If you enjoy the Information I bring you, please donate. Make a difference!

                                                              KERRY STEIGERWALT'S
                                                     PACIFIC LAW CENTER IS A FRAUD

                             
                                                            San-Diego-Police.com
                                                                                         ENTER HERE

Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie

Appendix to
THE TERROR CONSPIRACY
by Jim Marrs
Publication date, Sept. 6, 2006
by Barbara Honegger, M.S.
blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf

Barbara Honegger, M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School (1995−present),the Navy’s advanced science, technology and national security affairs university. This research, as all of Honegger’sresearch and publications on September 11, are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do notimply official endorsement. Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White HousePolicy Analyst (1981−83); was the pioneering Irangate author and whistleblower on the October Surprise (OctoberSurprise, Tudor, 1989; and Iran−Contra expose documentary film "Cover−Up"); and was called as a researcher /witness at both the October 23, 2004, and August 27, 2005, Los Angeles Citizens 9/11 Grand Jury hearings held atPatriotic Hall in Los Angeles, Calif. Much of the information and analysis contained in this evidence summary waspresented at the L.A. Citizens Grand Jury hearings and at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence conference held atAmerican University in Washington, D.C. in July, 2005.

The San Francisco Chronicle commemorated the 100thanniversary of The Great Earthuake of 1906 with aseries of front−page articles headed by a single icon−a charred clock frozen at 5:12 am, the exact moment "The BigOne" hit. A century after that devastating event, the stopped clock serves as both the ultimate evidence and thesymbol that "captures it all."

Again, almost 100 years later, clocks frozen in time at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001both "capture it all" and are the ultimate evidence that shatters the "Official Lie" of what happened that terriblemorning.

The Pentagon was first attacked at 9:32 am, much earlier than the 9/11 Commission and official coverstory claim. (In this summary of evidence, the more precise time of 9:31:40 am is "rounded up" for ease ofreference.)

The Pentagon and mainstream media first reported 9:43 as the time of alleged Flight 77 impact (somereports, presumably taken from official sources, were as late as 9:48 and 9:47). Over time, the time given byofficials for the claimed outside impact on the building has been moved earlier and earlier, down to 9:37 (as of thetime of this writing), but has never come close to the actual time of the first violent event at the Pentagon−9:32.Clearly, if the official story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 were true, Flight 77 could not have been thesource of massive damage to the west side of the building a minimum of five minutes earlier at 9:32.

Converging Lines of Proof of a 9:32 Violent Event at the Pentagon on September 11, well before theOfficial Story says anything hit the building:

Multiple standard−issue, battery−operated wall clocks on the walls of the area of the Pentagon attackedon 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 or construction trailer parkedright outside the west face. The first Associated Press report, in fact, stated that the Pentagon had been damagedby a "booby trapped truck." The Navy posted the stopped heliport clock on an official website and another of thestopped clocks is in the 9/11 display at the Smithsonian Institution. These are just some of the west sectionPentagon clocks that stopped between 9:31 and 9:32−1/2 on September 11.

April Gallop, an Army employee with a Top Secret clearance, was at her desk in the Army administrativeoffices in the west section of the Pentagon on 9/11, the area of the building most heavily destroyed, when whatshe said sounded and felt "like a bomb" went off. "Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what abomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb. There was no plane orplane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel." Ms. Gallop still has the watch she was wearing thatmorning, which stopped shortly after 9:30.

The FAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration] timeline document "Executive Summary−Chronology of aMultiple Hijacking Crisis−−September 11, 2001" reads: "0932: ATC (Air Traffic Control) AEA reports aircraftcrashes into west side of Pentagon." 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 9/11from which he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediatelylooked at his watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he statedthat the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.

On August 27, 2002, then White House Counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave theSecretary of the Navy lecture at the Naval Postgraduate School in which Gonzales explicitly and clearly states that"The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32". A tape of this segment of his talk was played at the 9/11 Emergency TruthConvergence at American University in Washington, D.C. in July 2005, and is on the public record.

The Pentagon was attacked by bomb(s) at or around 9:32 am, possibly followed by an impact from anairborne object significantly smaller than Flight 77, a Boeing 757.

We have already seen that Army employee April Gallop, whose watch was stopped by the violent event atthe Pentagon shortly after 9:30, says that her military training and experience led her to immediately determine thesource of the initial explosion was a bomb.

I have interviewed an Army auditor from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, who was on temporary dutyassignment at the Pentagon before, on and after 9/11. He was in the Army financial management spaces only minutesbefore the Pentagon explosion on the morning of 9/11. He had just returned to his temporary office on the groundfloor of the adjacent south side of the Pentagon by the cafeteria when he heard an explosion and felt the buildingshake. Immediately afterwards, he said, hundreds of panicked Pentagon personnel ran by him down the corridor justoutside his office and out the South Entrance, yelling "Bombs!" and "A bomb went off!" The witness has requestedthat his name not be used in this summary, but is willing to testify to a grand jury or independent officialinvestigation.

This Army financial management/audit area is part of, or contiguous to, the Army personnel offices, whichwas one of two main west section offices heavily destroyed in the Pentagon attack, the other being the NavalCommand Center. The day before 9/11, September 10, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held a press conference atwhich he acknowledged that the Pentagon was "missing"−could not account for and needed to "find"−$2.3 Trilliondollars (other reports said $2.6 Trillion). Were the auditors who could "follow the money," and the computerswhose data could help them do it, intentionally targeted? It is worth noting that the Pentagon’s top financial officerat the time, Dov Zakheim, who also acknowledged the "missing" trillions, had a company that specializes in aircraftremote−control technology. As remnants found in the Pentagon wreckage have been identified as the front−hubassembly of the front compressor of a JT8D turbojet engine used in the A−3 Sky Warrior jet fighter,5and as AirForce A−3 Sky Warriors−normally piloted planes−were secretly retrofitted to be remote−controlled drones andfitted with missiles in a highly compartmented operation at an airport near Ft. Collins−Loveland Municipal Airportin Colorado in the months before 9/11, the question further arises as to whether Pentagon auditors and theircomputerized data were intentionally targeted on 9/11.

The Ft. Monmouth Army auditor and his two colleagues were also eyewitnesses to multiple teams of bomb−sniffing dogs and their K−9 handlers in camouflage uniform at the Pentagon metro station just outside the Pentagon atapproximately 7:30 am 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 wasclearly anticipated. Ms. Gallop said she also saw the bomb sniffing K−9 teams that morning, from the top of thePentagon metro stop looking down.

Survivor eyewitnesses from inside the west section of the Pentagon reported that the blast caused itswindows first to expand outwards, and then inwards.

Multiple witnesses said they smelled cordite after the initial explosion at the Pentagon, an explosive whichhas a distinct and very different smell from that of burning jet fuel. And as we have already noted, Ms. Gallop saidthere was no smell of jet fuel inside the most damaged section of the building shortly after the first violent event thatstopped her watch there shortly after 9:30.

Even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told Sam Donaldson in an ABC News interview shortly after 9/11that 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 am on the ground floor of the west section of thePentagon are not inconsistent with there having also been a later, or even near−simultaneous, impact by someairborne object −− a piloted plane, unmanned drone, or missile −− into the same or nearby section of the building,which may have been the cause of the collapse of the west wall section approximately 20 minutes after the initialviolent event. Indeed, if a heat−seeking missile hit the building after the bomb(s) went off, the heat from theexplosion(s) would become the target for the missile. Recall that the A−3 Sky Warrior planes were retrofittedshortly before 9/11, not only enabling them 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 pilot−less remote−controlled plane significantly smaller than Flight 77 also struck the building subsequent to bombs going off andpenetrated the inside of the third ring, as bomb detonations would not have resulted in such a near−symmetricalround−shaped opening.

I have interviewed the then Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations on 9/11, RobertAndrews−the top civilian official in charge of special operations under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld−a formerGreen Beret 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 am, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld lefthis office on the Potomac side of the Pentagon and went (merely) across the hall on the same floor to hisExecutive Support Center (ESC), which is set up for teleconferencing. There, he joined the teleconference of topgovernment officials run by Richard Clarke out of the White House Situation Room media room. Clarke, in hisbook Against All Enemies, confirms that Rumsfeld was among the first officials on this teleconference shortlyafter the second WTC tower was hit. Clarke’s account and Andrews’ confirmation of it are completely at oddswith the official cover story and the 9/11 Commission, which claim that no one could locate Secretary Rumsfelduntil approximately 10:30 am when he walked into the National Military Command Center (NMCC). The factthat Rumsfeld, the military’s top civilian 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 Air Force interceptors weren’tscrambled in time because the military and FAA "couldn’t talk each other" on 9/11. The top−most officials of thePentagon and FAA were talking to one another constantly on Clarke’s teleconference from as early as 9:15. Thistaped 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 Alexander Butterfield were the "smokingguns" 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 am, Andrews and his aide left his office andran 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 approximately 9:10.While he and his aide were in this west side basement CTC, a violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall off theceiling and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read approximately 9:35am but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32. He and his aidethen immediately evacuated the CTC with the goal of joining Rumsfeld in his Executive Support Center (ESC)across the hall from Rumsfeld’s main office. He said that Rumsfeld was already on the White House teleconferencewhen they arrived. En route to Rumsfeld’s ESC, Andrews said when he and his aide entered the corridor on theinside ring of the west section, "we had to walk over dead bodies" to get to the inner courtyard. (Note: This is tworings further in towards the center from the inner most hole made by whatever allegedly impacted the Pentagon that morning.)

Once in the inner courtyard, Andrews and his aide ran as fast as they could to Rumsfeld’s Executive SupportCenter, where he joined Rumsfeld as his special operations/counterterrorism adviser during Clarke’s White Houseteleconference. Andrews also said that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke with President Bush while in thePentagon 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 on 9/11 while Rumsfeld was in his Pentagon ESCwas published on an official DoD web site.

WTC janitor William "Willy" Rodriguez, the last non−emergency response person to leave the WTCalive on 9/11, has testified that he was in the first basement level of the WTC when an immense explosion wentoff below him in the yet−deeper subbasement level(s) of the building a few seconds before the plane hit thetower high above. As Robert Andrews revealed that the west side basement level of the Pentagon was damagedat approximately 9:32 am and as we know that the cause of the 9:32 Pentagon attack was not an impact eventbut explosives, there are thus eye− and ear witness reports of bombs going off in both the Pentagon and theWTC underground level(s) before both buildings were hit by anything from the outside.

As no "outside" terrorist, al Qaeda or otherwise, could have had access to either the Pentagon or thesustained advance access needed to pre−place explosives inside the WTC, only domestic insiders could havepre−placed the explosives in both the Pentagon and the WTC. Further, because the WTC1 deep−basementexplosions(s) experienced by Willy Rodriguez happened before the tower was hit by a plane; as any incomingplane not controlled by the same party that triggered the sub−basement detonation(s) could have veered offfrom the building at the last second, ruining the plane−impact−as−cover−story for the later building collapse;and as the sub−basement explosions were necessary for the actual later collapse of the buildings by controlleddemolition, the same domestic−US insiders had to have controlled both the sub−basement detonations and theincoming plane(s). Thus, even if al Qaeda hijackers were on the incoming planes, they were not in final controlof the impact of the planes into the buildings, which had to have been guaranteed by domestic/US insidercontrollers to ensure the sub−basement bombs didn’t go off prematurely and destroy the plane−impact coverstory. This fact is critical, as it takes jurisdiction for the mass murders at the WTC away from the BushAdministration’s FBI, which oversees crimes committed in the air, and places it squarely with the State of NewYork, as murder is a State crime and multiple/mass murders are the sum of individual State crimes. Becausethe controllers of the timing of the basement level explosives had to have also been the controllers of the finalapproach of the planes, and the former was clearly on the ground and not in the air, a Manhattan grand jurycan suddenly pull jurisdiction for the Bush−Cheney Reichstag Fire out of their hands.

Because the real modus operandi at the Pentagon and WTC are so similar, it is logical to deduce thatthe same domestic−US terrorists were responsible for pre−placing and detonating the bombs−both inside theWTC and inside the Pentagon. That is, a single group of US−domestic conspirators−not al Qaeda or any otheroutside terrorists−must have planned both the WTC and Pentagon attacks and controlled both the approachingplanes and the inside−the−building explosions in real time on 9/11.

In addition to the already legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon −− i.e. the small hole in thewest side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for the plane’s fuselage, let alone wing width; no damage tothe lawn where Flight 77 allegedly struck and skidded before hitting the building; wrecked plane parts at the siteidentified as being from an A−3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77, a Boeing 757; Pentagonrequests to TV media on the morning of 9/11 not to take up−close images, etc. −− there is also official evidence thatFlight 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 AerospaceDefense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11, although too late, Gen.Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack therethat morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building. Thisfighter jet−not Flight 77−is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller’s screenmaking a steep, high−speed 270−degree descent before disappearing from the radar. [When a plane flies low enoughto go undetected, it is said to be "under the radar."] Military pilots−like the one sent by Gen. Arnold on 9/11 to reporton the Pentagon’s damage−are trained to fly 500 feet above ground in order to evade radar detection. In fact, whenthe Air Traffic Controller responsible for the plane and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 270−degreemaneuver on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremelydifficult feat was a US 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 for "Flight 77" impact,9:37, to 9:32 am−the actual time of the first explosions there−is that they decided to pretend the blip represented byArnold’s surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was "Flight 77." As the official cover story claims that thealleged 9:37 impact was the only Pentagon attack that morning, yet by the time Arnold’s surveillance jet arrived onthe scene the violent event had already happened, the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the earlier 9:32 time withoutrevealing an attack on the building prior to the alleged impact.

It is significant that the The 9/11 Commission Report ignores the testimony of Secretary of TransportationNorman 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 coverstory. The portion of Mineta’s testimony that is particularly dangerous is his claim that Vice President Cheney, incharge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) beneath the White House since before Minetaarrived in the PEOC at 9:20, insisted to an incredulous "young man" that "the orders (given earlier by Cheney to thissame individual) still stand" when the man told Cheney that the presumed plane they had been tracking as a blip on ascreen was 50, then 30, and finally just 10 miles from Washington−orders which could only have been not to shootdown the plane. Otherwise there would have been no reason for the agent to ask Cheney if they "still" stood, despitethe plane’s being almost upon the capital where Cheney himself was. This is critical because of the timing that can beinferred from Mineta’s testimony: As Mineta arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 am, and as Mineta estimated the "stillstand?" interaction between Cheney and the agent happened 5 to 6 minutes after that, or about 9:25, it can be inferredbased 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 theoriginal official cover story time of 9:43, or even the six−minute−earlier time the Pentagon finally settled on for analleged 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, theSecret Service suddenly acts as if the attacks are "real," rushing President Bush out of the libraryat the Florida school where he had been reading to children.

• The firefighters are suddenly 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 allegedhijackers 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 thePentagon lawn looking down at the west face after the other cars have left the freeway. This taxi can be seen inoverhead photos taken on the morning of 9/11 and viewable on the Internet. The driver said his was the last carallowed onto that section of I−395 before police put up a barricade and that he decided not to immediately leave thescene like the others "because I realized this was history and I wanted to see for myself." He stated that he saw noevidence 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’swest face from I−395.

I interviewed a Navy public affairs officer assigned to the Naval Command Center, one of the two majorPentagon west section areas destroyed on 9/11, the other being the Army Financial Management/Audit area asmentioned earlier. This officer was not in the building that morning but was quickly assigned as the deputy publicaffairs 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 PresidentCheney were flown to the Site R underground bunker in response to Richard Clarke’s officially declaring "Continuityof 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 atSite R in his stead. Perhaps significantly, Site R and Camp David are not far from the crash site of Flight 93. Detailsabout Site R, on and after 9/11, are also in James Bamford’s book, A Pretext for War.

On February 4, 2004, I interviewed Air Force General Ralph Eberhart, Commander of NORAD on 9/11. Tomy knowledge, Gen. Eberhart has granted no other interview since the events of September 11. Before askingquestions, I gave Gen. Eberhart copies of all the mainstream press articles published as of that date on the subject ofthe confusion of his NORAD Northeast Sector (NEADS) personnel who were running NORAD’s "VigilantGuardian/Vigilant Warrior" emergency response war game exercises that morning. As of the date of the interview,therefore, the then head of NORAD was made aware of the initial confusion by his own NEADS "game" players on9/11 between incoming exercise reports and incoming reports of the actual hijacks.

I first asked Gen. Eberhart if there was any connection between NORAD’s "Vigilant Guardian/VigilantWarrior" exercise being run on 9/11 and the plane−crashing−into−tower emergency response exercisesimultaneously being held at National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) headquarters outside Washington, D.C. He replied, "No." I was surprised at this, as a large portion of NRO personnel are from his own agency, the Air Force. I asked for reconfirmation, to which he again said, "No." Laying the ground for the next question, Imentioned that NEADS’ "game" director Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins had said that she was confused as to whetherinitial reports of the hijacked planes on the morning of 9/11 were "real world" or "part of the game." This, I said,showed that the NORAD exercises that morning had to have been on a hijack scenario at least similar to the actualattacks, as otherwise there would have been no grounds for confusion. After considering this for a moment, 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 Administrationforeknowledge of the broad outlines of the September 11 attacks−advance warnings from the intelligenceagencies of as many as 11 foreign countries and the content of the now−famous August 6, 2001 presidentialdaily brief (whose 10−page attachment still has not been made public), etc.−there is strong evidence that Bushadministration insiders had near perfect−if not complete−advance knowledge of both the details and the date ofthe September 11 attack:

(Note: That Bush Administration insiders had advance knowledge of the date and details of an "outside"attack is not inconsistent with these insiders having facilitated and even orchestrated the attacks. That is, the plotbehind the attacks of September 11 is similar to that of the Reichstag fire, through which Hitler rapidly consolidatedpower. Like the Nazi−facilitated Reichstag fire, there was a real though highly−unlikely−to−succeed "outside" plotabout which Administration insiders gained advance intelligence. They then secretly protected and enabled this plotto ensure that it not only succeeded, but succeeded spectacularly as the psychological operation needed to justify theentire subsequent Bush−Cheney global and domestic agenda.)

1) Shortly after September 11, Newsweek reported that before 9/11, the Bush Administration initiated aForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court surveillance/tap of "up to 20" suspected al Qaeda−linkedterrorists then in the US, 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/NSAinitiated the tap before asking the FISA Court for a warrant for it, as with the now−famous post−9/11 NSA tapsinitiated 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 BushAdministration Justice Dept/FBI/NSA almost certainly initiated surveillance of all 19, or close to all 19, of thesoon−to−be alleged 9/11 hijackers before 9/11. Though Judge Lamberth ordered the surveillance ended once theadministration filed the formal warrant application, there is evidence that the Bush administration ignored hisorder to cease the tap and continued the surveillance of the alleged 9/11 hijackers up to and including the day of9/11.

Zacarias Moussaoui−the only person indicted by the Bush Administration for anything even related to9/11−has stated in court filings that both he "and my (al Qaeda) brothers" then in the US were surveilled by theBush administration before 9/11 and that the Bush administration knows he can prove it. How could this be thecase? If Moussaoui was one of the "up to 20" al Qaeda−linked terrorist suspects they surveilled before 9/11without an advance FISA warrant as reported by Newsweek, then Moussaoui was also one of the "up to 20" whosetaps Judge Lamberth ordered stopped. Moussaoui, after all, was originally named as the "20th hijacker" of the9/11 plot. Amazingly, the FISA Act requires that, if the FISA Court rejects a surveillance initiated before awarrant has been applied for, as in this case, the court has to inform the "target" of the surveillance and give himthe government’s stated reason for the tap in the surveillance application. Moussaoui says that he can "prove" theBush administration/FBI initiated surveillance on him before 9/11 because, it can be deduced, the FISA Courtitself told him so after Lamberth 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 19of the "up to 20"alleged 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 datamining task force, "Able Danger," to have tracked lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and at least four of the other19 hijackers beginning in January, 2000, when Atta actually did enter the country according to Daniel Hopsickerin his book, Welcome to Terrorland. The FBI falsely claimed, and still falsely claims, that Atta did not enter theUS until the summer of 2000, six months later. The likely reason for this intentional lie about when Atta firstentered the country is what Atta is known to have done while inside the US between January and the Summer of2000. Hopsicker reveals that, among other activities, Atta visited Portland, Maine, in March, 2000, and perhapseven earlier. An abiding "mystery" of the official cover story is why Atta drove to Portland, Maine on September10, the day before 9/11, and then flew from Portland to Boston early on the morning of September 11. The answerto this "mystery," which the FBI clearly already knows, is the link between what Atta was doing in Portlandbefore the administration admits he was even in the country, as well as what he was doing there the day before9/11 and early on the morning of 9/11. This may all have something to do with the fact that the CIA reportedly runs secret flights out of an airport in Portland, Maine, and that "rendition" detainees have said they were flownout of the country on special jets after first stopping at Portland’s International Jet Port.

2) The FBI’s top bin Laden/al Qaeda hunter until shortly before 9/11, John O’Neill, "happened" to beat the same hotel in the same town near Tarragona, Spain in mid−July 2001 just before lead hijacker MohamedAtta and 9/11 plot "coordinator" Ramzi Binalshibh. Some Bush administration officials now also believe that9/11 "mastermind" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) met there for what the 9/11 Commission calls "the Final9/11 Planning Meeting." This cannot be−and is not−a coincidence. O’Neill, who was in close contact withGerman intelligence−recall that Atta led the "German cell" for the 9/11 attacks−and Spanish intelligence, hadclearly been alerted to the upcoming meeting and was at the hotel to surveil/tap/bug the room where themeeting was about to be held. O’Neill and his agency, the Bush administration’s FBI, thus knew every detail,or nearly every detail, of the planned 9/11 plot at least two months in advance.

Perhaps just as significantly, European media reported that bin Laden was in an American hospital inDubai incapacitated for surgery during precisely this same mid−July, 2001, period of the Spanish "final 9/11Planning Meeting." Reportedly, bin Laden was visited in the hospital by the area’s then CIA station chief. Thequestion 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’sthen boss, Attorney General Ashcroft, who suddenly stopped flying commercial aircraft about this time−knewnot only every detail of the 9/11 plot as of that date, but almost certainly recorded all the key "outside"conspirators plotting their "final plans" including possibly bin Laden himself, on tape−clearly another"Butterfield" tape to be demanded by subpoena.

As noted above, on 9/11 itself the US military was conducting NORAD/Air Force emergency responseexercises on scenarios involving multiple hijacks, and the NRO was conducting an emergency responseexercise on the scenario of a plane crashing into one of the towers at its headquarters just outside Washington, D.C. many NRO personnel being from the Air Force and CIA. It is next to impossible for this to have beenthe case unless the exercises, also referred to as war games, were intentionally scripted to mirror what had beenlearned from the above−mentioned detailed advance intelligence. That is, the purpose of the war games heldon 9/11 was to practice how to defend against the very attacks that John O’Neill’s Tarragona meetingsurveillance, the Pentagon’s "Able Danger" data−mining tracking, and the FBI’s FISA−warrant−lesssurveillance of the "up to 20" ("19"?) suspected al Qaeda terrorists had already revealed. You don’t practicesomething in a multi−million−dollar set of exercises that you "can’t imagine." The date for the actual attacks−September 11−was then chosen to coincide with the Pentagon’s exercises, which in turn mirrored the real attackplans (see below).

Perhaps the most burning data point to prove Bush administration complicity in 9/11 is the fact thatlead hijacker Mohamed 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, butwould "know it" in five to six weeks, or by late August, 2001. Atta was 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’ssentencing trial, 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 this KSM transcript, it isrevealed that bin Laden and KSM "allowed Atta to choose" both the final targets for the attacks and the attackdate." From this, therefore, we know that neither bin Laden nor "mastermind" KSM nor "coordinator"Binalshibh set the September 11 attack date. However, from what Atta said to Binalshibh−and probably alsoKSM and even possibly bin Laden by phone link−at the "Final Planning Meeting" in Spain, we also know thatneither did Atta. Atta was waiting to learn the date of his "own" attack five to six weeks after the mid−July"final 9/11 planning meeting," and that date did not come from any of his al Qaeda superiors. It must be thecase then, despite KSM’s claim that he "let" Atta choose the date, that none of the top "outside" terroristconspirators set the date for the September 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 thedate of the Bush administration’s planned war games, which, in a vicious circle, were scripted to mirror thecontent of Atta’s attack plan gleaned via advance intelligence obtained from O’Neill’s surveillance of the "finalplanning meeting" near Tarragona, the Pentagon’s "Able Danger" tracking of Atta, and the FBI’s warrantlesssurveillance of Atta and other of the about−to−be alleged hijackers. Atta was thus the sole individual to whomthe date the Bush administration finally chose for its war games − 9/11 −− was leaked as soon as it was selectedand he bought his one−way ticket as soon as he learned it, in late August, 2001, just as he had predicted at the"final planning meeting." The No. 1 Bush administration conspirator, therefore, is whoever gave theadministration’s own war game scenario details and date − 9/11 −− to Mohamed Atta.

Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, then head of Pakistan’s military intelligence agency ISI, is a prime suspectfor the middleman who laundered this No. 1 Bush administration conspirator’s insider war game information toAtta. On the morning of 9/11 he was having breakfast with future CIA Director Porter J. Goss and Senator BobGraham, who co−chaired the joint House/Senate "investigation" of the 9/11 attacks, and had met with CIADirector George Tenet and with top officials at the Pentagon, about to conduct the war games, in the few daysleading up to 9/11. He is most likely the person who was told the date and details of the Pentagon’s emergencyresponse exercises and communicated them, directly or via an intermediary, to Atta, as Ahmed also approvedwiring $100,000 to Atta shortly before 9/11. Atta then confirmed 9/11 as the date for the war games−which wasthe date of the attacks−in his now−famous NSA−intercepted call with KSM of September 10, in which herelated "The Match is about to begin. Zero hour is tomorrow." "Match" is a way of saying "exercise" or "wargame." This critical September 10 intercept, by the way, was almost certainly made without an advance FISAwarrant, putting the lie to now CIA Director and then NSA Director Gen. Michael Hayden’s patently falseclaim that the "first" warrantless taps were initiated in defensive response to 9/11, and thus came after theattacks.

Another abiding "mystery" of September 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 exercise in which US 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 isvery strange until one discovers that, despite repeated official and media claims that September 11 was "completelyunique" and that the skies over America had "never before" been cleared of all commercial and private civilianaircraft, NORAD had conducted another emergency response exercise 40 years earlier, which completely cleared theskies over the mainland US. This was on October 14, 1961, in a war game called "Sky Shield II," which was based ona scenario of how to defend against an air attack by Soviet bombers on New York City. The main differencebetween the 1961 exercise and September 11 is that the clearing of the skies was announced in advance to the publicin "Sky Shield." This original Soviet−era exercise, which included 1,800 US and 15 Canadian military planes and wasbilled as "the greatest exercise ever conducted by Western air−defense forces," is mentioned in the Air Force’s ownaccount of the events of September 11, Air War Over America. In fact, Gen. Larry Arnold, NORAD’s commanderfor the continental US on 9/11 directly under Eberhart who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled to belatedlymeet the hijack threat, made a point of including the eerily similar1961 Air Force war game in the book. Not only didboth the 1961 and September 11 NORAD "Soviet−era" war game scenarios include attacks on New York City; in the1961 exercise, US military planes played the role of Soviet attack bombers. That is, the US military pre−scripted boththe defense and the "attack" by its own planes pretending to be Soviet aircraft. If Gen. Eberhart’s testimony to the9/11 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 thepossibility that there were two American Airlines "Flight 11s," leaving from two different gates at Boston Loganairport within a few minutes of one another on 9/11, as well as emerging evidence of other of the hijacked 9/11 flightnumbers possibly being "twinned,"17or duplicated. The question thus naturally arises, were these "twin" planes USmilitary planes "playing" hijacked airliner "attackers," similar to the 1961 scenario except substituting commandeeredairliners for Soviet bombers? And could the 9/11 exercise have included a "trigger" event to clear the skies over themainland US so that a realistic test of US air defenses could be conducted without interference from the thousands ofcivilian aircraft normally in the air?

Key quotes from New York Times articles during the 1961 NORAD exercise are eerily similar to storiesappearing on 9/11 [text in parentheses and italics added]: "It is not so much the fear of collisions with militaryaircraft that has caused civilian planes to be ordered out of the skies, as it is the knowledge that inadequate [civilianFAA] 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 lawnand Shanksville, Pennsylvania "crash" site on 9/11?]...that will throw radarscopes [including the FAA’s] into aconfusion of false signals."; "All the bomber missions were laid out ahead of time and fed into the NORADcomputer"; "An automated shorthand running display of the entire battle was provided at NORAD combat center andin similar centers at Strategic Air Command headquarters [where President Bush was taken on 9/11] and in thePentagon [which was attacked on 9/11]"; "A fight plan for every aircraft [private, commercial and military] is fed intothe computer’s memory beforehand. When a plane shows on the radarscope, a console operator picks up an aluminumelectronic gun, points it at the blip, and squeezes the trigger. That brings the flight to the computer’s attention. If theflight [plan] is filed in its memory, the computer automatically replies, ’Yes, I am aware of that [plane].’ It does thisby marking the flight with an F for Friendly. While the computer compares the flight with its memorized data, itmarks the flight P for Pending. Finally, it may mark it H for Hostile. ’We have two minutes to identify a flight [asFriendly] before we scramble [interceptor jets]...to make a visual identification of an uncertain aircraft or to attackit.’; ’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 [onOctober 14, 1961] were marked K, for Faker.’"; and "There are seventeen units of Army Air Defense Artillery withground−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. LaurenceSherman 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 AirForce’s war games simulation center is at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, which Gen. Kuter had earliercommanded and where lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta received training.

The Pentagon’s "Able Danger" data miners claim that "Department of Defense lawyers"−almost certainlyfrom the National Security Agency, then headed by Gen. Hayden, an officer in the Air Force, the same service thatplanned the 9/11 war games−blocked planned meetings with the FBI at which they wanted to tell the FBI that theyhad "tracked" Atta and other of the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11 and ask the FBI to initiate additional surveillance onthem. 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 its current claims to the contrary, the Pentagon’s "Able Danger" team didcommunicate what they learned from tracking Atta and the others to the FBI before 9/11, and that the FBI theninitiated FISA−warrant−less surveillances of Atta and others subsequently ordered stopped by then Chief FISA CourtJudge Lamberth−all prior to 9/11. The fact that initially−suspected "20th 9/11 hijacker" Moussaoui officially filedclaims that he "and my brothers" were surveilled before 9/11 is further evidence that the FBI continued to watch all ormost of the 9/11 hijackers right up until the attacks, despite Lamberth’s order to cease and desist. FBI Headquarterssupervisors David Frasca and his deputy Maltbie refused 70−− seventy−−urgent requests by Moussaoui’s FBIinterrogator for either a FISA Court warrant or an "ordinary" criminal warrant to get into Moussaoui’s computer andsurveil anyone mentioned therein. Doing so would have clearly stopped the plot, as Moussaoui now claims to havepersonally known 17−almost all−of the alleged 19 hijackers.

In addition to all the evidence that plane−impacts−plus−fire was the carefully planned cover story forthe cause of collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7, as well as the west façade of the Pentagon, both of which were initiallyhit by inside−the−buildings bombs, not planes, the other overwhelming line of evidence for 9/11 being an"Inside Job" is the anthrax attacks.

Any evidence linking 9/11 to the anthrax letters −− dated September 11 but sent in mid− October and only toDemocratic leaders in Congress, no Republicans −− is direct evidence of an inside job because that particular type ofanthrax is known to have been of the highly controlled "Ames strain" developed by the US Army at Ft. Detrick,Maryland, and at the University of Iowa in Ames, Iowa. It was also high−spore−count, military−grade weaponizedanthrax refined according to a trade secret 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" anthraxcase, and the close friend and colleague of Bush Administration bio−counterterrorism expert Jerry Hauer, a signer ofthe PNAC manifesto calling for "a new Pearl Harbor."

On September 11, this same Jerry Hauer personally delivered anti−anthrax Cipro to Vice President Cheney’sstaff at the White House. Why? The conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a suit against VicePresident Cheney and other Bush Administration officials demanding to know why Cipro was delivered to theexecutive mansion−−and only to the executive mansion−on the day of the attacks. So far the response has beendeafening silence. On September 10, the day before 9/11, FEMA and other emergency response personnel arrived inNew York City for a counter−bioterrorism exercise called "Tripod II" claimed by the Bush administration to havebeen scheduled to begin September 12. There is reason to believe that the bio−agent this drill was to practicedefending against was anthrax, as Jerry Hauer was also a major planner of the New York City exercise. And there isalso a strong possibility the true start date for the exercise was September 11, as many "exercise" personnel werealready in place in New York City on September 10. As the Air Force’s war game scenario had just "come to life" inreal attacks on 9/11, were Hauer and Cheney worried that the same thing might be about to happen with theircounter−bioterrorism "exercise" Tripod II? Is this why the anti−anthrax drug Cipro was distributed to the WhiteHouse, "just in case"? If so, it would be strong evidence that Tripod II was on the scenario of defending New YorkCity against an anthrax attack. Was the "vector," or delivery vehicle, for that emergency response exercise scenarioanthrax attack to have been by air via hijacked plane(s)?

Notably, in their book on bioterrorism, Germs, Judith Miller and William Broad claim, apparently frominside sources, that Ramzi Yousef’s plans for the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 included explosivelypushing large quantities of cyanide out into New York City. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "mastermind" of 9/11, isRamzi Yousef’s uncle. Finally, former New York City mayor Rudolf Giuliani testified to the 9/11 Commission thatwhen WTC7, the location of his emergency operations center, collapsed on 9/11, he moved those operations to thecommand and control center set up on Pier 92 for the "Tripod II" bio−terrorism exercise and that it worked evenbetter than the original. Giuliani told the 9/11 Commission, "The reason Pier 92 was selected as a command centerwas 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 EmergencyManagement Office−and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was going be the placethey were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command centerthere that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World TradeCenter. And it was from there that the rest of the (9/11 and subsequent) search and rescue effort was completed."

Conclusion

The US military, not al Qaeda, had the access to plant explosives inside its own most heavily defended worldheadquarters, the Pentagon. The US military, not al Qaeda, had the access to plant the explosives Willy Rodriguezheard and felt go off deep in the sub−basement of the World Trade Center. The US military, not al Qaeda, had thesustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC1 and WTC2, and in WTC7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11. The US military, not al Qaeda, hadaccess to the sulfur−enhanced military−grade thermite (thermate) detected in the sub−basement levels of the WTCneeded to melt the steel found molten there weeks later. The US military, not al Qaeda, would have chosen the leastpopulated and most reinforced section of the Pentagon−−its newly upgraded west wedge−to strike, minimizingcasualties. Real terrorists would have maximized them. A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performedthe highly skilled, high−speed 270−degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were surewas a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by alQaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti−aircraft missile batteries as itapproached the building. Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard OperatingProcedures to paralyze its own emergency response system. Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had access to theweaponized, military−grade US Army "Ames strain’ anthrax contained in letters mailed only to DemocraticCongressional leaders. It is absurd to believe that al Qaeda would target only Democrats, especially as the USleadership at the time of 9/11 was Republican. When he received the anthrax letter dated September 11, then SenateDemocratic leader Thomas Daschle was calling for a Congressional investigation of 9/11 and had already beenwarned off from "looking too closely at" 9/11 by both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. When he receivedhis anthrax letter, another Democratic leader, Senator Patrick Leahy, was leading the Congressional resistance to thePATRIOT Act, the assault on Americans’ privacy and civil liberties justified by "al Qaeda’s" attack, clearly draftedby the Bush Administration before 9/11 and "in the can" awaiting its "trigger event."

And who in the US military chain of command and US civilian leadership are among the prime suspects for theseacts 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 VicePresident Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz;Richard Perle, then head of Secretary Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board; Jerry Hauer, the federal government’s topbio−terrorism expert who took anti−anthrax Cipro to the White House on 9/11; Gary Bauer, the right−wing ’familyvalues’ zealot who ’happened’ to be one of the ’witnesses’ who immediately claimed publicly to have seen ’Flight 77hit the Pentagon’, proven by the evidence to be a physical impossibility; and then National Security Council MiddleEast adviser Zalmay Khalizad, soon to be the first US Ambassador to Afghanistan after 9/11 and now US Ambassadorto Iraq −− the very two countries whose invasions are rationalized as retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. During the ColdWar, Khalizad was a liaison to then CIA "bag man" Osama bin Laden in the CIA’s covert war against the Soviets inAfghanistan, the crucible from which al Qaeda emerged.

Another key suspect is Air Force General William Hayden, now Director of the CIA and then head of theNational Security Agency (NSA), which tapped the calls of lead hijacker Mohamed 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 almostcertainly without FISA warrants as required by law. These pre−9/11 warrant−less NSA taps put the lie to PresidentBush’s claim that he initiated the program of warrant−less NSA taps of al Qaeda suspects because of−and thus onlyafter−9/11. Yet another key suspect is Army Lieutenant General William "Jerry" Boykin, the radical Christianfundamentalist Special Operations commando recently proposed to head the Army’s Special Operations Command.Yet another is the Pentagon’s POP2 office, reportedly to plan and script "false flag" operations−attacks orchestratedby the US military but made to appear perpetrated by an outside enemy to justify US military "retaliation." Yetanother suspect is Defense Intelligence Agency Iran expert Lawrence "Larry" Franklin, who was "loaned" to Perleand Wolfowitz’s neocon associate Douglas Feith and arrested for passing national security secrets to Israeli operativesat the American−Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Franklin also was and is an officer in the Air Forcereserves, which directed NORAD’s "Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior" war game exercises on 9/11.

Scrutiny should also be leveled at the scriptwriters for the NORAD and NRO emergency response exercisesplanned for and held on 9/11, especially members of their lead "White Teams," which set the content and thenoversee both "Red Team attackers" and "Blue Team defenders" on the actual day of an exercise, in this case on 9/11itself. And every one of the as−yet−to−be−identified "top Pentagon officials" who the day before 9/11, according toNewsweek, suddenly cancelled their already−booked flights for September 11. Also National Military Command Center (NMCC) commander Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield, who on that same day, September 10, asked his deputy,Navy Capt. Charles Leidig to take over for him the next morning between 8:30 and 10:30 − precisely the timewindow of the "game" whose details and date had been given to Atta. Further investigation should be directed at the(government) "agency" the 9/11 Commission revealed, without identifying it by name, took out the vast majority ofthe put options on American Airlines, United Airlines, Boeing and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in the few daysbefore 9/11. Also, Michael Chertoff, US Attorney for the District of New Jersey during the first 1993 attack on theWorld Trade Center who, as a private attorney, represented Egyptian−born US resident Magdy Elamir, underinvestigation for illegally diverting millions of dollars and whose brother, Mohammed Elamir, funded arms smugglerslinked to al Qaeda.20Significantly, Mohamed Atta’s name in his country of birth, Egypt, was also Mohamed Elamir.In other words, the very man President Bush put in charge of the entire 9/11 "investigation" and who is now Directorof Homeland Security −− the top official charged with defending the US mainland from an attack by al Qaeda −−may have been directly involved with Al Qaeda and even with Mohamed Atta himself. And FBI headquarterssupervisor David Frasca and his deputy Michael Maltbie, who ignored 70 pleas by Zacarias Moussaoui’s FBIinterrogator to let him investigate the contents of Moussaoui’s computer before 9/11. Attention should also bedirected to Phillip Zelikow, NSC adviser along with Zalmay Khalizad to then NSC Adviser Condoleezza Rice beforeand on 9/11. Zelikow both orchestrated The 9/11 Commission Report cover up of the administration’s inside job and,at Rice’s personal request, rewrote the Bush administration’s official national strategic plan draft to better match theglobal domination agenda of the pre−9/11 PNAC manifesto.

These are just some of the names being knitted into the scroll of the September 11 Truth Revolution.

Notes:

1) The clock stopped at the moment the Great Earthquake hit San Francisco on April 18, 1906 is athttp://sfgate.com/greatquake/ .

2) The clock at the Pentagon heliport just outside the west section, frozen at 9:31:40 am by the violent event at thePentagon, was posted on an official Navy web site at:http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2480Pentagonclock_BBC. Yet another stopped Pentagon clock is inthe September 11 exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution. It was originally posted athttp://www.americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=19 .

3) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) timeline document "Executive Summary Chronology of a MultipleHijacking Crisis, September 11, 2001."

4) Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller interview with Denmark Radio P3, September 12, 2001, 6:15 amDenmark time. "...I saw smoke and fire rising from the Pentagon at 9:32...My first impression was that a bomb hadbeen detonated at the Pentagon." The audio of this radio interview is in the 9/11 video documentary "Bomberne somForsvandt" by Danish researcher Henrik Melvang, available at www.unmask.dk and at www.bombsinsidewtc.dk. Seealso 9/11 timeline by European researcher Jose Garcia in Reality, Truth and Evil Facts, Questions and Perspectiveson 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; andphotos of a JT8D turbojet engine and the remnant found at the Pentagon athttp://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) 9/11 −− Coup Against America: The Pentagon Analysis, compilation of Pentagon eyewitness reports, photosand analyses with hundreds of references, by Pete Tiradera, 2006, available from petertiradera@yahoo.com.

8) Pentagon eyewitness Don Perkal to MSNBC: "Even before stepping outside, I could smell the cordite. I knewexplosives had gone off somewhere." Also eyewitness account of AmTrak electrical engineer Samuel Danner whowas at the site and said he smelled cordite (American Free Press, July 7, 2006, reporting based on audio report byRepublic Broadcasting Network, summary at http://www.total911.info/2006/07/pentagon−eyewitness−ids−global−hawk.html).

9) Author interview with former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low IntensityConflict, Monterey, California; summary posted on Naval Postgraduate School web site www.nps.navy.mil,subsequently changed to www.nps.edu. Article no longer posted; hard copy available from the author.

10) Videotaped testimony of William ("Willy") Rodriguez, former World Trade Center janitor and the last person to
leave the WTC alive on September 11, in the 9/11 documentary "Loose Change," second edition", text in parentheses
added: "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, from a deeper basement level) saying ’Explosion!’...and he said ’(it was from) The
elevators!’ And there were many (deep basement WTC1) explosions."

11) "Agency (NRO) Planned Exercise on September 11 Built Around a Plane Crashing into a Building," Associated
Press, August 22, 2002; by Jonathan Lumpkin; "They Scrambled Jets, but It was a Race They Couldn’t Win,"
Syracuse Post−Standard, January 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 Post−Standard, June 18, 2004, by Hart
Seely; Complete 9/11 Military Exercises Timeline, Cooperative Research, at
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before−9/11=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) "Detainee’s Suit Gains Support from Jet’s Log," New York Times, March 30, 2005, p. A1. Key excerpt, text in
parentheses added: "Mr. Arar (a "rendered" detainee) says he followed the (Gulfstream jet) plane’s movements on a
map displayed on a video screen (inside the plane), watching it as he traveled to Dulles Airport outside Washington,
to a Maine Airport he believed was in Portland (Maine), to Rome, and finally to Amman, Jordan, where he was
blindfolded and driven to Syria." Though the FAA claims its records show a plane on that date making the other stops
but landing in Bangor, not Portland, Maine, the detainee’s account may be accurate, as only Portland’s airport is
labeled an "International Jet Port," specializing in landings and takeoffs of just such private, corporate and
government jets.

13) Ironically, at the final hearing of the Kean Commission, where its report was released to the press and public,
commissioner John Lehman responded to the question, What if anything remained unknown, by noting that the
Commission still wasn’t clear as to "how Atta chose the date for the attacks."

14) Summary interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, claimed "mastermind" of the September 11 attack plot,
read into the Zacarias Moussaoui sentencing trial record by the prosecution on March 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, note 116, p. 458, at http://www.9−11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf. Key
excerpt: "On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a
bomber attack from the former Soviet Union."

16) Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission, by Leslie Filson, US Air Force account of
the events of September 11, p. 66. Also "Civilian Planes to be Grounded 12 Hours Today in Defense Test," New York
Times, October 14, 1961, pp. 1 and 4; "Civilian Planes Halted 12 Hours in Defense Test: Joint Maneuvers Fill Air
Over Canada and US with Military Craft, Cities ’Hit’ by Bombers," New York Times, October 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,
October 15, 1961, p. 46; and "US−Canada Test of Air Defense Rated a Success: President Receives a Report on
Maneuvers, Search is Pushed for Missing B−52," New York Times, October 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," New York Times, March 28, 2006, pp. A1 and
A14.
19) Newsweek, September 24, 2001.

20) "Michael Chertoff−Where All the Questions Should Start," January 12, 2005, http://allspinzone.blogspot.com/ .

__________________________________________________

United-States-Army.com