos Corporation from 1990 to 2002.
The dramatic change in policy that the RMA represented, and the huge increase in military spending it required, was made possible due to the 9/11 attacks, which were very much like a “new pearl Harbor.” Therefore those who benefited from the attack on the Pentagon were people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Armitage who achieved the backing for their PNAC objectives and the proposed RMA.
The people who implemented the new plan
After securing his commitment, Darleen Druyun told the new renovation project manager, Lee Evey, to wait for word from John Hamre. Evey’s position had been created by Hamre, who could best express the intent.
For the new project plan, which was approved in early 1998, Evey and Hamre decided to begin the new renovation specifically with Wedge 1, a section comprising one-fifth of the building on the west side. The project’s new emphasis on the external walls of Wedge 1 meant that the work was focused on a very small fraction of the building, exactly where the aircraft would hit on 9/11.
The project continued for 44 months with essentially all the work being performed in that one area of the building. At the time of the 9/11 attack, the renovation was to continue with Wedge 2, where the employees had only recently been relocated.
In March 2000, Hamre stepped down to become CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which had been the long-time employer of Rumsfeld’s special assistant, PNAC signatory Stephen Cambone. CSIS had played a major role in planning the continuity of government (COG) exercises during the Reagan, Bush I and early Clinton administrations.  Cheney and Rumsfeld were key players in the COG exercises, as they practiced to replace the United States government in time of crisis. The first and only time that COG was implemented was on 9/11.
Hamre was replaced as DEPSECDEF by Rudy De Leon, another Undersecretary of Defense who had joined the DOD along with Hamre in 1993. When the new Bush Administration came in a year later, De Leon went on to become Senior Vice President at Boeing.
In the eight months leading up to the 9/11 attacks, completing Wedge 1 was the primary focus of the Pentagon renovation. During this time, Lee Evey served as principal advisor to SECDEF Rumsfeld but he reported directly to DEPSECDEF Wolfowitz, who was then in charge of the renovation. Cambone came to the Pentagon as well, as Special Assistant to the SECDEF and DEPSECDEF.
The actual construction work for the renovation was handled by a company called AMEC Construction, a subsidiary of the British conglomerate, AMEC. The parent company provided “engineering and project management services to the world’s energy, power and process industries.” AMEC had a significant presence in Saudi Arabia dating back to the late 1970s, providing support to the national oil company Saudi Aramco, which is the richest company in the world. To this day, AMEC remains a major international player in the oil and gas industry, as well as in other natural resource industries.
AMEC was also immediately hired to cleanup and reconstruct Wedge 1 and to lead the cleanup of the WTC site. The company’s role in controlling the structural evidence from the 9/11 attacks was further emphasized by the fact that it managed the “Hudson River barging operations to transport debris from the entire WTC site to a Staten Island landfill and to steel recycling operations in New Jersey.”
AMEC Construction was previously called Morse Diesel and was briefly a subsidiary of a company called AGRA until it was purchased by AMEC. The subsidiary was run out of Toronto, Ontario by a man named Peter Janson. It had offices in New York, Fort Lauderdale, and Phoenix.
From 1990 to 1999, Janson was president and CEO of U.S operations for the Swiss-Swedish engineering company ABB. During this period, and until February 2001, Donald Rumsfeld was a director at ABB throughout the time that Janson was CEO and a director. In an alarming turnabout, Rumsfeld helped ABB sell nuclear technology to North Korea in 2000 and, two years later, declared the same country a terrorist state and part of the “axis of evil.” In any case, Rumsfeld had a relationship with Janson, who managed the Wedge 1 renovation company, for many years before 9/11.
Janson had also been the president and CEO of an ABB predecessor, the Swedish company ASEA. Interestingly, ASEA had used the swastika as its company logo until the 1930s. During WWII, the other predecessor of ABB, Brown Boveri, supplied parts for German U-boats. Other ABB directors represented companies that had similar backgrounds, including Gerhard Cromme of ThyssenKrupp, a company that “used slave laborers during World War II to advance the Nazis’ war campaign.” ABB director Jürgen Dormann was CEO of Hoechst AG, a predecessor (and successor) of the infamous IG Farben conglomerate that cooperated closely with the Nazis.
Today, Janson is enjoying the fruits of the “War on Terror” as a director of Teekay Corporation, an oil and gas transport company that operates throughout the world. Both Janson and AMEC were heavily involved in the oil and gas industries, but additionally the company was strongly linked to the highest levels of government in the U.S. and elsewhere. Janson’s high level links, apart from his association with Rumsfeld, included that he “reports to the Prime Minister of Canada in his role as a member of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology.”
AMEC subcontracted much of the Wedge 1 work to Facchina Construction, which was founded by Paul V. Facchina. It was reported that Facchina Construction was a “major subcontractor” in the Pentagon renovation. The company functioned as the heavy civil contractor under AMEC, for Wedge 1 specifically. Facchina’s project manager, Ken Wyman, described the initial phase of their work as “selective demolition.” Later on, “crews worked six to seven days a week pouring concrete and renovating the structure.”
In another interesting coincidence, Facchina Construction was hired to construct American Airlines Arena in Miami. Furthermore, the project manager for that $213 million project was AMEC and the structural engineering firm was Thornton Tomasetti, which later supervised the removal and destruction of WTC debris. As Facchina Construction worked on the Pentagon in 1998 and 1999, it simultaneously worked on the American Airlines Arena project, which, oddly enough, was sponsored by the company that owned the airplane that hit the Pentagon.
Another company that was founded by Paul Facchina is Facchina Global Services (FGS) which does intelligence work and builds secure video teleconferencing (SVTS) capabilities for the DOD. FGS provided such secure video teleconferencing capabilities for “the President of the United States, the National Security Council, Secretary of Defense, agency directors, and combatant commanders.” It is unclear what role FGS had with regard to the significant problems experienced by those using the White House SVTS on 9/11.
According to William Viner, a project estimator working for the contracting venture called DMJM-3DI, there was a change of plans just two years before 9/11. Viner said that the design for the “blast wall” of Wedge 1 was modified at that time. “It wasn’t part of the original design,” Viner said. “It was a change order that we worked through and put in.” and “We started negotiating it about two years ago, May-June 1999. We started receiving materials for it in December and started constructing it as we were coming through the outer and inner shell.“ When asked why this change was made so late in the project, Viner replied — “Oklahoma City.” Of course, this was more than four years after the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building and that incident had already been considered in the plans drafted in 1997.
On the day of 9/11
On the day of the attack, the instant of impact was witnessed by another Vietnam combat veteran, Frank Probst, who just happened to be in the exact area outside the building when it occurred. Probst was not only a veteran, he was a West Point graduate and retired army lieutenant colonel. He worked with Evey in the Pentagon Renovation Program Office as a communications specialist.
In 1973, after his combat experiences in Vietnam, Probst joined the U.S. Army Signal Corps. He continued as a career Army communications officer, serving in places like Panama from 1973 to 1977 and the 5th Signal Corps in Germany from 1981 to 1984. Probst retired in 1986 from the Defense Communications Agency (DCA) in Arlington, VA. Note that the 5th Signal Corps managed the worldwide U.S. satellite program. The DCA, now called the Defense Information Systems Agency, is the leader of satellite communications for the DOD and was responsible for developing the system architecture.
Probst had worked on the renovation project since 1995, before Evey joined. Six years later, as one of the few people who witnessed the impact and the one who saw it from the closest vantage point, Probst’s testimony was critical to establishing the official account of what happened.
Twelve minutes before impact, at 9:25 am, Frank Probst was said to be completing an inspection of computer room air conditioning equipment and a first floor telephone closet just inside the west wall. Afterward, he stopped at a construction trailer outside, near where the plane hit. Images of the scene taken in May 2001 show the construction trailers and other materials located around the point of impact. For some unknown reason, three of the construction trailers that were located immediately outside the impact area were left out of diagrams in the report published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
At one of the construction trailers, Probst watched the news about the WTC with others there and together they remarked how the Pentagon would be a good target. Probst left the trailer around 9:35 am and the aircraft, originally piloted by long-time Pentagon employee Charles Burlingame but allegedly taken over by Hani Hanjour, came right at him.
It was reported that — “The pilot seemed to be aiming for a window on the first floor, almost exactly where Probst had been checking the air conditioning ten minutes earlier.” Another witness said the aircraft appeared to be “nothing more than a guided missile at that point,” and by most accounts it was going full throttle approximately six feet off the ground.
Probst hit the ground as the aircraft passed just a few feet above him, and he observed the end of the right wing cut through the portable electrical generator that provided backup power to Wedge 1. It is amazing, given this account, that Probst was not injured by the turbulence from the wake of the aircraft. Such aircraft wakes are known to be highly dangerous.
It is also remarkable that Frank Probst was checking equipment in the exact location of impact just 12 minutes before it happened. It seems unlikely that this lieutenant colonel from the DCA was the air conditioning guy, but for Probst to have wandered away to discuss how the Pentagon would be a good target for the next hijacked aircraft, and then come back to be nearly hit by that next aircraft, makes his story worthy of further investigation.
Lt. Col. Probst’s presence at the impact site is not in question due to another witness who saw him there. This was AMEC employee Don Mason. For the purposes of this alternative account, the question to be answered is why Probst was there and what he was doing. His presence in the building just before it hit, then in the construction trailer a few minutes later, and then just below the aircraft as it impacted the building, does not seem to be accidental.
Support for the idea that there is more to Probst’s story is given by the 2003 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) restrictions on 9/11 Commission interviews for certain witnesses. Only four Pentagon witnesses were on the DOJ-sensitive list, of the many people who said they saw something. Those four included two Pentagon police officers, cleanup project engineer Allyn Kilsheimer (mentioned below), and Frank Probst. The restrictions that the DOJ insisted upon were that a DOJ attorney must be present during these interviews, a five day warning must be given in each case, and no record could be made, of any kind.
Regardless of why Probst was there, reports state that Flight 77 crashed through the windows of rooms 1E462 and 1E466. Jack Singleton, the president of Wedge 1 electrical subcontractor, Singleton Electric, said — “Where the plane came in was really at the construction entrance.”
The ASCE report states that the fuselage hit “at or below the second floor slab,” which was about 14 feet off the ground, and it then “slid between the first-floor slab on grade and the second-floor slab for most of its distance of travel after striking the building.” As it slid, the aircraft “burst through Army accounting offices on the first floor of the E ring, continued through the Navy Command Center on the D ring, and slammed into a Defense Intelligence Agency office in the C ring.”
The aircraft was said to have punched through three rings of the building, which essentially represented three separate structures, the outer ring (ring E), the D ring and the C ring, before coming to rest.
Unfortunately, although there were many videotape recorders in the vicinity that recorded the moment of impact, all of the videotapes were confiscated by the FBI within minutes and have never been released. Through a FOIA request, five frames from one of these videos were released but do not reveal much. We are therefore left with only eyewitness testimony and photographic evidence, from before and after the attack, in order to piece together the moment of impact.
First responders from local fire departments arrived at the scene within 5 minutes as did the FBI’s National Capital Response Squad. Other federal, state, and local civilian police officers arrived within minutes as well, including FEMA’s Urban Rescue and Search team from Virginia. Because it was terrorism, the federal plan implemented in January 2001, known as the Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan (CONPLAN), made it clear that the FBI was in charge. Personnel from the FBI and other government agencies immediately began collecting evidence at the scene.
If not for the construction project, thousands of people would have been working in Wedge 1 at the time of impact. Because the aircraft hit that low occupancy section of the building, only 125 people were killed. Of those killed, none were high-level officials and none of the ten or more PNAC members with offices in the building were injured or killed. Donald Rumsfeld was safe in his office on the opposite side of the building.
The targeting of Wedge 1 guaranteed the safety of the Pentagon’s top leaders, which is not what anyone would expect from al Qaeda. Limitation of Pentagon deaths is, however, what we might expect from an insider conspiracy.
Instead of rushing to the NMCC to lead the national defense and ensure that no other parts of the attack were successful, Rumsfeld went out to the parking lot and the lawn and could not be reached for approximately 30 minutes. In explanation, he said – “I wanted to see what had happened. I wanted to see if people needed help. I went downstairs and helped for a bit with some people on stretchers. Then I came back up here and started — I realized I had to get back up here and get at it.”
It could be that Rumsfeld was personally concerned about the welfare of specific individuals, but it does not seem reasonable that he would forsake his duties and the rest of the country for 30 minutes during the most critical time of his tenure. An alternative explanation for Rumsfeld’s negligent visit to the southwest wall is that he was part of the conspiracy and he rushed to the scene due to concern that something might not have gone exactly to plan. For example, the aircraft might not have hit precisely where he had hoped, or he might have been trying to make sure that any unwanted evidence was removed before it was found by the wrong people. Or, he might simply have wanted an excuse to be out of a position of command for another 30 minutes.
Of the 45 people working in the Army office located immediately within the impact zone, 34 died. More than half of the victims worked in the Pentagon’s Naval Command Center, and many of them had been moved into the facility shortly before the attack. In addition to the people in the building, there were 54 victims on the airliner, as well as the 5 alleged hijackers, all of whom perished.
As for AMEC Construction, which was still working in the area, its vice president Ron Vermillion reported that 230 company employees were in Wedge 1 that morning. Other reports said it was less than 100 AMEC employees, doing “final, touch-up work on wedge one.” Regardless of the number, although AMEC had many employees in the area that was hit, all of them survived.
The deaths of 184 people (125 plus the aircraft passengers and alleged hijackers) was a national tragedy, but it could have been much worse. The relatively low loss of life at the Pentagon could be seen as evidence that the perpetrators of the crime wanted to minimize casualties. The number of deaths among military personnel and DOD leadership was very low relative to what would have happened if any other part of the building was hit.
In his final assessment, Lee Evey remarked — “This was a terrible tragedy, but I’m here to tell you that if we had not undertaken these efforts in the building, this could have been much, much worse. The fact that they happened to hit an area that we had built so sturdily was a wonderful gift.”
What might have been done to facilitate the attack?
To help answer the question of how Flight 77 might have hit Wedge 1, flying at high speed and just barely off the ground, we might consider what aircraft guidance systems would allow such flight. Advanced automated control could explain how Flight 77 maneuvered as it did given the poor piloting skills of the alleged hijacker, Hani Hanjour.
Researcher Aidan Monaghan has written a compelling article entitled “Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems.” Monaghan hypothesizes that the precision automated flight control systems, and related commercial aviation technology that emerged just prior to 9/11, might have been utilized to accomplish the 9/11 attacks.
Monaghan explains that, in 2001, technology was available to remotely alter aircraft flight plan data in 757 and 767 aircraft, causing the planes to take a different route using autopilot functions. Combined with the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), an augmented GPS signal system, and associated technology, aircraft like those used in the 9/11 attacks could be flown remotely through “highways in the sky” that are navigated by the autopilot systems.
As Monaghan reported, companies involved in implementing such technology in the late 1990s included Boeing and Raytheon. In fact, Raytheon was the primary developer and provider of WAAS technology. The Mitre Corporation provided specialists to the WAAS Integrity Performance Panel (WIPP) to help with the implementation of WAAS.
Just a few weeks after 9/11, another company called Cubic Defense Systems filed for a patent on technology that “removes control of an aircraft from its pilot and utilizes an aircraft’s auto-pilot system to implement an uninterruptable pre-programmed auto-pilot flight plan” and can terminate “an aircraft’s ability to communicate.”
The information we have about Flight 77 as it was being flown toward the Pentagon comes largely from the flight path study provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). An interesting feature of the official account is that the aircraft was not seen on radar for 8 minutes and 13 seconds starting at the time of the hijacking. This was the period from when the transponder was turned off at 8:56 to 9:05, while it was within the domain of Indianapolis Center. Due to this radar data gap, the NTSB flight path was reconstructed using other radar data and information retrieved from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR).
The official account tells us that Flight 77 was hijacked at approximately 8:55 am and the autopilot was functioning throughout that time, including during the radical change in course back to Washington. Due to the technical skills required, disabling the autopilot and re-programming a new flight plan would be very difficult tasks for an unskilled hijacker. Of course, finding a specific target after flying the plane for hundreds of miles without autopilot would be an astonishing feat for an inexperienced pilot as well. All of these problems are solved by positing a remote control hijacking.
Remote control of a large airliner using WAAS, which operates using satellites and a system of 20 ground-based reference stations spread across North America, was successfully tested in the 1990s along with ancillary landing systems. One landing system developed just before 9/11, by Raytheon, was the military’s all weather, anti-jam Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS). To operate, JPALS needs ground-based GPS receivers which send signals to a central location at the landing site. This data is then sent to the approaching aircraft via a VHF data link so that flight path adjustments can be made.
Extensive flight testing of JPALS was conducted by Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force in the three months before 9/11, at Holloman AFB in New Mexico. Like Milstar, priority use of JPALS was given to special, covert missions conducted by U.S. Special Operations. The hardware for tactical JPALS operations consists of a communications console the size of a large microwave oven, a VHF transmission antenna twice the height of an average person, and a GPS receiver the size of a camera tripod.
Insiders could have located such a console in the telephone closet that Probst was checking, along with a transmission antenna on the roof of the building, and additional receivers in the construction trailers. This would seem to provide a plausible explanation for how the necessary hardware for precision approach and “landing” of Flight 77 might have been present without detection.
It might not have been necessary for additional landing system equipment to be included in such a scenario, however. By late 2001, WAAS could function for precision guidance of aircraft and targeting of structures entirely on its own. In fact, at the time, military researchers were writing that “WAAS provides such a high accuracy positioning that the Oval Office itself would be a plausible target.”
It is the unusual flight pattern of the aircraft that suggests a separate landing system might have been employed. If WAAS alone was used, the flight path of the aircraft would not be expected to include several disruptions of the autopilot system and a last minute, 330-degree turn.
After the plane was headed back to Washington, the autopilot stayed on until approximately 9:08 when it was shut off for three minutes and turned on again. At 9:29, within minutes of Frank Probst’s inspection of equipment within the impact area, “the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged [again]; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.” And at 9:34, just before Probst left the construction trailer, the plane was “5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon.”
This descending, 330-degree turn might have been similar to a “circling to land” maneuver used in order to better align the aircraft for a landing approach. Alternatively, the turn might have been a non-standard entry into a holding pattern, like a teardrop turn. That is, it could be that something was not ready at the time that the aircraft was about to arrive and, therefore, arrival had to be delayed for a few minutes. It is also possible that control of the aircraft was switched from one system (WAAS) to another, requiring a delay.
The turn might also have been a spectacular demonstration of new technology related to the RMA, meant for certain people who needed convincing. If the JPALS system was located in or near the building, the suspicious activities of Probst could be explained in that he was using his expertise in advanced (DCA) communications to make the necessary last minute adjustments.
Further evidence for a last-minute adjustment is given by the distress shown by Vice President Cheney when he was being asked by a young naval officer if “the orders still [stood].” Cheney and his colleagues were apparently tracking Flight 77 as it came in to Arlington from approximately 50 miles out, and he seemed very distressed at the time, from what Norman Mineta has testified.
Probst was finishing his inspection of equipment within the impact zone of the building at 9:25 am. This was just one minute before Cheney got the “50 miles out” notice, at 9:26 am, according to several accounts.
The NTSB flight path study says that Flight 77 was about 35 miles west of the Pentagon at 9:29 am. The aircraft would have flown the final 35 miles in about 4.2 minutes, impacting at about 9:34 am, if it had not started the 330-degree turn. According to the NTSB study, the aircraft began its wide turn at 9:34 am when only 5 miles (or less than one minute) away. This was just one minute before Probst was reported as having left the construction trailer, at 9:35 am.
Therefore the suspicious coincidences regarding DCA lieutenant colonel Frank Probst’s activities before impact might be considered with the fact that those activities were happening at the same times as notices to Cheney. Probst’s activities also appear to correlate with major changes to the flight path of the incoming aircraft.
This raises the question of what was being removed from the Pentagon site just after impact, and if any of it might have been related to aircraft guidance technology. It is possible that if transmitters or receivers that were part of a landing system were located at the site they could have been hidden within the building or in the construction trailers as suggested earlier.
The aircraft was reported to have impacted an area that was outlined almost exactly by the three construction trailers that were immediately in front of the impact zone. Since the impact area and some of the trailers were said to have been completely destroyed, and teams of FBI and other first responders were removing evidence immediately after the attacks, we would never know.
Georgine K. Glatz, who was referred to as the chief engineer for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office, reported to Lee Evey’s deputy, Mike Sullivan. Some interesting remarks were made by Dr. Glatz when she was interviewed by the Pentagon historian, Alfred Goldberg, in December 2001. For example, Glatz expressed doubts about a truck bomb being the scenario of interest in planning the renovation. She said that it was odd considering that, at the time, “everything was guided.” Glatz went on to say — “Little did I know that the remote control would be the person flying the plane.“
In addition to the use of new aviation technology and guidance systems, there is reason to believe that explosives were planted in the building. This evidence includes witness testimony to a strong shockwave indicative of an explosion. Other witnesses with military experience testified to the strong smell of cordite, a low-grade military explosive, at the scene.
Although cordite is a low explosive, it was not likely to have been present since its use is long-outdated. Today, it is a cliché to talk of the smell of cordite when one is referring to something with an aroma like that of explosives. One of the witnesses to have remarked on it was General Hugh Shelton, who claimed to have visited the scene in the early afternoon.
Whether it was cordite or something else, there were a number of highly credible witnesses that reported secondary explosions going off in and around the impact hole for nearly an hour after the aircraft crashed. One of these was the CIA agent turned Florida congressman, Porter Goss, in whose district the alleged hijackers received their training. Goss went on to lead the first official inquiry into the events of 9/11.
The use of well-timed explosives at the moment of aircraft impact could explain why so few parts of the aircraft were visible outside the building. Some eyewitnesses testified that the aircraft “seemed to simply melt into the building,” or that it “sort of disappeared.” One witness said that the plane went into the building like a “toy into a birthday cake,” and another said “it was in the air one moment and in the building the next.”
These witness accounts suggest that explosives were placed in the building in such a way that, when triggered, they created an opening to absorb and destroy the body of the aircraft. The renovation project would have been perfect cover for placing the explosives in such an exact configuration. Again, the three officially unrecognized and completely destroyed construction trailers, located immediately in front of the impact area, might have served a role in triggering the explosives upon impact.
The building investigation and those who controlled the site
Evidence that something needed to be covered-up at the Pentagon was provided by the selection of those who led the official investigation into the building damage. The leader of the investigation, nominally sponsored by the ASCE, was Paul Mlakar. He had graduated from West Point (the year after Frank Probst) and Purdue University. Mlakar had ties to the U.S. deep state in that he married the daughter of Col. Robert P. Halloran, a former intelligence agent and acting director of the NSA under Allen Dulles (1960-61).
For the 11 years prior to 1996, Mlakar was vice president of a defense contractor located in San Diego, called JAYCOR. JAYCOR was an unofficial spin-off of SAIC, the company that has so many connections to 9/11. As a company, JAYCOR specialized in defense-related technologies, but was primarily a radar systems provider. While working there, Mlakar filed for a number of patents on explosive containment devices for aircraft.
In 1996, Mlakar joined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), in Mississippi, where he was technical director for airfields, pavements and structures. Two years later, in 1998, Mlakar’s unit “performed classified simulations” that measured “the damage the Pentagon would suffer from a truck bomb.” Mlakar’s involvement in those classified simulations to test explosive effects on the external wall of the Pentagon is not well known and represents yet another amazing coincidence.
Despite being the leader of the building investigation, Mlakar was not given access to the Pentagon crash site until September 14. Through the following week, he was allowed limited access to the site although the other members of his investigation team were not. On October 4, the team was allowed to inspect the damage, accompanied by Gene Corley, Mlakar’s colleague from the Oklahoma City bombing investigation. But only for four hours. That fact suggests that whoever was driving the investigation was not really interested in evidence. However, the access Mlakar and Corley were given was better than what they had gotten in Oklahoma City, when they performed their entire physical investigation from two hundred feet (half a city block) away.
A few years after 9/11, a professor from the University of California publicly accused Mlakar of obstructing the investigation into physical damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. In a letter to ASCE, the professor claimed that Mlakar had even admitted his role as an obstructionist.
All things considered, the evidence suggests that Mlakar and his Pentagon building assessment was intended to be a cover-up. Furthermore, if the attack on the Pentagon had anything to do with explosives, remote targeting of objects near the ground, or airfields, Mlakar’s experience at JAYCOR and ERDC would have helped him to know what evidence to avoid.
AMEC and Facchina Construction came to the site immediately after the attack as well. Paul Facchina described that — “AMEC called us within an hour and a half of the attack. We were asked to provide support services and logistical support to FEMA, the FBI, and DoD—whatever they needed. We had 50 people on site right away. We built roads to the site, providing shoring for areas in distress, cleared areas, and built fences to secure the area.”
Those who had unlimited access to the Pentagon crash site included Allyn Kilsheimer, an engineer who was often hired by the government to clean-up after terrorist incidents. Kilsheimer was put in charge not only after the Pentagon attack, but also at the site of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. When given such an assignment, Kilsheimer expected to have total control over the site, even when the FBI and military were involved, and he usually got it.
Kilsheimer, one of the DOJ-sensitive witnesses mentioned above, is the son of a concentration camp survivor. He gave his reasons for working at the Pentagon attack site by saying that, after September 11, he felt he was repaying America for what it had done to help his family during World War II.
It was reported that Ron Vermillion of AMEC requested Mr. Kilsheimer’s services immediately after the attack. Vermillion’s boss was Mack McGaughan, who reported to Rumsfeld’s long-time colleague, Peter Janson. But Glatz said it was a man named Jack Kelly who called in Kilsheimer because Kelly knew him from the past. Glatz said Kilsheimer had secured a $15 million contract within 5 minutes.
An interview of Jack Kelly occurred as an interruption to the interview of William Viner, when Viner was describing the unplanned addition to the renovation plan. The Kelly interview included some difficulty determining exactly who he was and who he worked for. After request for clarification, Kelly remarked that there was no one else like him. He was on “a personal services contract” and was reporting directly to Lee Evey.
In any case, it was said that Kilsheimer and Kelly ran the show during the clean-up operation. When interviewed, Kelly told the interviewers they could learn more of the truth about what happened from Kilsheimer or Garret McKenzie of the FBI. McKenzie was in charge of photographing the evidence. At one point, he pulled together a dozen photographers for a briefing, and told them: “We don’t need to photograph all the plane parts, only unique airplane parts or something specific. Like the pilot’s yoke, or anything with part of a serial number on it. If we have to prove what kind of plane this was, the serial numbers will be what we need.”
Summary and conclusions
In summary, the Pentagon renovation project was excellent cover for an insider conspiracy to attack the Pentagon. The people running the project were, at the same time, calling for a revolution in military affairs that, without the 9/11 attacks, they would not have been able to realize. These people included Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others like Raytheon’s director John Deutch and its advisor Richard Armitage. Others who were involved with the project gained from the seizure of oil and gas resources, like Rumsfeld’s longtime fellow director Peter Janson and his colleagues at AMEC.
Through this review, more probable answers to the questions mentioned at the beginning of this article can be proposed. It is important to keep in mind that these are simply proposed answers that require further investigation.
An insider conspiracy answers the question of who benefited much better than does the official account. An historic power grab, a change in global policy direction, and a huge increase in military spending together constitute a much more compelling motivation than the purely symbolic gesture of hitting the Pentagon with an airplane — the objective attributed to the alleged hijackers. The massive seizure of resources, primarily oil and gas, represented by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, provided further, incalculable benefits to those within such an alternative conspiracy.
This particular hypothesis suggests that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowtiz, John Deutch and/or John Hamre, Frank Probst, Paul Mlakar and Peter Janson could have played parts in the attack on the Pentagon, resulting in achievement of the RMA that they and their colleagues had sought. Some of them, like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Janson, also benefited from the seizure of oil and gas resources. Others, including Lee Evey and one or more FBI agents, might have had knowledge that they were participating in something deceptive but they did not necessarily need to know the entire plan.
Many West Point graduates, like Mlakar and Probst, hold honor above other values and therefore would not be expected to participate in dishonorable activities leading to terrorism against citizens of the United States. On the other hand, Operation Northwoods was approved and recommended for implementation when Probst was a freshman at West Point, by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and West Point graduate, Lyman Lemnitzer. Other West Point graduates, including Anastasio Somoza (1946) and Richard Secord (1955), have been implicated in crimes against democracy.
Much more investigation is needed in order to better understand what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. However it is clear that an insider conspiracy was not only possible, but can explain more of the evidence and can provide a much more plausible motivation.
Ultimately subpoena power may be needed to root out the answers. What we can say with certainty is that there are far more compelling questions about the attack than are usually discussed among 9/11 investigators. With a commitment to work toward the answers in an objective manner, without complicating the questions with unnecessary diversions, we might yet discover what really happened.
 Kevin R. Ryan, Two dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, DigWithin.net, July 9, 2011, http://digwithin.net/2011/07/09/two-dozen-questions-about-flight-77-and-the-pent agon-that-might-lead-to-justice/
 For more information on Hani Hanjour and his poor piloting skills, see Clueless Super-pilot: Jetliner Aerobatics by Flight School Dropout Who Never Flew a Jet, 911Research.wtc7.net, http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.html
 Rebecca Sheir, Rebuilding the World’s Largest Office Building, WAMU Metro Connection, September 9, 2011, http://wamu.org/programs/metro_connection/11/09/09/rebuilding_the_worlds_largest_office_building
 David S. Chartock, Industry Rallies To Cleanup WTC Aftermath, SPECIAL REPORT! (9/12/01 — noon), New York Construction News, http://newyork.construction.com/news/WTC/0109_rallies.asp
 National Priorities Project, U.S. Security Spending Since 9/11, May 26, 2011, http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/us-security-spending-since-911/
 Jamey Hecht, PTech, 9/11, and USA-Saudi Terror, From The Wilderness Publications, 2005, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1.shtml. For more on PTech, see National Corruption Index profile for Felix Rausch, October 14, 2008, http://www.nationalcorruptionindex.org/pages/profile.php?profile_id=277
 Jamey Hecht, PTECH, 9/11, and USA-SAUDI TERROR – Part I: PROMIS Connections to Cheney Control of 9/11 Attacks Confirmed, From the Wilderness Publications, 2005, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1.shtml
 Dan Briody, The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of The Carlyle Group, Wiley publishers, 2003
 Sourcewatch page for Global Technology Partners, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Technology_Partners,_LLC
 911research.wtc7.com, Pentagon Renovation, http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/renovation.html
 Rebecca Leung, Cashing In For Profit?, CBS News 60 Minutes, February 11, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/04/60II/main664652.shtml
 Steve Vogel, The Pentagon: a history : the untold story of the wartime race to build the Pentagon – and to restore it sixty years later, Random House, 2008
 Boeing Defense, Space and Security, Boeing Satellites, Milstar II, http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/government/milstar_ii/milstar_ii.html
 SpaceToday.org, The Satellite Wars, http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/YugoWarSats.html
 Steve Vogel, The Pentagon: a history : the untold story of the wartime race to build the Pentagon – and to restore it sixty years later, Random House, 2008
 Project for a NEW American Century, Statement of Principles, June 3, 1997, http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
 Douglas McGray, The Marshall Plan, Wired, February 2003, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/marshall.html
 Michael Russell Rip and James M. Hasik, The precision revolution: GPS and the future of aerial warfare, Naval Institute Press, 2002
 Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, September 2000, http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
 Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy, Scribner, 2007
 Lyndon Larouche reported that Telos’ board of directors was a “who’s who” of Richard Perle associates.. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2931murawiec_doss.html
 Andrew Cockburn
 Washington’s Blog, Continuity of Government Measures WERE Implemented on 9/11 . . . Were They EVER Revoked?, February 10, 2008, http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/continuity-of-government-plans-were.html
 John Parkinson, Special Report: Lee Evey: The Man And His Mission, Today’s Facility Manager, September 2002, http://www.todaysfacilitymanager.com/articles/lee-every-the-man-and-his-mission.php
 Nicholas A. Vardy, The World’s Most Valuable Companies, The Global Guru, December 2009, http://www.theglobalguru.com/article.php?id=83&offer=GURU001
 C.L. Taylor, Rebuilding The Pentagon, Capstone Communications, http://www.capstonestrategy.com/PopHTML/Pentagon.html
 Alexander’s Oil and Gas Connections, AGRA officially changes its name to AMEC, May 15, 2000, http://www.gasandoil.com/news/europe/820ea44bb88da5e1eb8f7aabf6b1cbbf
 ABB website, ABB announces proposed Board, share split, February 19, 2001, http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/c1256c290031524bc12569f8002a7cb5.aspx
 Randeep Ramesh, “The two faces of Rumsfeld,” The Guardian, May 9,2003, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/09/nuclear.northkorea .
 Benjamin Weinthal, ‘Nazi-era corporate behavior repeated’, Jerusalem Post, January 21, 2010, http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=166362
 Businessweek profile for Peter Janson, http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=1190481&ticker=TK:US&previousCapId=329438&previousTitle=TEEKAY%20CORP
 Steve Vogel
 Concrete Pumping, Pumping at the Pentagon Puts Reconstruction Months Ahead of Schedule, Cached/copied 09-13-08, http://www.reficultnias.org/mikesfiles/cachedfiles/pumpingatthepentagon-cp-cached-091308
 History Commons 9/11 Timeline, evens related to SVTC problems, http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a940tvaudioproblems#a940tvaudioproblems
 William Viner interview by OSD, October 12, 2001, http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086957/GSA-B115-RDOD03012831-Fdr-Entire-Contents-OSD-Intvw-2001-10-25-Viner-William-n-Kelly-Jack-PenRen-046
 Register of graduates and former cadets of the United States Military Academy, 1991
 GlobalSecurity.org, Military Communications webpage, http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/com-overview.htm
 Donald H. Martin, A History of U.S. Military Satellite Communication Systems, The Aerospace Corporation, http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2002/01.html
 Steve Vogel
 Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, The damage before impact, http://jpdesm.pagesperso-orange.fr/pentagon/pages-en/trj-before.html
 ASCE and SCI, The Pentagon Building Performance Report, January 2003, http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
 Steve Vogel
 Eric Bart’s Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Account Compilation, 911research.wtc7.net, http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
 ASCE and SCI, The Pentagon Building Performance Report, January 2003
 Andrew S. Carten, Jr., Aircraft Wake Turbulence: An Interesting Phenomenon Turned Killer, Air University Review, July-August 1971, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1971/jul-aug/carten.html
 U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, written non-disclosure agreement between DOJ attorney Daniel Levin and Philip Zelikow, July 11, 2003, found at 9/11Document Archive (Scribd), under the title SK B9 Tier a-B Interviews 1 of 2 Fdr- Letters Re Minders- Interviews- Recording- Etc170
 Eric Bart’s Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Account Compilation
 Steve Vogel
 See diagram of the impact scene , with Flight 77 drawn to scale. http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/pentagon_092301.gif
 The Smithsonian Institution, Archive of September 11 photos, image of FBI laboratory personnel collecting debris from Pentagon attack site, http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=80&z=0
 David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed, Olive Brach Press, 2011
 Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Larry King, CNN, U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), Dec. 5, 2001, http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2603
 911Research.wtc7.net, Pentagon Victims, http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/victims/pentagonkilled.html
 George Cahlink, Restoring Hope, Government Executive, May 1, 2002, http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9-11/flight77-aa-pentagon/pentagon-empty.txt
 Esther Schrader, Pentagon, a Vulnerable Building, Was Hit in Least Vulnerable Spot, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2001, http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/analysis/latimes_leastvulnerable.html
 Aidan Monaghan, Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems, Journal of 9/11 Studies, October, 2008, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf
 David Jensen, WAAS: Back in Step, Avionics Magazine, February 1, 2002, http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/commercial/WAAS-Back-in-Step_12571.html
 Aidan Monaghan
 NTSB, Office of Research and Engineering, Flight path study – American Airlines Flight 77, February 19, 2002, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf
 Matthew Everett, The 9/11 Hijackers: Amateur Aviators Who Became Super-Pilots on September 11, Shoestring’s Blog, July 11, 2011, http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2011/07/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who.html
 Raytheon company news release, Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force demonstrate new technology aircraft precision approach and landing system, September 6, 2001, http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html
 Wikipedia, Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Precision_Approach_and_Landing_System
 Michael Russell Rip and James M. Hasik
 See FAA report, “Report of Aircraft Accident,” Nov. 13, 2001; John Hendershot interview (Dec. 22, 2003); FAA report, “Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events: September 11, 2001,” Sept. 17, 2001; NTSB report, “Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77,” Commission analysis of radar data.
 George Washington’s Blog, Mineta’s testimony CONFIRMED, March 04, 2007, http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/03/minetas-testimony-confirmed.html
 History Commons 9/11 Timline, Dick Cheney’s Action on 9/11, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=dickcheney&timeline=complete_911_timeline
 See diagram of impact zone at 911Research.wtc7.net, http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/impact757.gif
 Pentagon OSD Historical Office interview with Georgine K, Glatz, December 7, 2001, accessed at 911DocumentArchive (Scribd), http://www.scribd.com/doc/51154675/GSA-B115-RDOD03012848-Fdr-Entire-Contents-Intvw-2001-12-07-Glatz-Georgine-058
 911Research.wtc7.net, Pentagon Explosion, http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/explosion.html
 History Commons 9/11 Timeline, Context of ‘(9:45 a.m.-10:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Secondary Explosions Heard inside Pentagon’, http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a945pentagonexplosions#a945pentagonexplosions
 Eric Bart’s Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Account Compilation
 J. Robert Beyster and Peter Economy, The SAIC solution: how we built an $8 billion employee-owned technology company, John Wiley & Sons, 2007
 PatentMaps, Patent applications made by Paul Mlakar, http://www.patentmaps.com/inventor/Mlakar_Paul_F_1.html
 Steve Vogel, p417
 ASCE and SCI, The Pentagon Building Performance Report, January 2003
 The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee, Final Report on the Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, 2001
 Kevin R. Ryan, Pentagon investigation leader, Paul Mlakar, obstructed investigation in New Orleans, according to UC Berkeley professor, 911Blogger.com, October 15, 2010, http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-15/pentagon-investigation-leader-paul-mlakar-obstructed-investigation-new-orleans-according-uc-berkeley-professor
 C.L. Taylor
 Sarah Krouse, D.C. engineer helps bring structure to chaos, Washington Business Journal, August 26, 2011, http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/print-edition/2011/08/26/dc-engineer-helps-bring-structure-to.html?page=all
 Washington Business Journal, D.C. engineer helps bring structure to chaos, August 26, 2011, http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/print-edition/2011/08/26/dc-engineer-helps-bring-structure-to.html?page=all
 Pentagon OSD Historical Office interview with Georgine K, Glatz
 William Viner interview
 United States Department of Defense News Transcript, Thursday, March 7, 2002, http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/analysis/defenselink_pentrenov.html
 Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11, Ballantine Books, 2008
By Kevin Ryan
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were a turning point in world history. We have been told that these attacks were planned and implemented by nineteen Arab Muslim hijackers under the direction of the leaders of al Qaeda. According to the official account, this criminal conspiracy received no help or funding from any government.
Unfortunately, this explanation fails to address a majority of the evidence and leaves most of the critical questions unanswered. In fact, the reports that constitute the official account do so little to explain what happened that it is possible that, to this day, we know very little about who was behind the attacks. That fact is alarming to many people, given that so much war and unprecedented change has been driven by the official account.
On closer inspection, the 9/11 Commission Report provides only 90 pages of discussion about what actually happened on the day of 9/11, found in chapters 1 and 9 of the report. The remainder of the report is devoted to promoting a myth behind the organization called al Qaeda, and suggesting what to do about it.
The 9/11 Commission told us in its report that — “Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned.”
Author David Ray Griffin revealed that the Commission report not only failed to provide the fullest possible account, it omitted or distorted many of the relevant facts. The Commission report also gave us a new explanation for one of the most alarming aspects of the attacks — the complete failure of the U.S. national air defenses. The new explanation represented the third, distinctly different, version of how the air defenses failed.
A number of excuses were given by Commission members for the shortcomings of its report. In their 2006 book, Without Precedent, the leaders of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, said “we were set up to fail.” When I met with Hamilton, he told me that the Commission faced too many questions, too little funding, and too little time.
But the fact is that, if it had not been for 9/11 victim’s family members working diligently to publicize problems with the emerging official myth, there would never have been a 9/11 Commission investigation. Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney actively sought to limit the investigation into the attacks.
As CNN reported in January 2002, President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit the congressional investigation. This unusual request came after a “rare call to Daschle from Vice President Cheney.” Daschle stated that Cheney “expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism.”
When the political pressure caused by the victim’s families grew too great, the 9/11 Commission was born. But the Commission was given less than one tenth of the funding that had been allotted to investigate the sexual exploits of President Clinton just three years earlier. Clearly, the U.S. government did not want an in-depth investigation into 9/11.
There were several brief inquiries early on. These included the CIA Inspector General (IG) inquiry, the FBI IG inquiry, and the Joint Congressional Inquiry. All three of these were focused on a limited hangout viewpoint of the shortcomings of U.S. intelligence agencies related to the alleged hijackers. The 9/11 Commission, which stated its goal of presenting “the fullest possible account” built its work on the earlier inquiries and used many of the same staff for its investigation.
To lead the Commission, President Bush first appointed Henry Kissinger. As with the 14-month delay in getting started, this appointment was a strong indication that the investigation was not intended to be a fact-finding mission. Kissinger’s refusal to release his client list, which was expected to include the name Bin Laden, forced his resignation and replacement by Kean and Hamilton. Kean’s ties to the oil and gas industry and Hamilton’s history as an intelligence agency insider, along with similar conflicts of interest among the rest of the Commission members, were issues that remained unaddressed.
In November 2003, one of the 9/11 Commission members quit. This was Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, who was outraged at the process and had previously said “This is a scam” and “It’s disgusting. America is being cheated.” In October 2003, Cleland told the New York Times that — “As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.”
The Commission’s report came out nine months later, in July 2004, and was hailed as a great achievement by the publicists hired to promote it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the report failed to answer 70% of the questions provided by the 9/11 victim’s families who had inspired the Commission’s charter.
Throughout the report, the Commission claimed that “no evidence” existed, or could be found, to explain aspects of the 9/11 events. This was reminiscent of comments made by President Ford to his press secretary, Ron Nessen, about Ford’s work on the Commission that investigated the assassination of President Kennedy. Ford told Nessen that he and his colleagues on the Warren Commission – “were very, very careful when we wrote our final report not to say flatly that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and was not part of a conspiracy.” Ford clarified that the Warren Commission was “very careful to say we ‘found’ no evidence of a conspiracy.”
The 9/11 Commission took this “we found no evidence” phrase to an extreme and used some form of it 36 times within its report.Four of those instances highlight the fact that the 9/11 Commission could not explain how any of the alleged hijackers entered the cockpits of any of the four hijacked planes. Other instances reflected that the Commission put almost no effort into allegations of insider trading, or how the attacks were funded, which the Commission said was “of little practical significance.” In an honest investigation, the funding would be seen as a strong clue to who was behind the attacks.
The WTC Reports
Although the Commission addressed the World Trade Center (WTC) in a brief, superficial manner, the detailed explanation for what happened to the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 was left to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). At the time, this agency reported through the U.S. Department of Commerce under the direction of Bush’s old friend and oil industry colleague, Donald Evans.
Like the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST reports, which were issued in 2005 and 2008, represented only the last in a series of failed official explanations for the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST avoided much of the evidence for what happened to the buildings by providing only a “collapse initiation sequence” for the towers, and by performing no physical testing to support its unusual explanation for WTC 7.
The timing of NIST’s WTC 7 report appeared to be scheduled for dual political purposes, to coincide with the seventh anniversary of 9/11 and to give the appearance of finished business at the end of the Bush Administration. That is not surprising, as the timing of NIST’s other reports coincided with political events as well. These included the draft report on the towers in October 2004 – just before the election, the final report on the towers – just before the fourth anniversary of 9/11, and NIST’s first “responses to FAQs” – just before the fifth anniversary. All of them appeared to involve politically motivated release dates.
In each case, the dates allowed time for the mainstream media to quickly present the official story while public interest was high, but did not allow time for critical questioning of the related documents, which were extensive and deceptive. With the WTC 7 report, the public was given just three weeks prior to 9/11/08 to comment on a report that was nearly seven years in the making.
With time it was discovered that the WTC 7 report was a very poor attempt at a realistic explanation for what happened to that 47-story building, which had not been hit by a plane. It seemed that NIST didn’t even try to present a logical explanation for what happened, but simply relied on the idea that a fawning media would help them close the public discussion quickly. In the future, people will learn a great deal from the NIST collaboration with certain media, in terms of our present culture and the extent of our ability to deceive.
The Response to Public Skepticism
The efforts to conceal the truth were not entirely effective, however. National polls showed that many people were very skeptical of the official myth. A poll done by Scripps-Howard in 2006, for example, showed that 36% of the American public suspected “that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.”
Among those who still trusted the official account were some who insisted that, if there was much more to the story of what happened on 9/11, the media would have latched on and reported the issues diligently. The History Commons 9/11 Timeline, which can be found online, shows that the mainstream media did, at first, report many interesting facts about 9/11 that did not end up in the official account. Those facts were never followed-up or were quickly forgotten as the official myth was formed and reformed.
Attempts by some media sources to support the official accounts led to an increasing suspicion that something was being covered up. Hearst Publications, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and Skeptic magazine, are examples of media that went to great lengths to stifle any questioning of the official account and divert attention from the glaring discrepancies.
Such official story champions focused their efforts around the term “conspiracy theory” and its variants, which they liberally applied to any attempts made by independent researchers. Ironically, this was despite the fact that the only 9/11 conspiracy theory of any consequence had always been the official account.
The use of “conspiracy theory” to deter citizens from investigating historic events is paradoxical, to be sure. It suggests that those who commit criminal conspiracies can only be relatively powerless people who happen to live on the most strategically important lands, and conspiracies among rich, powerful people are impossible or absurd.
Basically, our entire legal system is based on the idea of conspiracy. Despite this fact we have been conditioned by the government and the media to blindly accept the official reports and to treat any questioning of those reports as “conspiracy theorizing.” That is, you are a conspiracy theorist if you don’t believe the government’s conspiracy theory.
This cultural phenomenon goes back to 1967. At that time, in response to questions about the Warren Commission Report (which President Ford helped create), the CIA issued a memorandum calling for mainstream media sources to begin countering “conspiracy theorists.” In the 45 years before the CIA memo came out, the phrase “conspiracy theory” appeared in the Washington Post and New York Times only 50 times, or about once per year. In the 45 years after the CIA memo, the phrase appeared 2,630 times, or about once per week.
Before the CIA memo came out, the Washington Post and New York Times had never used the phrase “conspiracy theorist.” After the CIA memo came out, these two newspapers have used that phrase 1,118 times. Of course, in these uses the phrase is always delivered in a context in which “conspiracy theorists” were made to seem less intelligent and less rationale than people who uncritically accept official explanations for major events.
President George W. Bush and his colleagues often used the phrase conspiracy theory in attempts to deter questioning about their activities. When questioned by reporters about an emerging scandal in September 2000, Bush said the idea that his presidential campaign was flashing subliminal messages in advertisements was absurd, and he added that “conspiracy theories abound in America’s politics.” When in 1994, Bush’s former company Harken Energy was linked to the fraudulent Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) through several investors, Bush’s spokeswoman, Karen Hughes, shut down the inquiry by telling the Associated Press — “We have no response to silly conspiracy theories.”
Because Bush’s campaign had, in fact, been flashing subliminal messages in its advertisements, and Harken Energy was actually linked to BCCI, people began to wonder what Bush and his colleagues meant when they made diversionary comments about conspiracy theories. More importantly, that track record raised questions about Bush’s statement after the 9/11 attacks, in which he said in a televised speech — “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.”
There is no question that criminal government-sponsored conspiracies exist. History is replete with them and they usually involve the government claiming that the country was under attack from “terrorists.” This was true of Hitler’s Reichstag fire and it was true of the attacks that occurred in 20th century Western Europe under the guise of Operation Gladio. An example more relevant to 9/11 was the conspiracy behind Operation Northwoods, a plan drafted and approved in 1962 by the highest levels within the U.S. military.
Author James Bamford wrote of Operation Northwoods that it called “for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. [This would provide] the public and international backing they needed to launch their war.” The signed documents are available to everyone today and because of this we know that high level U.S. government representatives do conspire, on occasion, to commit crimes against the American people for the purpose of starting wars.
Another claim made by those who fend off questions about 9/11 is that the official conspiracy theory is more plausible than it seems at first sight because it involves only a small group of conspirators. That is, it includes only 19 alleged hijackers directed by Usama Bin Laden (UBL). Of course, we must include Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) because the 9/11 Commission Report called him the architect of the attacks. Over the years we have also been asked to consider the roles of Zacharias Moussaoui, Mohammed al Qahtani and the other four KSM colleagues who will be tried in military courts in the coming year.
Proposing a Better Explanation
Today, we don’t have an alternative to the official conspiracy that spells out how the events of 9/11 are explained as a result of a conspiracy among insiders. Yet, at the same time, we know it is impossible that those within the popular version of al Qaeda could have shut down the U.S. air defenses for two hours on 9/11, or destroyed the WTC buildings.
Is it possible to propose a compelling alternative conspiracy based on the involvement of insiders? Could certain corporations, government representatives, and other covert operatives have been involved? Requirements for such an alternative conspiracy to be compelling would include that it address more of the evidence and answer more of the questions about what happened, while not overly complicating the conspiracy.
If we examine the events of 9/11 in terms of what should have happened that did not, and what did not happen that should have, we can focus a little better on who might have been involved. At a minimum, the following statements of fact must be addressed by any alternative conspiracy.
• The many opportunities for U.S. intelligence agencies to track down and stop the alleged hijackers should have resulted in the attacks being stopped before 9/11.
• The four planes should not have been hijacked because the systems in place to prevent hijackings should have been effective.
• The U.S. chain of command should have responded to the attacks immediately but it did not.
• The U.S. national air defense should have responded effectively and some, if not all, of the hijacked aircraft should have been intercepted by military jets.
• The three WTC buildings should not have fallen through the path of what should have been the path of most resistance.
In addition to addressing these problems, an effective alternative version of 9/11 would better explain facts related to Flight 77 and the Pentagon, Flight 93, and ancillary issues like 9/11 insider trading.
For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes. However, it should also pay attention to the question of who benefited from the attacks, which the official investigations did not cover well. The benefits realized by al Qaeda should be compared to the benefits realized by those within an alternative conspiracy.
The official account claims that UBL, KSM and the alleged hijackers went to great lengths to plan and implement the 9/11 operation for reasons of revenge and symbolism. This explanation does not make a great deal of sense considering that the Arab Muslim world has suffered greatly as a result of the attacks. The only ones who have benefited in that region are the ruling royal families of countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait who have long collaborated with the West. Those minority groups have benefited from the War on Terror because it has temporarily protected them from regional threats like that posed by Saddam Hussein and from other challenges to their positions of power.
The attacks of September 11 were an act of war meant to gain control over others. That’s true no matter what conspiracy you buy into. If you accept the official conspiracy theory, that 19 Arab hijackers committed these crimes under the direction of UBL and KSM but with no help from any government, then the war was a religious jihad and the jihadists wanted to control the behavior of the US government.
Yet if you learn more about the facts, including that the alleged hijackers were not religious Muslims but were people who took drugs, drank alcohol and dated strippers, then you better see the need for another explanation. Add to this an understanding of how incredibly lucky the alleged hijackers would have had to be to even begin accomplishing everything the official account gives them credit for, and the need for better answers grows.
If the 9/11 attacks were accomplished as a result of an insider conspiracy, then several implications become obvious. First, the evidence which was omitted or distorted by official investigators might lead to revealing the true conspiracy. Secondly, any examples of avoidance or obstruction of those investigations would give good leads on the true conspiracy.
Owning up to the possibility that we were so grandly manipulated is not easy though. The psychological barriers to examining these questions can be difficult to overcome. It doesn’t get easier when we realize that the official 9/11 narrative has driven many other crimes, including the deaths of countless innocent people.
If an insider conspiracy for 9/11 was found to be true then we would have to assume that 9/11 was probably not the first time we have been fooled. Historical events such as the “October Surprise” holding of the hostages and the Iran-Contra crimes (both investigated by 9/11 co-chairman Lee Hamilton) might shed light on a system that periodically subverts democracy for its own purposes.
In this scenario, the public narrative behind al Qaeda, which was crafted and promoted for many years by “terrorism experts” like Brian Michael Jenkins and L. Paul Bremer, would be a matter for investigation. No doubt the extraordinary roles that both Jenkins and Bremer played in aviation security and at the WTC in the years before 9/11 would also be of intense interest.
Overall, it seems that an insider conspiracy had a much more believable motivation — the seizure and long-term maintenance of uncontested power. Such a conspiracy would have represented the interests of multi-national corporations and multi-generational powerbrokers who have benefited, beyond imagination, from the 9/11 attacks.
If honest investigators worked together to propose an alternative that better matched the evidence, we might move closer to truth and justice for the victims of 9/11 and the 9/11 Wars. This could conceivably also put the true conspirators on notice, as they might still be out there today engaging in unknown crimes. Doing so, however, would finally make the absurd accusations of official story supporters come true – we would finally become conspiracy theorists. On the other hand we might never know the truth if we wait for another government investigation.
 Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission, Unanswered Questions,http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
 David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2005
 Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton with Benjamin Rhodes, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, First Vintage Books, 2006
 Dana Bash, Jon Karl and John King, Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes, CNN, January 29, 2002,http://articles.cnn.com/2002-01-29/politics/inv.terror.probe_1_daschle-house-and-senate-intelligence-intelligence-committee?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
 Kristen Breitweiser, Wake-Up Call: The Political Education of a 9/11 Widow, Warner Books, 2006
 Philip Shenon, 9/11 Commission Could Subpoena Oval Office Files, New York Times, October 26, 2003
 Ron Nessen, It Sure Looks Different From the Inside, Playboy Press, 1978, p 59
 History Commons, Complete 9/11 Timeline, http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
 CIA Document #1035-960
 James Bamford, Body of secrets: anatomy of the ultra-secret National Security Agency. Random House. 2002
 U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)”, U.S. Department of Defense, March 1962. For online pdf file, see the National Security Archive at the George Washington University Gelman Library, Washington, D.C.,http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
 Kevin R. Ryan, Muslims did not attack the U.S. on 9.11, DigWithin.net, March 17, 2012, http://digwithin.net/2012/03/17/muslims-did-not-attack-the-u-s-on-911/
 For example, see Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 as sequel to Iran-Contra: Armitage, Carlucci and friends, DigWithin.net, April 8, 2012, http://digwithin.net/2012/04/08/911-as-a-sequel-to-iran-contra/
By Robert Higgs |
My studies have left me pessimistic about the prospects for the survival of free societies, in part because of the relationship just described. When the tyrants take over—usually in a national emergency—and whip everyone into line, only certain people of faith are, as a group, likely to resist, rather than making the best of a bad situation. Modern culture in most parts of the world is now overwhelmingly secular and even anti-religious. Without a foundation of belief strong enough to sustain resisters unto death, effective resistance is not likely to be mounted. The worst will get on top, as F. A. Hayek warned, and I do not expect these top dogs to be anything but devout atheists (although in a few societies, such as the USA, the tyrants may feign religious faith). I hope that my analysis here is flawed, because its implications are not encouraging for those who love liberty and hope for its survival.
by Tim Kelly
“There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be
coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It
went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.”
Those are the words of Garet Garrett, the 20th-century journalist and writer, who lamented
the collapse of the old Republic and the rise of the American managerial/administrative state —
the consummation of which he had witnessed in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Garrett’s observation came to mind the other day as I was contemplating the current state
of civil liberties and privacy in 21st-century America. Could it be that rather than fending off the
possibility of a police state arising in the future, we are already confronted with the grim reality of
one in the present?
The country’s degeneration into a police state has been observable for decades, but it
accelerated after 9/11 when the George W. Bush administration exploited the crisis atmosphere to
ram through a series of unconstitutional and tyrannical measures. Fear became the coin of the
realm as the American people traded away their liberties for the empty promise of security.
That such a deal would turn sour was foreseeable. Benjamin Franklin told his fellow
countrymen 250 years ago, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
His admonition, of course, hasn’t always been heeded. The country’s history is replete
with examples of the American people succumbing to paroxysms of fear and hysteria, often
resulting in gross violations of civil liberties. But these episodes, however terrible, were short-
lived because they were reactions to temporary crises. Today Americans are confronted with
something entirely different — we are told this crisis is permanent.
The federal government now boasts 16 national intelligence agencies, spending an
estimated $100 billion per year and employing an army of staffers and contractors who routinely
(and illegally) spy domestically. Investigative journalist James Bamford recently wrote in Wired
magazine that the National Security Agency is putting finishing touches on a massive data storage
center in Utah as part of its “Stellar Wind” program, a massive surveillance and data-mining
operation that involves collecting, storing, and examining billions of domestic phone calls and
This project is a culmination of a decade-long effort by the nation’s spy agencies to create a
panoptic society, in which the entire population is brought under round-the-clock government
surveillance. This is no longer the stuff of dystopian futuristic novels and is now a grim reality,
largely because of the stupendous increases in computing power and storage capacity achieved in
recent years. “Total information awareness” is now feasible thanks to the geniuses in Silicon
Valley — and it is now considered permissible by the psychopaths and control freaks running the
John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute provided an excellent summation of the
problem in a piece he wrote late last year:
The U.S. government now has at its disposal a technological arsenal so
sophisticated and invasive as to render any constitutional protections null and
void. And these technologies are being used by the government to invade the
privacy of the American people. Several years ago, government officials
acknowledged that the nefarious intelligence gathering entity known as the
National Security Agency (NSA) had exceeded its legal authority by eavesdropping
on Americans’ private email messages and phone calls. However, these reports
barely scratch the surface of what we are coming to recognize as a
“security/industrial complex” — a marriage of government, military and corporate
interests aimed at keeping Americans under constant surveillance. The increasingly
complex security needs of our massive federal government, especially in the areas
of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate
sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds
the growth of governmental bureaucracy.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently made headlines when it purchased
450 million rounds of .40-caliber ammunition. Why is DHS hoarding that much ammo? What
kind of trouble are they expecting?
The Transportation Security Agency has extended its jurisdiction beyond airports and now
is groping and irradiating Americans at train stations, bus depots, and the nation’s highways.
So-called fusion centers have popped up in 49 states, amassing files on ordinary
Americans for doing the most ordinary of things.
State and local police departments have been gradually assimilated into what journalist
William Norman Grigg calls the “vertically integrated Homeland Security State.” This integration
has largely been a function of the federal government’s so-called wars on drugs and terrorism.
In this process, police departments have been transmogrified into virtual standing armies,
endowed with an array of military-grade weapons and equipment. SWAT teams, once a rarity,
have proliferated throughout the country and are increasingly used in routine police work. And
this militarization of the police has been coupled with the use of actual military personnel
The emergence of the police state has predictably resulted in the swelling of the nation’s
prison population, which is now the largest in the world. Police are now jailing people for the
“crimes” of selling raw milk or buying too much Sudafed. A massive snarl of regulatory red tape
dangles above the head of every American, threatening to impose crushing fines and even
imprisonment. As former assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts says, “long before 9/11
US law had ceased to be a shield of the people and had been turned into a weapon in the hands of
The nation’s courts, rather than checking the police state’s relentless expansion, have
become its enabler. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled in Barnes v. State that citizens do not have
the right to resist police officers who enter their homes illegally. The U.S. Supreme Court
delivered a severe blow to the Fourth Amendment when it ruled in Kentucky v. King that police
could break into a home without a warrant so long as they suspected that those inside were in
possession of illegal drugs. And just a few weeks ago, the court ruled that law-enforcement
officials, whether local, state, or federal, have the authority to strip-search anyone they arrest for
What recourse do the people have when police forces violate the very law they are sworn
to uphold and the courts become complicit in their abuse? As disturbing as that question is, it is
one that American people must ask themselves if the country’s descent into tyranny is to be
The recently passed Federal Aviation Administration Air Transportation Modernization
and Safety Act includes an amendment authorizing the use of spy drones in American airspace.
The bill’s passage was apparently anticipated by law-enforcement agencies across the nation, as
many of them had already deployed spy drones as part of their domestic police work. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, the FBI, and the DEA are also using spy drones in their
The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, and the more
recent National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) are all grossly unconstitutional, yet
they passed through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. The NDAA is particularly
egregious, for it not only explicitly authorizes indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens on American
soil but also requires that detainees be held in military custody.
The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act codifies the federal
government’s practice of intimidating and silencing protestors. The ostensible purpose of the law
is to prevent the unlawful disruption of government business or “official functions,” but what is
“unlawful” is left to the discretion of federal agents. Indeed, the language of the law is so vague
that it arguably constitutes a suspension of the First Amendment right to free speech and peaceful
And then there is the National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order, which
authorizes a federal-government takeover of the entire economy during a declared “national
emergency.” President Obama claims this authority under the Constitution, of course, and the
Defense Production Act of 1950, a law that historian Robert Higgs says gives the president “lawful
authority to control virtually the whole of the U.S. economy whenever he chooses to do so and
states that the national defense requires such a government takeover.”
So all the president has to do is to declare a nebulous “national emergency,” and his
agents can seize control of every factory, farm, and business in the country and lay claim to all its
resources, including labor.
The intent of this short essay is not to provide a “list of horribles” committed by the
government (although such an accounting is useful) but to point out that the much-feared police
state has come into being. Its growth had been gradual, which contributed to the public’s
indifference, but it metastasized after 9/11, when the remaining legal barriers to the state’s
expansion were taken down in the name of “national security.” A large portion of the public
appears to be appropriately alarmed, but it remains to be seen whether this will reach a critical
mass in time to reverse the country’s destructive course.
Tim Kelly is a columnist and policy advisor at the Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax,
Virginia, a correspondent for Radio America’s Special Investigator, and a political cartoonist.
This article was originally published in May 2012.