CCW On-Target!
Originally Inspired by Northpoint Tactical Teams (NPT)
CCW <ccw@wolfenet.com>
 
Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie
by Barbara Honegger, M.S.
 
Note: This analysis and evidence summary will be published in The 9/11 Terror Conspiracy, the updated second edition of Jim Marrs’ 9/11 expose book Inside Job.

8/23/06 "The Charles Goyette Show" KNFX 1100 AM PHX AZ
Interview: Popular MechDaven Kolburn
Re: 9/11 Debunking the Debunkers
The Buzz Around Debunking 9/11 Myths...
Audio: (About 20 Minutes)
http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3


 
Barbara Honegger, M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School (1995 - current), the Navy’s advanced science, technology and national security affairs university. This Appendix, as all of Honegger’s publications on Sept. 11, are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement. Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White House Policy Analyst (1981-83); was the first public resignation of conscience from the Reagan-Bush Sr. Administration; was the pioneering Iran-gate author and whistleblower on the October Surprise (October Surprise, Tudor, 1989) and Iran-Contra expose documentary “Cover-Up”); and was called as a researcher-witness for both the Oct. 23, 2004, and Aug. 27, 2005, Los Angeles Citizens 9/11 Grand Jury hearings held at Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles, Calif. Much of the information and analysis contained in this 9/11 evidence summary and analysis was presented at the L.A. Citizens Grand Jury hearings and at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence conference held at American University in Washington, D.C. in July 2005.
 

 

The San Francisco Chronicle commemorated the 100th anniversary of The Great Quake of 1906 with a series of front page articles headed by a single icon—a charred clock frozen at 5:12 a.m., the exact moment “The Big One” hit1. A century after that devastating event, the stopped clock serves as both the ultimate evidence and the symbol that “captures it all.”
 
Again, almost 100 years later, clocks frozen in time at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 both “capture it all” and are the ultimate evidence that shatters the “Official Lie” of what happened that terrible morning.
 
The Pentagon was first attacked at 9:32 a.m., much earlier than the 9/11 Commission and official cover story claim. (In this summary of evidence, the more precise time of 9:31:40 a.m. is “rounded up” for ease of reference.)
 
The Pentagon and mainstream media first reported 9:45 as the time of alleged Flight 77 impact (some reports, presumably taken from official sources, were as late as 9:48 and 9:47). Over time, the time given by officials for the claimed outside impact on the building has been moved earlier and earlier, down to 9:37 (as of the time of this writing), but has never come close to the actual time of the first violent event at the Pentagon—9:32. Obviously, if the official story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 is true, Flight 77 could not have been the source of massive damage in the west side of the building five minutes earlier at 9:32.
 
Converging Lines of Proof of a 9:32 Violent Event at the Pentagon on Sept. 11.
 
Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks on the walls of the area of the Pentagon attacked on
9/11—including one in the heliport just outside the west face—were stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 by a violent event, almost certainly a bomb or bombs inside the building and/or in a truck parked outside the west face. The first Associated Press report stated that the Pentagon had been damaged by a “booby trapped truck.” The Navy posted the stopped heliport clock on an official website and another of the stopped clocks is in the 9/11 display at the Smithsonian Institution.2 These are just some of the west section Pentagon clocks that stopped between 9:31 and
9:32-1/2.
 
The FAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration] timeline document “Executive Summary--Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis --September 11, 2001” reads: “0932: ATC (Air Traffic Control) AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon.”3 The time is the critical fact here, not the claimed cause.
 
Denmark’s soon-to-be Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller was in a building in Washington, D.C. on 9/11 from which he looked out, heard the explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his watch, which read 9:32 a.m. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.4
 
On August 27, 2002, then White House Counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave the Secretary of the Navy lecture at the Naval Postgraduate School in which Gonzales explicitly and clearly states that “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32". This tape was played at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence at American University in Washington, D.C. in July, 2005.
 
The Pentagon was attacked by bomb(s) at 9:32 a.m., apparently followed by an impact from an airborne object significantly smaller than Flight 77.
 
I have interviewed an Army auditor from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, who was on temporary duty assignment at the Pentagon before, on and after 9/11. He was in the Army financial management spaces only minutes before the Pentagon explosion on the morning of 9/11. He had just returned to his temporary office on the ground floor of the adjacent south side of the Pentagon by the cafeteria when he heard an explosion and felt the building shake. Immediately afterwards, hundreds of panicked Pentagon personnel ran by him down the corridor just outside his office and out the South Entrance, yelling “Bombs!” and "A bomb went off!" The witness has requested that his name not be used in this summary, but is willing to testify to a grand jury or independent official investigation.
 
This Army financial management/audit area is part of, or contiguous to, the Army personnel offices, which was one of two main west section offices heavily destroyed in the Pentagon attack, the other being the Naval Command Center. The day before 9/11, Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held a press conference at which he acknowledged that the Pentagon was “missing”—could not account for and needed to “find”—$2.3 Trillion dollars. Were the auditors who could “follow the money,” and the computers whose data could help them do it, intentionally targeted? It is worth noting that Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon’s comptroller -- Rumsfeld’s top financial officer -- at the time who also acknowledged the “missing” trillions, had a company that specializes in aircraft remote-control technology. As remnants found in the Pentagon wreckage have been identified as the front-hub assembly of the front compressor of an JT8D turbojet engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior jet fighter5, and as Air Force A-3 Sky Warriors— normally piloted planes—were secretly retrofitted to be remote-controlled drones and fitted with missiles in a highly compartmented operation at Ft. Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport in Colorado in the months before 9/116, the question further arises as to whether Pentagon auditors and their computerized data were intentionally targeted on 9/11.
 
The Ft. Monmouth Army auditor and his two colleagues were also eyewitnesses to multiple teams of bombsniffing dogs and their K-9 handlers in camouflage uniform at the Pentagon metro station just outside the Pentagon at approximately 7:30 a.m. on 9/11. He said that K-9 bomb squads had not been at the Pentagon metro stop before 9/11, or since, but only that day. Since K-9 dog squads don’t usually search for airliners, but bombs, a bomb attack was clearly anticipated.
 
Survivor eyewitnesses from inside the west section of the Pentagon reported that the blast caused its windows first to expand outwards, and then inwards.7
 
Multiple witnesses said they smelled cordite after the explosion at the Pentagon, an explosive which has a distinct smell very different from that of burning jet fuel.8
 
Even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told Sam Donaldson in an ABC News interview shortly after 9/11 that he first thought a bomb had gone off in the building. Donaldson: “What did you think it was?” Rumsfeld: “A bomb? I had no idea…”
 
It is important to note that bomb explosion(s) at 9:32 a.m. on the ground floor of the west section of the Pentagon are not inconsistent with there having also been a later—or even near-simultaneous—impact by a piloted plane, unmanned drone, or missile into the same or nearby section of the building, which may be the cause of the collapse of the wall approximately 20 minutes after the initial violent event. Indeed, if a heat-seeking missile hit the building after the bombs went off, the heat from the explosion(s) would become the target for the missile. Recall that the A-3 Sky Warriors were retrofitted shortly before 9/11 not only to be remotely controlled, but also fitted with missiles. The round-shaped exit hole in the inner wall of the “C” Ring is evidence that a missile or a piloted or pilotless remote-controlled plane significantly smaller than Flight 77 also struck the building subsequent to bombs going off, penetrated the inside of the third ring, as bomb detonations would not have resulted in such a near symmetrical round-shaped opening.
 
I have interviewed the then Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations on 9/11, Robert Andrews—the top civilian official in charge of special operations under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld—a former Green Beret and whose office was on the second floor of the South section of the Pentagon, adjacent to the West section. While drawing the path that he took that morning on a sketch of the Pentagon, he revealed the following:
 
Immediately after the second World Trade Center attack of 9:03 a.m., Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld left his office on the Potomac side of the Pentagon and went (merely) across the hall on the same floor to his Executive Support Center (ESC), which is set up for teleconferencing. There, he joined the teleconference of top government officials run by Richard Clarke out of the White House Situation Room media room. Clarke, in his book Against All Enemies, confirmed that Rumsfeld was among the first officials on this teleconference shortly after the second WTC tower was hit. Andrews’ confirmation of Clarke's account is completely at odds with the official cover story and the 9/11 Commission, which claim that no one could locate Rumsfeld until approximately10:30 a.m. when he walked into the National Military Command Center (NMCC). The fact that Rumsfeld, the military's top civlian official, was on Clarke's teleconference with the top official of the FAA, Director Jane Garvey, also puts the complete lie to the official cover story that interceptors weren't scrambled in time because the military and FAA “couldn't talk each other" on the morning of 9/11. The top-most officials of the Pentagon and FAA were talking to one another constantly on Clarke's teleconference from as early as 9:15. This taped Clarke teleconference is the “Butterfield tape” of 9/11. [During the 1970s Watergate scandal, secretly-made tapes of President Nixon’s Oval Office conversations revealed by presidential tape supervisor Alexander Butterfield were the “smoking guns” which forced Nixon to resign or face certain impeachment and trial in the Senate.]
 
Immediately after the second WTC tower was struck at 9:03 a.m., Andrews and his aide left his office and ran as fast as they could down to the Secretary of Defense's West section basement Counterterrorism Center (CTC), beneath the ground-level location of the violent event in the building that morning, arriving at approx. 9:10. While he and his aide were in this west side basement CTC, a violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall off the ceiling and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read approximately 9:35 a.m. but which was set fast to ensure timely arrivals at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32. He and his aide then immediately evacuated the CTC with the goal of joining Rumsfeld in his Executive Support Center (ESC) across the hall from Rumsfeld's main office. Rumsfeld was already on the White House teleconference when they arrived. En route to Rumsfeld’s ESC, Andrews said when he and his aide entered the corridor on the inside ring of the West section, "we had to walk over dead bodies" to get to the inner courtyard. (Note: This is two rings further in towards the center from the inner most hole made by whatever impacted the Pentagon that morning.)
 
Once in the inner courtyard, Andrews and his aide ran as fast as they could to Rumsfeld's Executive Support Center, where he joined Rumsfeld as his special operations/counterterrorism adviser for Clarke's White House teleconference. Andrews also said that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld talked with President Bush while in the Pentagon Executive Support Center. Whether this was via the teleconference or by phone or other means was not stated. The fact that Rumsfeld personally communicated with Bush while Rumsfeld was in his Pentagon ESC has been published on an official DoD web site.9
 
WTC janitor William Rodriquez, the last person to leave the WTC alive on 9/11, has testified that he was in the first basement level of the WTC when an immense explosion went off below him in the yet-deeper subbasement level(s) of the building a few seconds before the plane hit the tower high above.10 Robert Andrews revealed that the west side basement level of the Pentagon was damaged at approx. 9:32 a.m. and as we know that the cause of the 9:32 Pentagon attack was not an impact event but explosives, there are thus eye- and ear witness reports of bombs damaging both the Pentagon and the WTC underground level(s) before both buildings were hit from the outside.
 
As no “outside terrorist”, al-Qaeda or otherwise, could have had access to the Pentagon or the sustained advance access needed to pre-place explosives inside the WTC, only domestic insiders could have placed explosives in both the Pentagon and the WTC.
 
Further, because the WTC deep-basement explosions(s) happened before the Tower was hit by a plane; and as any incoming plane not controlled by the same party that triggered the sub-basement detonation(s) could have veered off from the building at the last second ruining the plane-impact-as-cover-story for the later collapse of the buildings; and as the deep sub-basement explosions were necessary for the later collapse of the buildings by controlled demolition, the same domesticU. S. insider party had to have controlled both the sub-basement detonations and the incoming plane(s). Thus, even if al- Qaeda hijackers were on the incoming planes, they were not in final control of the impact of the planes into the buildings, which had to have been guaranteed by domestic/U.S. insider controllers to ensure the sub-basement bombs didn’t go off prematurely and destroy the plane impact cover story.
 
Because the real modus operandi at the Pentagon and WTC are so similar, it is logical to deduce that the same domestic-U.S. terrorists were responsible for placing and detonating bombs—both inside the WTC and inside the Pentagon. That is, a single group of U.S.-domestic conspirators—not al-Qaeda or any other outside terrorists—must have planned both the WTC and Pentagon attacks and controlled both the approaching planes and the inside-the-building explosions in real time on 9/11.
 
In addition to the already-well-known evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, i.e. the small hole in the west side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for Flight 77's fuselage, let alone wing width; no damage to the lawn where Flight 77 allegedly struck and skidded before hitting the building; wrecked plane parts at the site being identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77; requests to TV media on the morning of 9/11 not to take upclose images, etc.—there is also official evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the building:
 
In the Air Force's own account of the events of 9/11, Air War Over America, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11, although too late, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack there that morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building. NORAD Gen. Larry Arnold said this fighter jet—not Flight 77—is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller's screen making a steep, high-speed 270-degree descent before disappearing from the radar. [When a plane flies low enough to be undetected, it is called being “under the radar.”]
 
Military pilots—like the pilot sent by Gen. Arnold on 9/11 to report on the Pentagon’s damage—are trained to fly
500 feet above ground in order to evade radar detection. In fact, when the Air Traffic Controller and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 270-degree flight maneuver on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremely difficult maneuver was a U.S. military aircraft, and said so at the time. It almost certainly was.
 
Thus, the likely reason the Pentagon has refused to lower the current official time of "Flight 77" impact from 9:37 to
9:32 a.m.—the actual time of the first explosions there—is that they decided to pretend the blip represented by Arnold’s surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was “Flight 77”. As the official cover story claims that the alleged 9:37 impact was the only Pentagon attack that morning, and by the time Arnold’s surveillance jet arrived on the scene the violent event had already happened, the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the earlier 9:32 time without revealing an attack on the building prior to impact.
 
It is significant that the The 9/11 Commission Report ignores the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to its own commission and did this only for the testimony of Secretary Mineta. The clear reason for this blatant and targeted censorship is that Mineta's eyewitness testimony is extremely dangerous to the official cover story.
 
The portion of Mineta's testimony that is particularly dangerous is his claim that Vice President Cheney, in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) beneath the White House since before Mineta arrived in the PEOC at 9:20, insisted to an incredulous “young man” that "the orders (given earlier by Cheney to this same individual) still stand" when the man told Cheney that the presumed plane they had been tracking as a blip on a screen was 50, then 30, and finally just 10 miles from Washington—orders which could only have been to not shoot down the plane. Otherwise there would have been no reason for the agent to ask Cheney if they "still” stood, despite the plane's being almost upon the Capital where Cheney himself was. This is critical because of the timing that can be inferred from Mineta's testimony: As Mineta arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 a.m., and as Mineta estimated the "still stand?" interaction between Cheney and the agent happened 5 to 6 minutes after that, or about 9:25, it can be inferred based on the officially given speed of the plane represented by the blip of 540 mph that whatever that fast-approaching blip represented, it arrived in the vicinity of the Pentagon at approximately 9:32—nowhere close to the original official cover story time of 9:45, or even the eight-minute-earlier time the Pentagon finally settled on for an impact time of 9:37.
 
All of this also happened at 9:32:
 
After an inexplicable delay during which they knew that both WTC towers were under attack, the Secret Service suddenly acts as if the attacks are “real,” rushing President Bush out of the library at the Florida school where he had been reading to children.
 
Firefighters are ordered out of WTC 1.
 
The New York Stock Exchange is ordered closed.
 
The takeover of Flight 93 begins with the stabbing of a flight attendant and one of the hijackers announcing that there is a bomb on board, picked up by flight controllers.
 
Other relevant interviews:
 
I interviewed the famous "lone taxi driver" whose cab is the only car visible still parked on I-395 above the Pentagon lawn looking down at the West face after all the other cars have left the freeway. This taxi can be seen in overhead photos taken on the morning of 9/11 and viewable on the Internet. The driver said his was the last car allowed onto that section of I-395 before police put up a barricade and that he decided not to immediately leave the scene like the others "because I realized this was history and I wanted to see for myself." He stated that he saw no evidence of a plane having impacted the building nor any visible plane pieces on the lawn at the time he arrived, which was after the first violent event in the building, as black smoke was streaming up and to the right from inside-the-building fires. The taxi cab driver drew a diagram of what he saw that morning while overlooking the Pentagon's west face from I-395.
 
I interviewed a Navy public affairs officer assigned to the Naval Command Center, one of the two major Pentagon West section areas destroyed on 9/11, the other being the Army Personnel / Financial Management/Audit area as mentioned earlier. This officer was not in the building that morning but was quickly assigned as the deputy public affairs officer at the underground “back-up Pentagon” location in Pennsylvania close to the Maryland border, Site R. This eyewitness Navy officer inside Site R said Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and later Vice President Cheney were flown to the Site R underground bunker in response to Richard Clarke's officially declaring "Continuity of Government/Continuity of Operations" (COG/COOP) on the morning of 9/11. This is confirmed in Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, in which he reports that Rumsfeld chose Wolfowitz to be the designated COG/COOP official at Site R in his stead. Perhaps significantly Site R and Camp David are not far from the crash site of Flight 93. Details about Site R, on and after 9/11, are also in James Bamford’s book, A Pretext for War.
 
On Feb. 4, 2004, I interviewed General Ralph Eberhart, Commander of NORAD on 9/11. To my knowledge, Gen. Eberhart has granted no other interview since the events of Sept. 11. Before asking questions, I gave Gen. Eberhart copies of all the mainstream press articles published as of that date on the subject of the confusion of his NORAD Northeast Sector (NEADS) personnel who were running NORAD's "Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior" emergency response war game exercises that morning.11 As of the date of the interview, therefore, the then head of NORAD was made aware of the early confusion caused by his own NEADS “game” players on the morning of 9/11 due to incoming exercise reports and incoming reports of the actual hijack attacks.
 
I first asked Gen. Eberhart if there was any connection between NORAD's "Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior" exercise being run that morning and the plane-crashing-into-tower emergency response exercise simultaneously being held at National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) headquarters outside Washington, D.C. He replied, "No." I was surprised as a large portion of NRO personnel are from the Air Force, his own agency. I asked for reconfirmation, to which he again said, "No." Laying the ground for the next question, I mentioned the fact that “game” director Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins had said that she was confused as to whether initial reports of the hijacked planes on the morning of 9/11 were “for real” or “part of the game.” This showed that the NORAD exercises that morning had to have been concerning a hijack scenario at least similar to that of the actual attacks. Otherwise, there would have been no grounds for confusion. Considering this information, Gen. Eberhart refused to answer any further questions and abruptly ended the interview.
 
In addition to the already well known and officially acknowledged evidence of Bush Administration foreknowledge of the broad outlines of the Sept. 11 attacks—advance warnings from the intelligence agencies of as many as 11 foreign countries, the content of the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001 presidential daily brief (whose 10- page attachment still has not been made public), etc.—there are three converging lines of evidence that Bush Administration insiders had near perfect—if not complete—advance knowledge of both the details and the date of the Sept. 11 attack:
 
(NOTE: The idea that Bush Administration insiders had advance knowledge of the details and the date of an “outside” attack is not inconsistent with U.S. insiders having facilitated and even orchestrated the attacks. The plot behind the attacks of Sept. 11 is similar to that of the Reichstag fire, which aided Hitler to rapidly consolidate power— that is, like the Nazi-facilitated Reichstag fire, there was a real though-unlikely-to-succeed “outside” plot to which Administration insiders gained intelligence. They then secretly protected and enabled this plot to ensure that it not only succeeded, but succeeded spectacularly as the Psychological Operation needed to justify the entire subsequent Bush- Cheney Administration global and domestic agenda.)

1) Shortly after Sept. 11, Newsweek reported that before 9/11, the Bush Administration initiated a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court surveillance/tap of "up to 20" suspected al-Qaeda-linked terrorists" then in the U.S., but that then FISA Court Chief Justice Royce Lamberth subsequently ordered the then-already-ongoing surveillance stopped. This can only mean one thing—that the Bush Justice Dept./FBI/NSA had initiated the tap before asking the FISA Court for a warrant for it, as with the now-famous post-9/11 NSA taps initiated by the Bush Administration without first applying for FISA warrants.
 
As "up to 20" is a clever way of saying "19" without making the link to 9/11 explicit, the Bush Administration Justice Dept/FBI/NSA almost certainly initiated surveillance of all 19, or close to all 19, of the soon-to-be 9/11 hijackers before 9/11. Though Judge Lamberth ordered the surveillance ended once the Administration filed the formal warrant application, there is evidence that the Bush Administration ignored his order to cease the tap and continued the surveillance of the 9/11 hijackers up to and including the day of 9/11.
 
Zacharias Moussaoui—the only person indicted by the Bush Administration for anything even related to
9/11—has stated in court filings that both he "and my (al-Qaeda) brothers" then in the U.S. were surveilled by the Bush Administration before 9/11 and that the Bush Administration knows he can prove it. How could this be the case? If Moussaoui was one of the "up to 20" al-Qaeda-linked terrorist suspects surveilled before 9/11 without an advance FISA warrant as reported by Newsweek, then Moussaoui was also one of the "up to 20" whose taps Judge Lamberth had ordered stopped. Moussaoui, after all, was originally named as the "20th hijacker" of the 9/11 plot. Amazingly, the FISA Act requires that, if the FISA Court rejects a surveillance initiated before a warrant has been applied for, as in this case, the court has to inform the “target” of the surveillance and give him the government's stated reason in the surveillance application for the tap. Moussaoui says that he can "prove" the Bush Administration/FBI initiated surveillance on him before 9/11 because, it can be deduced, the FISA Court itself told him so after Lambergh ordered his – and those of the other “up to 20” – surveillance ended.
 
If this is the case, it opens the very real possibility that the FISA Court likewise informed most or all 19 of the "up to 20" 9/11 hijackers before 9/11 that they were being surveilled by the Bush Administration—and the reason for such surveillance. This also throws new light on the claims by the Pentagon's then-secret data mining task force, “Able Danger,” to have tracked lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and at least four of the other 19 hijackers beginning in January, 2000, when Atta actually did enter the country according to Daniel Hopsicker in his book, Welcome to Terrorland. The FBI falsely claimed, and still falsely claims, that Atta did not enter the U.S. until the summer of 2000, six months later. The likely reason for this intentional lie about when Atta first entered the country is what Atta is known to have done while inside the U.S. between January and the Summer of 2000. Hopsicker reveals that, among other activities, Atta visited Portland, Maine, in March, 2000, and perhaps even earlier. An abiding “mystery” of the official cover story is why would Atta drive to Portland, Maine, on Sept. 10, the day before 9/11, then fly from Portland to Boston early on the morning of Sept. 11. The answer to this “mystery,” which the FBI clearly already knows, is the link between what Atta was doing in Portland, before the administration wants to admit he was in the country as well as what he was doing there the day before 9/11 and early on the morning of 9/11. This all may have something to do with the fact that special—and sometimes secret— CIA flights are run out of an airport in Portland, Maine.12

2) The FBI's top bin Laden/al-Qaeda hunter until shortly before 9/11, John O'Neill, "happened" to be at the same hotel in the same town near Tarragona, Spain in mid-July 2001 just before lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and 9/11 plot “coordinator" Ramzi Binalshibh met there for what the Kean Commission calls the “final 9/11 planning meeting.” (Some Bush Administration officials now also believe that 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) was at this critical meeting as well.) This cannot be—and is not—a coincidence. O'Neill, who was in close contact with German intelligence—recall that Atta led the "German cell" for the 9/11 attacks— and Spanish intelligence, had clearly been alerted to the upcoming meeting and was at the hotel to surveil/tap/bug the room where the meeting was about to be held. O'Neill and his agency, the Bush Administration’s FBI, thus knew every detail, or almost every detail, of the planned 9/11 plot at least two months in advance.
 
Perhaps as significantly, European media reported that bin Laden was in an American hospital in Dubai for surgery in early July 2001 and would have likely been recuperating and incapacitated there at the time of the “final 9/11 Planning Meeting” in Spain a few days later. Reportedly, bin Laden was also visited in the hospital by the area’s then CIA Station chief. The question naturally arises as to whether bin Laden was telephoned by Atta, Binalshibh, and perhaps also KSM, or visa versa, while the latter were at the “Final 9/11 Planning Meeting” in the hotel that O’Neill had pre-bugged. If so, then O’Neill, the FBI, and the highest levels of the Bush Administration—including O’Neill’s then boss, Attorney General Ashcroft who suddenly stopped flying commercial aircraft about this time—knew not only every detail of the 9/11 plot as of that date, but almost certainly also all the key “outside” conspirators plotting their “final plans” including possibly bin Laden himself, on tape—obviously another “Butterfield” tape to be demanded under subpoena.

3) As noted above, on 9/11 itself the U.S. military was conducting NORAD/Air Force emergency response exercises with scenarios of multiple hijacks and the NRO was conducting an emergency response exercise on the scenario of a plane crashing into one of the towers at its headquarters just outside Washington, D.C.11— many NRO personnel being from the Air Force. It is next to impossible for this to have been the case unless the exercises, also referred to by the 9/11 truth community as war games, were intentionally scripted to mirror what had been learned from the above-mentioned detailed advance intelligence. The purpose of the war games held on 9/11 was to practice how to defend against the very attacks that John O'Neill's Tarragona meeting surveillance, the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” data-mining tracking, and the FBI's FISA-warrant-less surveillance of the "up to 20" ("19"?) suspected al-Qaeda terrorists had already revealed. You don’t practice something in a multi-milliondollar set of exercises that you “can’t imagine.” The date for the actual attacks—Sept. 11—was then chosen to coincide with the Pentagon’s exercises, which in turn mirrored the real attack plans.
 
Perhaps the most burning data point to prove Bush Administration complicity is the fact that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta took to the mid-July “final 9/11 planning meeting” in Spain the information that “the date has been set” (i.e. set by someone else, other than Atta), and that he, Atta, didn’t yet know it, but would “know it” in five to six weeks or by late August, 2001.13 Atta is clearly waiting to learn the date of “his own” attack. This last piece of the puzzle fell into place during the first phase of Zacarias Moussaoui’s sentencing trial. It was found in the 58-page transcript of 9/11”mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogation “testimony” read into the trial record by the Bush Administration prosecution. In the KSM transcript, it is revealed that bin Laden and KSM “allowed Atta to choose” both the final targets for the attacks and the attack date.”14 From this, therefore, we know that neither bin Laden nor “mastermind” KSM nor “coordinator” Binalshibh set the Sept. 11 attack date. However, from what Atta said to Binalshibh—and probably also KSM and possibly also bin Laden by phone link—at the “Final Planning Meeting” in Spain, we also know that neither did Atta. Atta was waiting to learn the date of his “own” attack, and that date didn’t come from any of his al-Qaeda superiors. It must be the case then that, despite KSM’s claim that he “let” Atta choose the date, none of the top “outside terrorist” conspirators set the date for the Sept. 11 attacks, including Atta.
 
The key and central fact of the entire 9/11 plot is that the attack date Atta was “waiting for” was the date of the Bush Administration’s planned war games, which, in a vicious circle, were scripted to mirror the content of Atta’s attack plan gleaned via advance intelligence obtained from O’Neill’s surveillance of the “final planning meeting” near Tarragona, the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” tracking of Atta and, and the FBI’s warrant-less surveillance of Atta and other of the about-to-be hijackers. Atta was thus the sole individual to whom the date the Bush Administration finally chose for its war games was leaked as soon as it was selected and he bought his oneway ticket as soon as he learned it, in late August, 2001, just as he had predicted at the “final planning meeting” near Tarragona. The Number One Bush Administration insider conspirator, therefore, is whoever gave the Administration’s own war game scenario details and date to Mohammed Atta.
 
Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, as the head of Pakistan’s military intelligence agency ISI, ordered $100,000 wired to Atta shortly before 9/11. On the morning of 9/11, he was having breakfast with future CIA Director Porter J. Goss and the senator who co-chaired the joint House/Senate 9/11 “investigation” following the attacks. And as Gen. Ahmed was in Washington in the three days leading up to 9/11 meeting with CIA Director George Tenet and top officials at the Pentagon, which was about to conduct the war games, Gen. Ahmed is the top candidate for the “middle man” who was told the date and details of the Pentagon’s emergency response exercises and communicated them, directly or through an intermediary, to Atta. Atta then confirmed the 9/11 date for the war games—which was the date of the attacks—in his now-famous NSA-intercepted phone call with KSM of Sept. 10, in which he related, “The Match is about to begin. Zero hour is tomorrow.” “Match” is a way of saying “test exercise” or “war game.” This intercept almost certainly was made without an advance FISA warrant.
 
One of the abiding “mysteries” of Sept. 11 is why Gen. Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on 9/11, claimed to the 9/11 Commission that on the morning of 9/11 NORAD was conducting, among others, a preplanned “Soviet-era” emergency response exercise15 in which U.S. fighter jets were to defend against Russian nuclear bombers. After all, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist ten years before. He didn’t say “Russian,” he said “Soviet”. This is very strange until one discovers that, despite repeated official and media claims that Sept. 11 was “completely unique” and that the skies over America had “never before” been cleared of all commercial and private civilian aircraft, NORAD had conducted another emergency response exercise 40 years earlier, which completely cleared the skies over the mainland U.S. This was on Oct.
14, 1961, in a war game called “Sky Shield II”, which was based on a scenario of how to defend against an air attack by Soviet bombers on New York City.16 The main difference between the 1961 exercise and Sept. 11 is that the clearing of the skies was announced in advance to the public in “Sky Shield”. This original Soviet-era exercise, which included 1,800 U.S. and 15 Canadian military planes and was billed as “the greatest exercise ever conducted by Western air-defense forces,” is mentioned in the Air Force’s own account of the events of Sept. 11, Air War Over America. In fact, Gen. Larry Arnold, NORAD’s commander for the continental U.S. on 9/11 directly under Eberhart who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled to belatedly meet the hijack threat, made a point of including the eerily similar1961 Air Force war game in the book. Not only did both the 1961 and Sept. 11 NORAD “Soviet-era” war game scenarios include attacks on New York City; in the 1961 exercise, U.S. military planes played the role of Soviet attack bombers. That is, the U.S. military prescripted both the defense and the “attack” by its own planes pretending to be Soviet aircraft. If Gen. Eberhart’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission is correct, NORAD may have been conducting a “Soviet-era” exercise much like the one in 1961, on 9/11.
 
In this light, it is significant that mainstream press stories contain intriguing reports that point to the possibility that there were two American Airlines “Flight 11” leaving from two different gates at Boston Logan airport within a few minutes of one another on 9/11, as well as emerging evidence of other of the hijacked 9/11 flight numbers possibly being “twinned,”17 or copied. The question naturally arises, were these “twinned” NORAD flights U.S. military planes “playing” hijacked airliner “attackers,” similar to the 1961 scenario except substituting commandeered airliners for Soviet bombers? And could the 9/11 exercise have included a “trigger” event to clear the skies over the mainland U.S. so that a realistic test of U.S. air defenses could be conducted without interference from the thousands of civilian aircraft normally in the air?
 
Key quotes from the New York Times articles during the 1961 NORAD exercise are eerily similar to stories appearing on 9/11 [text in parentheses and italics added]: “It is not so much the fear of collisions with military aircraft that has caused civilian planes to be ordered out of the skies, as it is the knowledge that inadequate [civilian FAA] electronic flight controls will be available during the exercise to guide them. Strategic Air Command (SAC) bombers, playing the role of the marauding forces, will seek to foul communications and radar. They will drop tinsel-like pieces of metal called “chaff” overhead [like the myriad small pieces of metal scrap found on the Pentagon lawn and Shanksville, Pennsylvania “crash” site on 9/11?]…that will throw radarscopes [including the FAA’s] into a confusion of false signals.”; “All the bomber missions were laid out ahead of time and fed into the NORAD computer”; “An automated shorthand running display of the entire battle was provided at NORAD combat center and in similar centers at Strategic Air Command headquarters [where President Bush was taken on 9/11] and in the Pentagon [which was attacked on 9/11]”; “A fight plan for every aircraft [private, commercial and military] is fed into the computer’s memory beforehand. When a plane shows on the radarscope, a console operator picks up an aluminum electronic gun, points it at the blip, and squeezes the trigger. That brings the flight to the computer’s attention. If the flight [plan] is filed in its memory, the computer automatically replies, ‘Yes, I am aware of that [plane].’ It does this by marking the flight with an F for Friendly. While the computer compares the flight with its memorized data, it marks the flight P for Pending. Finally, it may mark it H for Hostile. ‘We have two minutes to identify a flight [as Friendly] before we scramble [interceptor jets]…to make a visual identification of an uncertain aircraft or to attack it.’; ‘We do not train [in exercises like the 1961 ‘Sky Shield II, or on 9/11] with Hostile symbology [showing on screens]; therefore, the Strategic Air Command’s bombers playing the role of the attacking [Soviet Russian] force [on Oct. 14, 1961] were marked K, for Faker.’”; and “There are seventeen units of Army Air Defense Artillery with ground-to-air anti-aircraft missiles near New York [in 1961; how many more were there on 9/11, 40 years later, when none were used?]” The 1961 war game was directed by then NORAD commander Air Force Gen. Laurence Sherman Kuter from his combat operations center at NORAD’s Colorado Springs headquarters, which in the mid-1960s moved to Cheyenne Mountain, Gen. Eberhart’s command center on 9/11. It may also be significant that the Air Force’s war games simulation center is at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, which Gen. Kuter had earlier commanded and where lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta received training.
 
The Pentagon's "Able Danger" data miners now claim that “Department of Defense lawyers”—almost certainly from the National Security Agency, then headed by Gen. Hayden, of the same service that planned the 9/11 war games, the Air Force—blocked planned meetings with the FBI in which they wanted to tell the FBI that they had "tracked" Atta and others of the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11 and ask the FBI to initiate further surveillance on them. The fact that the FBI did initiate exactly such a surveillance of the "up to 20 Al Qaeda linked terrorist suspects" before 9/11 is strong evidence that, despite their current claims to the contrary, the Pentagon’s "Able Danger" team did communicate what they learned from tracking Atta and the others to the FBI before 9/11, and that the FBI then initiated FISA-warrant-less surveillances of Atta and others subsequently ordered stopped by then Chief FISA Court Judge Lamberth—all of this prior to 9/11. The fact that initially-suspected "20th 9/11 hijacker" Moussaoui officially filed claims that he "and my brothers" were surveilled before
9/11 is further evidence that the FBI continued to watch all or most of the 9/11 hijackers right up until the attacks, despite Lamberth's order to cease and desist. FBI Headquarters supervisors David Frasca and his deputy Maltbie refused 70 – seventy – urgent requests by Moussaoui's FBI interrogator and by Coleen Rowley in the Minneapolis FBI office, for either a FISA Court warrant or an “ordinary” criminal warrant to get into Moussaoui’s computer and surveil anyone mentioned therein. Doing so would have clearly stopped the plot, as Moussaoui now claims he personally knew 17—almost all— of the 19 hijackers.18
 
In addition to all the evidence that the idea of plane impacts plus fire causing destruction was a carefully planned cover story for the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7, as well as for the initial violent event at the Pentagon, the other overwhelming line of evidence for 9/11 as an “Inside Job” are the anthrax attacks.
 
Any evidence linking 9/11 to the anthrax letters—dated Sept. 11 but sent in mid- October and only to Democratic leaders in Congress—no Republicans—is direct evidence of an inside job because that particular type of anthrax is known to have been of the highly controlled “Ames strain” developed by the U.S. Army at Ft. Dietrick, Maryland, and at the University of Iowa in Ames, Iowa. It was also high-spore-count, military-grade weaponized anthrax refined according to a trade secret held reportedly held by William Patrick, former Ft. Detrick bioweapons expert, mentor of Steven Hatfill, the only “person of interest” stalked by the FBI as a suspect in the still “unsolved” anthrax case, and the close friend and colleague of Bush Administration bio-counterterrorism expert Jerry Hauer, a signer of the PNAC manifesto calling for “a new Pearl Harbor.”
 
On Sept. 11, this same Jerry Hauer personally delivered anti-anthrax Cipro to Vice President Cheney’s staff at the White House. Why? The conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a suit against Vice President Cheney and other Bush Administration officials demanding to know why Cipro was delivered to the executive mansion – and only to the executive mansion—on the day of the attacks. So far the response has been a deafening silence. On Sept. 10, the day before 9/11, FEMA and other emergency response personnel arrived in New York City for a counterbioterrorism exercise called “Tripod II” claimed by the Bush Administration to have been scheduled to begin Sept. 12. There is reason to believe that the bio-agent this drill was to practice defending against was anthrax, as Jerry Hauer was also a major planner of the New York City exercise. And there is also a strong possibility the true start date for the exercise was Sept. 11, as so many personnel were already in place on Sept. 10. As the Air Force’s war game scenario had just “come to life” in real attacks on 9/11, were Hauer and Cheney worried that the same thing might be about to happen with their counter-bioterrorism “exercise” Tripod II? Is this why the anti-anthrax drug Cipro was distributed to the White House, “just in case”? If so, it would be strong evidence that Tripod II was on the scenario of defending New York City against an anthrax attack. Was the “vector,” or delivery vehicle, for that emergency response exercise scenario anthrax attack to have been by air via airplane?
 
Notably, in their book on bioterrorism, Germs, Judith Miller and William Broad claim, apparently from inside sources, that Ramzi Yousef’s plans for the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 included explosively pushing large quantities of cyanide out into New York City. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the “mastermind” of 9/11, is Ramzi Yousef’s uncle. Finally, former New York City mayor Rudolf Giuliani testified to the 9/11 Commission that when WTC 7, which held his emergency operations center, collapsed on 9/11, he moved those operations to the command and control center set up on Pier 92 for the “Tripod II” bio-terrorism exercise and that it even worked better than the original. Giuliani told the
9/11 Commission, “The reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill. It had hundreds of people there—from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State [Dept.], from the [New York] State Emergency Management Office—and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was going be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."
 
Conclusion
 
The U.S. military, not al-Qaeda, had the access to plant explosives inside its own most heavily defended world headquarters, the Pentagon. The U.S. military, not al- Qaeda, had the access to plant the explosives Willy Rodriquez heard and felt go off deep in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center. The U.S. military, not al-Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC2, and in WTC 7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11. The U.S. military, not al-Qaeda, had access to the sulfurenhanced military-grade thermite detected in the sub-basement levels of the WTC needed to melt the steel found molten there weeks later. The U.S. military, not al-Qaeda, would have chosen the least populated and most reinforced section of the Pentagon – its newly upgraded west wedge—to target in a strike, minimizing casualties. Real terrorists would have maximized them. A U.S. military plane, not one piloted by al-Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high-speed 270-degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al-Qaeda, would have given off the “friendly” signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building. Only the U.S. military, not al-Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system. Real terrorist hijackers would never have chosen routes back to their intended targets that flew over or near military bases, which the 9/11 planes did. Only the U.S. military, not al-Qaeda, would have access to the weaponized, military-grade U.S. Army “Ames strain’ anthrax contained in letters mailed only to Democratic Congressional leaders. It is absurd to believe al-Qaeda would target only Democrats, especially as the U.S. leadership at the time of 9/11 was Republican. After receiving the anthrax letter dated Sept. 11, then Senate Democratic leader Thomas Daschle was calling for a Congressional investigation of 9/11 and had already been warned off from “looking too closely at” 9/11 by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. When he received his anthrax letter, another Democratic leader, Senator Patrick Leahy, was leading the Congressional resistance to the Patriot Act, the assault on Americans’ privacy and civil liberties justified by “Al Qaeda’s” attack, clearly drafted by the Bush Administration before 9/11 and “in the can” awaiting its “trigger event”.
 
And who in the U.S. civilian leadership and military chain of command are among the prime suspects for these acts of High Treason?
 
First and foremost are the signers of the pre-9/11 Project for a New American Century (PNAC) manifesto calling for “a new Pearl Harbor” to catalyze its global domination agenda, including Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was on the White House Clarke teleconference from the outset but whom no one could allegedly locate until 10:30 on 9/11; then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Perle, then head of Secretary Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board; Jerry Hauer, just-former top emergency response official for New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani and the federal government’s top bio-terrorism expert who personally took anti-anthrax Cipro to the White House on 9/11; then National Security Council Middle East adviser Zalmay Khalizad, soon to be the first U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan after 9/11 and now U.S. Ambassador to Iraq—the two countries whose invasions were rationalized as retaliation for the attacks of 9/11 -- during the Cold War, Khalizad was a liaison to then CIA “bag man” Osama bin Laden in the CIA’s covert war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the crucible from which al-Qaeda emerged); and Jeb Bush, governor of Florida and President Bush’s brother, who just before 9/11 added “terrorist attack” to the list of triggers for declaring martial law in the state, where President Bush was Sept. 10 and Sept. 11.
 
Yet another is the U.S. military agency, probably Army or Joint Special Operations, that preplaced the military-grade sulfur-enhanced thermite throughout WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 well before the 9/11 “terrorist” attacks, with special attention reserved for Army Gen. William G. (Jerry) Boykin, the radical Christian fundamentalist former commander of the Army’s elite commando Delta Force, recently proposed to head the Army’s Special Operations Command. Also the Pentagon’s POP2 office, reported to plan and script “false flag” operations, attacks staged by the military but made to appear perpetrated by an outside enemy to justify U.S. military “retaliation”. Yet another suspect is Defense Intelligence Agency Iran expert Lawrence “Larry” Franklin, on loan to Perle and Wolfowitz’s neo-con cabal partner Douglas Feith Before and on 9/11 and arrested for passing national security secrets on Iran to Israeli operatives at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Scrutiny should also be given to the scriptwriters for NORAD’s and NRO’s emergency response exercises planned for and held on 9/11, especially members of the drills’ “White Teams” who set the content in advance and then oversee both “Red Team attackers” and “Blue Team defenders” on the actual day of the exercise. (Larry Franklin was also, and may still be, an officer in the Air Force reserves, which oversaw the NORAD “Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior” wargame exercises on 9/11). Among these high level scriptwriters almost certainly is John Fulton, head of Strategic Gaming at NRO before and on 9/11 who devised that agency’s plane-crashing-into-tower emergency response drill on the morning of 9/11. Also every one of the as-yet-to-be-identified “top Pentagon officials” who on the day before 9/11, Sept. 10, according to Newsweek, suddenly cancelled their then-already-booked flights for Sept. 1119 -- not coincidentally the same day, Sept. 10, that the NSA intercepted Atta’s “Zero hour is tomorrow” call with 9/11 ‘Mastermind’ Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. These “top Pentagon officials” may well include National Military Command Center (NMCC) commander Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield who, again on that same day Sept. 10, asked his deputy, Navy Capt. Charles Leidig, to take over for him just the next morning between 8:30 and 10:30 -- precisely the two hours of Sept. 11 ‘war games’.
 
Yet another key suspect is Michael Chertoff, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey during the first
1993 attack on the World Trade Center who, as a private attorney, had represented Egyptian-born U.S. resident Magdy Elamir, under investigation for illegally diverting millions of dollars from a medical business and whose brother, Mohammed Elamir (also spelled El Amir), funded arms smugglers with links to Al Qaeda.20 The two Egyptian brothers El Amir also figured prominently in a 9/11 precursor operation, “Operation Diamondback”. So is it only a coincidence that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta’s name in his native country, also Egypt, was also Mohammed El Amir? That is, had Chertoff, put in charge of “investigating” Atta’s attack immediately after, legally represented one of Atta’s relatives? After the attacks, President Bush almost instantly put Chertoff in charge of the entire 9/11 “investigation”, and he is now Director of Homeland Security -- the top official charged with protecting the U.S. mainland from attacks by . . . “Al Qaeda”.
 
Another key suspect is Air Force General William Hayden, before and on 9/11 head of the National Security Agency (NSA), which tapped the calls of lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and 9/11 “Mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the day before 9/11, and surely on many other occasions before 9/11 as well— all almost certainly without the FISA warrants required by law. (Even the single pre-9/11 Sept. 10 warrantless NSA tap puts the lie to President Bush’s claim that he initiated warrant-less NSA taps of al-Qaeda suspects because of—that is, only after—9/11. Hayden was then made deputy director of Homeland Security, immediately under . . . Michael Chertoff.
 
At FBI headquarters are key suspects David Frasca and his deputy Michael Maltbie, who ignored
70 pleas by Zacarias Moussaoui’s interrogator to aggressively investigate the contents of Moussaoui’s computer before 9/11. And in New York, there is then New York City Mayor Rudolph Giulinani, who completely evacuated WTC 7, where his Emergency Operations Center was located, when told – ahead of time – that the WTC was going to come down. Jerry Hauer, who personally took anti-anthrax Cipro to the White House on 9/11, had been the head of Giuliani’s emergency responders.
 
Attention should also be directed to Phillip Zelikow, before and on 9/11 NSC adviser, along with PNAC manifesto signer Zalmay Khalizad, to then NSC Adviser Condolezza Rice. Zelikow orchestrated both the 9/11 Kean Commission Report cover up of the Administration’s inside job and, at Rice’s request, rewrote the Bush Administration’s official 2002 national strategic plan to match the global domination agenda of the pre-9/11 PNAC manifesto.
 
And there is Larry Silverstein, lease holder of the WTC complex buildings including Towers 1 and 2 brought down by controlled demolition using pre-placed explosives on 9/11, and outright owner of WTC 7 which also came down by controlled demolition on 9/11 though not hit by any plane. Just before 9/11, John O’Neill, who had obviously pre-alerted Silverstein to the plot to attack both WTC 1 and WTC 2 based on the surveillance from the mid-July ‘final 9/11 planning meeting’ in Spain, was made chief of security for the WTC just before 9.11, personally arranged by PNAC manifesto signer Jerry Hauer. Silverstein then “happened” to try to add a rider to his insurance policy on the WTC complex so that twin terrorist attacks would result in a doubled claims pay out.
 
And there is the mysterious “Agency” – apparently a reference to a U.S. Government agency – which the Kean Commission report revealed, without identifying by name, made 90 percent or so of the suspicious puts on United and American Airlines, Boeing, and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter (which had the largest number of floors in the WTC towers which collapsed) shortly before 9/11. The most likely candidate for this “Agency” is the CIA, often referred to as just “the Agency.” By law, it should be recalled, the CIA is the personal “agency” of the President. On 9/11, this was George W. Bush, who said “It looks like I hit the Trifecta!”
 
Finally, the prime suspect is whoever is behind the voice that speaks to President Bush through his wireless ear mike, from whom he visibly takes orders and receives running commentary. Bush has called the voice ‘God’, saying he receives instructions ‘directly’ from the Almighty, but it’s clearly that of a very human Controller -- the ultimate ‘Man Behind the Curtain’.
 
These are just some of the names knitted into the scroll of the Sept. 11 Truth Revolution.
 
Barbara Honegger, M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School (1995 - current), the Navy’s advanced science, technology and national security affairs university. This Appendix, as all of Honegger’s publications on Sept. 11, are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement. Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White House Policy Analyst (1981-83); was the first public resignation of conscience from the Reagan-Bush Sr. Administration; was the pioneering Irangate author and whistleblower on the October Surprise (October Surprise, Tudor, 1989) and Iran/Contra expose documentary “Cover-Up”); and was called as a researcher-witness for both the Oct. 23, 2004, and Aug. 27, 2005, Los Angeles Citizens 9/11 Grand Jury hearings held at Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles, Calif. Much of the information and analysis contained in this 9/11 Evidence Summary and analysis was presented at the L.A. Citizens Grand Jury hearings and at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence conference held at American University in Washington, D.C. in July 2005.
 
Notes:
1) The clock stopped at the moment the Great Earthquake hit San Francisco on April 18, 1906 is at
http://sfgate.com/greatquake/ .
2) The clock at the Pentagon heliport just outside the west section, frozen at 9:31:40 a.m. by the violent event at the Pentagon, was posted on an official Navy web site at:
http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2480Pentagonclock_BBC(site down 12/08). Yet another stopped Pentagon clock is in the Sept. 11 exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution. It was originally posted at http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=19 .
3) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) timeline document “Executive Summary Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis, September 11, 2001.”
4) Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller interview with Denmark Radio P3, Sept. 12, 2001, 6:15 a.m. Denmark time. “…I saw smoke and fire rising from the Pentagon at 9:32…My first impression was that a bomb had been detonated at the Pentagon.” The audio of this radio interview is in the 9/11 video documentary “Bomberne som Forsvandt” by Danish researcher Henrik Melvang, available at
www.unmask.dk and at www.bombsinsidewtc.dk . See also 9/11 timeline by European researcher Jose Garcia in Reality, Truth and Evil Facts, Questions and Perspectives on September 11, 2001, Temple Lodge Publications, 2005.
5) The 9/11 Conspiracy, Catfeet Press/Open Court, James Fetzer, editor, 2006, chapter by Prof. James Fetzer; and photos of a JT8D turbojet engine and the remnant found at Pentagon at
http://www.simmeringfrogs.com/articles/jt8d.html .
6) Report by two civilian defense contractor employees at “Secret Global Hawk Refit for Sky Warrior”,
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml .
7) Pentagon attack Internet eyewitness research compilation by Peter Pelogitis.
8) Pentagon witness Don Perkal to MSNBC: “Even before stepping outside, I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had gone off somewhere.”
9) Interview with former Acting Asst. Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict
(SOLIC), Robert Andrews.
10) Videotaped testimony of William (“Willy”) Rodriquez, former World Trade Center janitor and the last person to leave the WTC alive on Sept. 11, in the 9/11 documentary “Loose Change”, second edition”: “All of a sudden we hear ‘Boom!’ in the basement. I thought it was a generator that blew up, and I said to myself, ‘Oh, my God, I think it was a generator. And I was going to verbalize it, and when I finished saying that in my mind I heard (another, second) ‘Boom!’ right on the top
(above), pretty far away. And so it was a difference (in space and time) between coming from the basement and coming from the top…and a person comes running into the office (in the first basement level) saying ‘Explosion!’…and he said ‘(it was from) The elevators!’ And there were many explosions.”
11) “Agency (NRO) Planned Exercise on Sept. 11 Built Around a Plane Crashing into a Building”, Associated Press, Aug. 22,
2002; by Jonathan Lumpkin; “They Scrambled Jets, but It was a Race They Couldn’t Win”, Syracuse (NY) Post-Standard, Jan.
20, 2002, by Hart Seely; “Rome Staff’s Efforts on 9/11 Earn Praise, Commission Says Military Did the Best It Could with the Information It Had”, Syracuse (NY) Post-Standard, June 18, 2004, by Hart Seely; Complete 9/11 Military Exercises Timeline, Cooperative Research, at http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before9/11=militaryExercises  ;Crossing the Rubicon, by Michael Ruppert, Chapter 19: “Wargames and High Tech: Paralyzing the System to Pull Off the Attacks” and Chapter 20: “Q&A: Many Asked, Some Answered – and a Golden Moment”, New Society Publishers, 2004. In the Acknowledgements to Rubicon, p. xi, Ruppert credits the author with what he refers to as “the Holy Grail of 9/11 research” (p. 336): Thanks to Barbara Honegger, who kept hammering on the wargames until we all paid notice… you showed me the most important lead I needed to put it all together.”
12) Will provide New York Times cite for CIA rendition flights run out of Portland, Maine.
13) Kean Commission Report (will provide page number).
14) Summary interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, claimed “mastermind” of the Sept. 11 attack plot, read into the Zacarias Moussaoui sentencing trial record by the prosecution on Mar. 27, 2006; the full text is part of the court proceedings transcript for that date available through Exemplaris.com .
15) The 9/11 Commission Report, footnote on Eberhart’s testimony (will provide page number).
16) Air War Over America, U.S. Air Force (will provide full cite and page number); “Civilian Planes to be Grounded 12 Hours Today in Defense Test”, New York Times, Oct. 14, 1961, pp. 1 and 4; “Civilian Planes Halted 12 Hours in Defense Test: Joint Maneuvers Fill Air Over Canada and U.S. with Military Craft, Cities ‘Hit’ by Bombers”, New York Times, Oct. 15, 1961, pp. 1 and 46; “Computer is Key to Area Defense: Ever-Alert Device in (New) Jersey Joins in Air Exercises”, New York Times, Oct. 15, 1961, p. 46; and “U.S.-Canada Test of Air Defense Rated a Success: President Receives a Report on Maneuvers, Search is Pushed for Missing B-52”, New York Times, Oct. 16, 1961, pp. 1 and 16.
17) For example, see “Flight 11: The Twin Flight”, by “Woody Box” at
http://new.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=04/03/14/212247, and “Flight 11 and Flight 93 ‘Survived’” at http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=858.
18) “Moussaoui, Undermining Case, Now Ties Himself to 9/11 Plot”, The New York Times, Mar. 28, 2006, pp. A1 and A14.
19) Newsweek, Sept. 24, 2001.
20) “Michael Chertoff—Where All the Questions Should Start”, Jan. 12, 2005,
http://tinyurl.com/6ymcff
/
 

9-11 Attack on America
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm

APFN MESSAGE BOARD September 11, 2001 RESEARCH
Everything you want to know about the 9/11, Pentagon and more.....299 Links

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_2.htm

LEAK - GATE
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/leakgate.htm

PROPAGANDA:
The Man Who Sold the War
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/propaganda.htm 

PowerPoint Presentation/Movies
Macromedia Flash Player Download Center
Windows
http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash


9/11 Attack on America Part 1
The Irregularities of 9/11

10.5MB
http://www.apfn.org/movies/911.ppt

9/11 Attack on America Part 2
Omissions & Distortions
(David Ray Griffin)
13.9MB

http://www.apfn.org/movies/911-2.ppt

Leak-Gate Part 1: The Lies
Flash Player

http://www.apfn.org/flash/leakgate1.swf

Leak-Gate Part 2: The Leak
Flash Player

http://www.apfn.org/flash/leakgate2.swf 

Leak-Gate Part 3: ‘more leaks, call the plumber'
Flash Player

http://www.apfn.org/flash/leakgate3.swf 

Subscribe to apfn-1
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
"...a network of net workers..."
http://www.apfn.org

APFN Message Board

APFN Sitemap

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page

E-Mail: apfn@apfn.or