Mindfully.org  

Home | Air | Energy | Farm | Food | Genetic Engineering | Health | Industry | Nuclear | Pesticides | Plastic
Political | Sustainability | Technology | Water
PCE contamination


"‘9/11’" Great Crimes / A Greater Cover-Up 

DON PAUL & JIM HOFFMAN, et al 2003

source: http://wtc7.net/books/greatcrimes/ 

 

Letter
THE LACK OF U.S. MILITARY RESPONSE
THE HIJACKERS
THE PENTAGON CRASH
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDINGS' COLLAPSES
THE SURROUNDING PICTURE: FOREGROUND AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01

 

Dear Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission (Ms. CAROL ASHLEY, Ms. KRISTEN BREITWEISER, Ms. PEGGY CASAZZA, Ms. BEVERLY ECKERT, Ms. MARY FETCHET, Ms. MONICA GABRIELLE, Mr. BILL HARVEY, Ms. MINDY KLEINBERG, Ms. CARIE LEMAC, Ms. SALLY REGENHARD, Ms. LORIE VON AUKEN, Ms. ROBIN WIENER),

Simply typing or seeing your names, then reflecting on your individual losses from September 11, 2001, gives us pause. How can strangers presume to reach out to you? Nevertheless, we feel that sharing our information as well as our sympathy at this time, soon after release of the Congressional Report from the 2002 investigation of `intelligence failures,' a Report that we feel deliberately misleads the public, is even more now an act of urgency and perhaps of fellow-feeling than it may have been previously.

You're still waiting for answers to your questions of January and July 2003 to the 9/11 Independent Commission. Does the FBI have proof that Al Qaeda perpetrated 9/11? Are the names of the 19 indicted terrorists their true names? What explains U.S. Government entities' (the FBI, North American Air Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the New York Port Authority) neglect of precautions and standard operating procedures? What explains these entities' post-9/11 withholding of evidence? Why were the Twin Towers' sprinkler-systems locked? Why was access to the Towers' roofs locked? Why were F-16s and F-15s that tardily defended New York City and Washington D. C. flown at less than half of their top speed?

You may read in this booklet even more fundamental facts and questions about 9/11/01. The pieces of physical evidence may shock you. We ask that you share this letter, as you see fit, with other survivors of the grievously unexamined day. Please, also, know that we want to work with you, as you see fit, toward truth and justice.

Don Paul for Concerned Researchers, Broadcasters and Citizens

_________________

Dear Families and Friends of the Victims of 9/11/01,

You who were closest to whose who were killed in the events of September 11, 2001 know more acutely than anyone else the losses that were suffered that day.

You knew and in many instances loved, one to one, individuals who were among those killed in the World Trade Center's Twin Towers, or in the Pentagon, or aboard American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77, and United Airlines Flight 93—a total of 3185 victims that day. You may still be seeking answers about the unprecedented or inexplicable losses you've undergone.

Who are we who write to you now?

We're a group of researchers and broadcasters who have shared and brought out information about the events of "`9/11'" for almost two years. Some of us have written books about the horrific subject. Some of us have hosted TV and radio series on the subject. Some of us have produced videos and CDs and many of us have written articles for online publications on the subject. Some of us knew individuals who died on 9/11/01. Some of us know family members who lost relatives on that day. All of us share an appalled outrage toward the brutal loss of life on September 11, 2001. We regard the events of "`9/11'" as the greatest crime of this new century. We believe that many crucial questions still need to answered about it.

We write to you now because two, linked efforts to cover up this crime and mislead the public are now much in the news. On July 24, 2003 a Report of nearly 900 pages from the House and Senate panels that investigated 9/11/01 for months in 2002 was finally released to the public.

At the same time, the supposedly independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, headed by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, a Republican, and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, is continuing its hearings.

Both the Report and the Commission attribute the atrocities of 9/11/01 to `hijackers' and `terrorists' from al-Qaida whom we believe could not have committed those crimes alone, if at all. Physical facts that well cite for you prove the crimes of 9/11/01 needed far more powerful perpetrators than the indicted 19 Arabs could have been.

The Report also blames failures by the `intelligence community' of the U.S. Government and Bush Administration for allowing the attacks. `As a result, the community missed opportunities to disrupt the Sept. 11 plot by denying entry or detaining would-be hijackers,' it states. The Report thus echoes a July 9, 2003 witness before the Commission, Rohan Gunaratna, head of terrorism research at the Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore. According to an Associated Press story, Gunaratna said: `"You knew the intention of al-Qaida was to kill American people where they could be found, but still you did not act, and you paid a very heavy price for it."'

The Report also attributes more funding from Saudi Arabian sources to the "hijackers." One named supporter of two of the 19, Omar al-Bayoumi, `had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia,' the Report says. The Report thus echoes recent remarks by John Lehman, one of 10 members of the Commission on Terrorist Attacks: `"There's little doubt that much of the funding of terrorist groups —whether intentional or unintentional— is coming from Saudi sources."' It also echoes allusions by the Washington Post on July 25 to one CIA memo that `there was "incontrovertible evidence" that Saudi individuals provided financial assistance to al-Qaida operatives in the United States.' The Post suggests that this CIA memo reveals `what role some officials of Saudi Arabia may have played in sustaining the 19 terrorists who commandeered four airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.'

The fundamental problem with belief in the Report and the Commission and almost all media's coverage of them is that the events of 9/11/01 could not have happened as the Report, Commission and almost all media continue to present them. Huge pieces of physical evidence disprove the accounts and explanations that Government officials and almost all media have given since the morning of "`9/11.'" By ignoring this evidence, the Report and the Commission further spin an Official Story that's been the pretext for the "`War on Terrorism'" and the consequent deaths of tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq who could not have had any role in the atrocities which killed your loved ones.

The Report, the Commission, and all media who ignore the enormous holes in the Official Story thus disserve and disrespect you surviving families and friends most of all.

We'd like now to present you with 8 pieces of the evidence that we've promised.

These pieces relate either to physical impossibilities or to logical implausabilties in the Official Story as that Story addresses the U.S. military's unprecedented lack of response, the hijacked airliners, the crash into the Pentagon, and the collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings, on 9/11/01.

We hope that they'll be helpful to your efforts for truth, justice and eventual peace of mind.

 

THE LACK OF U.S. MILITARY RESPONSE

1)The first question that arose to millions of people upon learning the sequence of the attacks on 9/11/01 was: Why did the U.S. military not intercept the hijacked airliners? This question has been asked by many of you family and friends. It's been addressed but not answered by U.S. Government investigators. On July 9, 2003 the Associated Press wrote: `The 10-member National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has held previous hearings focusing on the events of Sept. 11, including how hijackers took control of four airplanes and why U.S. air defenses did not react more quickly.'

Regarding the Pentagon crash in particular, the U.S. military, headed by NORAD (North American Air Defense), had one hour and 23 minutes to protect the nation's capital after the first loss of communication with U.S. ground-control by an airliner on 9/11/01.

American Airlines Flight 11 lost communication with Air Traffic Control at Boston's Logan Airport at 8:14 Eastern Daylight Time. Federal Aviation Agency regulations require Air Traffic Control to immediately request military intercept in the event of loss of radar contact or radio communication with any aircraft. Yet the Pentagon was not defended by jets from Andrews Air Force Base (two Squadrons of F-16 or F-18 fighter-jets at this Base less than 15 miles from the Pentagon and White House were specifically charged with defense of Washington, D. C.), nor was it defended by the F-16s from Langley Air Force Base that somehow were flown at 1/6 of their 1500 miles-per-hour top speed, nor was it defended by its own anti-aircraft emplacements, when it was struck at 9:37 EDT.

Regarding other responses, the F-15s that were flown the 188 miles from Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts to lower Manhattan on the 9/11/01 morning were flown at less than 1/3 of their top speed of 1875 miles per hour, after NORAD finally scrambled them at 8:44 EDT, and these fighter jets were similarly late in intercepting United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767, before it crashed into the World Trade Centers South Tower at 9:03 EDT.

Please see:

(a) articles by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel at http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm 

(b) Interview with Andreas von Buelow, former German Minister of Technology, in der Tagesspiegel, 1/13/02, at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html 

(c) Many reports in the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. in the week after 9/11/01

 

 

THE HIJACKERS

2) Within 72 hours after the morning of 9/11/01 the FBI had identified 19 Arabs as the hijackers of that day's four doomed airliners—though there was no record of any of the 19 as passengers aboard those Flights and no photographic evidence that connected them to the Flights. Corporate media then presented passport-like photos of the 19 through TV, newspapers, magazines and the Internet worldwide. In December of 2001 the same 19 terrorists were indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, named by an FBI attachment in the case against alleged would-be hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui.

However, less than three weeks after 9/11/01 and more than two months before this indictment, at least five of these 19 "`hijackers'" had reported themselves alive in Saudi Arabia or Morocco: Abdulaziz Alomari, Wail al-Shehri, Salem al-Hamzi, Saeed al-Ghamdi and Ahmed al-Nami.

Also, in September of 2001, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted to Cable News Network (CNN) that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."

Seven months later, on April 19, 2002, Mueller told the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco about the 7000 FBI employees who were pursuing evidence about the "`9/11'" attacks. "In our investigation," Mueller said, "we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any suspect of the September 11 plot."

Yet the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks continues to refer to these 19 as the "suicidal hijackers." This Commission, the Congressional Report, and almost all media continue to blame `terrorist groups' and `"al-Qaida"' as the `"enemy"' responsible for "`9/11.'"

You can confirm the aliveness of four of the allegedly dead "`hijackers'" through these mainstream sources: Abdulaziz Alomari (supposed to be on American Airlines #11—Orlando Sentinel, 9/20/01; and Wail al-Shehri (American Airlines #11)—Los Angeles Times, 9/21/01; and Salem al-Hamzi (American Airlines #77)—CBS News, 9/27/01; and Saeed al-Ghamdi (United Airlines #93—United Kingdom Daily Telegraph, 9/23/01. Or read this summary from late September of 2001 at http://truedemocracy.net/td4/24s-c-6men.html.

 

 

THE PENTAGON CRASH

A Boeing 757-200 as it's supposed to have hit the Pentagon's West block.

3) Improbable as this fact may seem to you, the Boeing 757-200 that was American Airlines Flight 77 could not have flown the maneuvers that were reported for it in the last 3 1/2 minutes before the 9/11/01 crash into the Pentagon.

This airliner, its wingspan 124 feet and its length 155 feet and the height from the bottom of its engines to the top of its fuselage more than 18 feet, supposedly performed feats that are possible only by much smaller and/or military aircraft. CBS News reported on September 12, 2001: "Radar shows that Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

Air-traffic controller Danielle O'Brien at Dulles Airport told ABC News in regard to the 270-degree turn that she and others at Dulles watched this aircraft perform: "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was a military plane."

Witnesses nearby the Pentagon, among them Steve Patterson, Lon Rains, and Tom Seibert, reported that the aircraft which passed by them looked or sounded like a much smaller aircraft than a 757 and emitted a high-pitched, screaming sound. According to CBS News, whatever was speeding at the Pentagon's west wedge then flew a few feet above ground and "plowed into the Pentagon at 480 miles an hour."

The aircraft that performed the precise maneuvers culminating in the Pentagon strike was likely a remote-controlled plane such as a Global Hawk. Since 9/11/01, such aircraft have often been used by the U.S. military in combat over Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Please see the National Air traffic Controllers Association's website for the full remarks by Daniellie OBrien. http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DanielleOBrien.htm  Please see Airman magazine for information about drones. http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1101/hawk.html 

The lawn outside the Pentagon's West block showed no signs of gouging by an airliner.

4) Further disproving official accounts of American Airlines Flight 77, the damage to the Pentagon on 9/11/01 could not have been made by a Boeing 757-200.

Again, physical facts are the proof. Many photos show that the initial damage to the Pentagon's west block on 9/11/01 to be not more than 90 feet wide across the first floor, to be not more than 13 feet wide across the second floor, and to be not more than 26 feet high.

We know that a Boeing 757-200's wingspan is exactly 124'10". The tail of this airliner is 44'6" in height. Official accounts agree that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at an impact-angle of about 45 degrees, thus increasing to 177 feet the width of damage that its penetration of the building should show.

Where is that evidence? Where do we see an imprint of wings and tail on the Pentagon's facade anything like those so apparent in the impact gashes in the Twin Towers? Where do we see any sign at all of a Boeing 757-200's wings or engines or tires in photos of the Pentagon on 9/11/01? Where do we see any sign of the approach of a Boeing 757-200—whose weight of more than 200,000 pounds is supposed to have flown less than a yard above ground—on the Pentagon's lawn?

The black-box Flight Data Recorder and Voice Data Recorder for American Airlines Flight 77 were both recovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, no data from these Recorders—built to withstand much greater heat, impact and pressure than they received on 9/11/01—has yet been released to the public. Likewise no evidence from the many surveillance-videos that the FBI confiscated in regard to the 9/11 Pentagon crash has yet been released to the public and in particular to you family and friends.

Several researchers believe that the likeliest cause for the damage and deaths at the Pentagon on 9/11/01 was internal explosives in combination with a "cruise missile with wings" (as Mike Walter described what he saw hit the Pentagon) such as Boeing's AGM-86, a Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM). For the capabilities in penetration and explosiveness of such a missile please see the Federation of American Scientists study at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm.

123 people inside the Pentagon and 62 aboard American Airlines Flight 77 were killed on September 11, 2001. You can read and see a great deal more about damage done to the Pentagon on that terrible day at the following websites:

(a) David MacGowan, 'The Pentagon Attack' published June 30, 2002, at http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr7.html 

(b) A Boeing 757-200 in simulated 9/11/01 entry beside the Pentagon's west block at http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm 

(c) The initial 9/11/01 Pentagon hole, plus eyewitness reports, at http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/trou_en.htm 

(d) Gerard Holmgren, `Physical and Mathematical Analysis of the Pentagon Crash,' at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren/ 

 

 

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDINGS' COLLAPSES

5) The greatest loss of life and the greatest psychological impact to U.S. society in general on 9/11/01 came from the collapse of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers. Their fall produced thousands of personal tragedies.

Less than 10 minutes after impact to the South Tower, 
both Towers were already emitting dark smoke. 
Dark smoke indicates oxygen-starved, cooling fires. 
The Towers' smoke continued to darken as time progressed.

The Towers, however, could not have collapsed due to the causes cited by Government officials and almost all media. Temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees Fahrenheit are needed to begin weakening steel (fire-resistant structural steel composed the Twin Towers' extraordinarily massive columns and beams), but actual tests of steel frame structures exposed to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires suggest structural steel never exceeds 680 degrees Fahrenheit in building fires. For a record of such tests, please see J. McMichael's analysis `Muslim Suspend the Laws of Physics' at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm.

In addition, smoke from the fires in both Towers had become dark by the time of their collapses, indicating that those fires had cooled, a progression substantiated by the call from New York Fire Department Batallion Chief Orio J. Palmer for two Engine Companies to join him on the 78th floor of the South Tower less than 10 minutes before that Tower's collapse at 9:59 A.M. For record of Chief Palmer's call, please see the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/nyregion/09TOWE.html?ex=1059105600&en=3a84112d9c0719b9&ei=5070.

6) Each Twin Tower collapsed entirely in less than 15 seconds, an interval almost equal to free-fall (32 feet per second per second). That is, the Towers collapsed as if any resistance from columns, beams and concrete was removed, floor by floor, from their descending weight. Consistent with this evident reality, photos and video of both Towers' collapse show explosions occurring serially on floors below the disintegrating structure above them.

Also, previously molten steel was discovered 7 levels below ground at the Twin Towers' site and underneath Building 7, showing that temperatures there must have exceeded 2800 degrees Farenheit to produce such melting. Such high temperatures are impossible to explain as the result of the combustion of jet fuel or anything intrinsic to the three collapsed buildings.

7) We who watched each Tower's astounding, sickening collapse repeat on Network TV remember the mushrooming clouds of smoky dust that spewed upward and sideways early in each 110-story building's fall. Some of these explosions radiated more than 500 feet.

How and why could nearly all the non-metallic components of a building explode into dust—most of it consisting of particles no larger than 100 microns in diameter—dust as fine as flour— a process that started at the very outset of its collapse? Independent scientists have recently shown that the energy required for the pulverization of concrete and for the stupendous expansion of the dust clouds that accompanied both Towers' collapse is as much as 100 times greater than could have been produced from each Tower's gravitational potential energy (that is, the mass throughout each Tower times its height).

In a paper published online on June 13, 2003, `The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center,' Jim Hoffman cites previous research about pulverization of the concrete. `The gravitational energy of each tower was on the order of 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours),' he writes. `Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the Towers.' Hoffman estimates that the energy required to convert one Tower's estimated 90,000 tons of concrete into dust of 60-micron particle diameter is about 135,000 KWH. This researcher then considers another aspect of the collapse: `There was, however, another energy sink that was many times the magnitude of the gravitational energy: the energy needed to expand the dust clouds to several times the volume of each tower within 30 seconds of the onset of their collapses.'

The dust cloud from the North Tower grew to about 5 times the 
volume of the building within 30 seconds of the start of the collapse.

Hoffman's paper concludes with this careful statement of his additional finding: `The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 100-fold disparity between this estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.'

Jim Hoffman's complete paper can be seen at his new and excellent site, wtc7.net, at http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/ .

Of the 2952 people killed in the 2001 World Trade Center atrocities, 129 were passengers or crew aboard the two airliners, 479 were public-service personnel such as firefighters and New York City Police, and 2,334 were office-workers.

Despite the horrific, unprecedented amount of death and destruction in New York City on 9/11/01, the U.S. Government spent only $600,000 for its single study of the causes for the WTC Buildings' collapses (against the $40 million that was spent for investigation of Bill Clinton's activities with Monica Lewinksy in 1988-1999). A 125-year-old trade publication, Fire Engineering, complained in January 2002 that removal of evidence from the WTC site and other factors made the then-proceeding Study a "half-baked farce." (Please see http://www.rense.com/general18/firefighter.htm for New York Times and New York Daily News articles). In May of 2002 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued its `World Trade Center Building Performance Study'. FEMA's Study declines to be definitive. Regarding the catastrophe of the Towers' collapse, this Study states: `With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined.' Something, however, caused the Twin Towers to collapse and explode as no buildings ever have. Jim Hoffman debunks FEMA's report at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/ .

8) World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed at 5:20 P.M. on 9/11/01, 7 hours after the North Tower's fall. Unlike Buildings 3, 4, and 6, no portion of the 47-story structure of Building 7 was crushed by the Towers' debris.

Leaving the adjacent U.S. Post Office and Verizon buildings unscathed, 
Building 7 collapsed into its own footprint and tidy pile of rubble.

WTC 7 showed only two small areas of fire—on its 7th and 12th floors—in the minutes just before its collapse. It fell straight-down and its barely more than 6-second time of total collapse was almost as fast as free-fall. (An object would take 5.956 seconds to fall from WTC 7's roof in a vacuum.)

Building 7 mid-way through its 6-second collapse. 
Note that the building's center was falling ahead of its perimeter and that streamers of smoke emerged from its facade. 
Both of these features are characteristic of a controlled demolition's implosion.

Building 7's fall is a picture-perfect example of how a controlled demolition should look. It was the first structural-steel building to ever collapse with fire alone as its explaining cause.

Building 7 held offices of the FBI and CIA. Occupying its 23rd floor was the Emergency Command Center that New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani created.

On the morning of 9/11/01 Rudolph Giuliani told ABC News's Peter Jennings about the temporary headquarters that he and staff had set up at 75 Barkley Street: "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center building was gonna collapse." How this Mayor would know about an impending collapse that even firefighters inside the Twin Towers did not anticipate is yet another question unaddressed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.

For a great deal more about the World Trade Center Buildings and their fall, please see:

(a) http://www.911-strike.com/demolition_explosive.htm 

(b) http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/ 

(c) http://www.sfcall.com/issues%202002/11.01.02/paul_11_01_02.htm 

 

 

THE SURROUNDING PICTURE: FOREGROUND AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01

Several additional sources may add to your perspective. Two researchers and writers in particular, Michael C. Ruppert and Michel Chossudovsky, have contributed immense amounts of information and understanding about 1) high-level U.S. Government advisors positing an event like Pearl Harbor prior to 9/11/01 and 2) the gains to U.S. Corporate interests in oil and gas from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11/01. Professor Michel Chossudovsky's website is www.globalresearch.ca and he's the author of War and Globalisation: The Truth Behind September 11. Michael C. Ruppert's website is www.fromthewilderness.com and he's the author of the upcoming book, Across the Rubicon. They and Catherine Austin Fitts' solari.com also have much to tell about global financial interests' profits from opium in Afghanistan.

Paul Thompson and www.cooperativeresearch.org has a most detailed timeline of 9/11/01-related events.

An interview with author Don Paul and pages from his Fight Back Bugle will tell you more about the supposed hijackers and the definite beneficiaries of the Official Story for 9/11/01. You can read these pieces at: (a) http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/061303Feldman/061303feldman.html   (b) http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/bugle/bugle1.html 

We also recommend these videos and/or DVDs: "Truth and Lies of 9/11" by Michael C. Ruppert "The Great Deception" by Barrie Zwicker "Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus" by Daniel Hopsicker "Painful Deceptions" by Eric Hufschmid "9/11 Perspective" by Ken Jenkins

We would be glad to provide you copies of any of the above resources.

IN CONCLUSION

We can only imagine the suffering you've known from 9/11/01 onward. The pain that you've borne since that day is only made more acute when facts that may lead to answers about your inexplicable, personal losses are ignored, hidden, or obscured.

We hope that our letter is helpful to you. We hope that it provides a concise resource for you. We hope that it imparts at least some information that may not have yet been uncovered by you or for you.

We believe that the great crimes of 9/11/01 have been accompanied by comparably great lies. As said earlier in our letter, the Official Story of the attacks September 11, 2001 is the pretext for the United States' "War on Terrorism" around the world. By allowing the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, "`9/11'" has allowed U.S.-based Corporations' access to fields of oil and gas and—yes—opium. It's also allowed them to increase profits from warfare at the same time as this warfare detracts from social programs in this country.

We believe that revealing realities of and behind "`9/11'" is a crucial duty of our time. We believe that if the people of this country and the world can learn what really happened on that further day of infamy and learn who must have committed its indisputable acts of terror—who, in fact, are the true terrorists—we all may go a long way toward removing the means and illusions for more of such acts in the future.

You families and friends of the terrible day's victims have the most poignant, unassailable right to demand truth from power. You carry a trust equal to your losses. We who have studied that day and its consequences for many months want to work with you. We want, as you do, an honest pursuit of truth and justice. We believe that we need such exposure in order to heal and progress.

Sincerely,
Concerned Researchers, Broadcasters and Citizens

CHRIS CARLISLE, cgc@ocf.berkeley.edu
BEV CONOVER, editor@onlinejournal.com
MICHAEL DAVIDSON, bettysdad@hotmail.com
A. K DEWDNEY, akd@uwo.ca
BOB FELDMAN, bob_jan@xensei.com
JIM HOFFMAN, paxamor@justiceforwoody.org,
GERARD HOLMGREN, holmgren@nettrade.com.au
SHIU M. HUNG, shiuhung@pacbell.net
KEN JENKINS, kenjenkins@aol.com
IAN JOHNSTON, smallaxe03@hotmail.com
TRACY LARKINS, lark2@mindspring.com
DON PAUL, don@irrerevo.net
JERRY RUSSELL, jerry@efn.org
JEFFREY G. STRAHL, jstrah@well.com
SUE SUPRIANO, sue@suesupriano.com
JOSEPH WANZALA, jwanzala@hotmail.com
BARRIE ZWICKER, bzwicker@sympatico.ca

END ********

 

To send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click here
The home page of this website is www.mindfully.org
Please see our Fair Use Notice