Coincidence theory

5,867 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
5,867
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2,987
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
75
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Coincidence theory

  1. 1. 9/11 Coincidence Theory A critical examination of the official story surrounding the foundational event for the “New American Century”.
  2. 2. First, there are a few things you need to ask yourself: <ul><li>Am I so loyal to a political party that it will affect my likelihood of acknowledging the factual information in this presentation? </li></ul>
  3. 3. If I am a Democrat: <ul><li>Will I be willing to accept any information that points to Republicans as criminals at face value without examining its validity? </li></ul><ul><li>Will I be willing to follow the information to its conclusions, even if it points to people that I previously respected and agreed with, as being criminally negligent or complicit? </li></ul>
  4. 4. If I am a Republican: <ul><li>Do I value Constitutional and conservative principles higher than party loyalty? </li></ul><ul><li>Do I automatically assume that anyone who would criticize the Bush administration must be a left-wing liberal? </li></ul>
  5. 5. FACT: There are many types of people who dispute or disbelieve the official account of 9/11, including: <ul><li>Conservative Constitutionalists, or “Patriots” </li></ul><ul><li>Democrats, liberals and “Progressives”. </li></ul><ul><li>Political Moderates </li></ul><ul><li>People who were, previously, completely uninvolved and undecided politically. </li></ul><ul><li>Many credible and qualified public figures and experts, including… </li></ul>
  6. 6. Rep. Curt Weldon R, PA – Vice Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, House Armed Services Committee said, referring to the 9/11 Commission: <ul><li>&quot;There's something very sinister going on here that really troubles me,&quot; Weldon told FOX News, blasting the Sept. 11 commission for not taking the claims more seriously. He said some panel members were trying to smear Shaffer and Able Danger.  &quot;What's the Sept. 11 commission got to hide?“ [ Fox News Article 8/28/05] </li></ul>
  7. 7. Former Senator Max Cleland, (GA) 1996-2002, Former Administrator of the U.S. Veterans Administration, Captain: U.S. Army (Vietnam), former member of the 9/11 Commission: <ul><li>&quot;If this decision stands [to limit access to White House documents], I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised .&quot; </li></ul>
  8. 8. Edward L. Peck: Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under Ronald Reagan. <ul><li>We want truthful answers to questions. …  As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things: </li></ul><ul><li>An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer </li></ul><ul><li>Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings. </li></ul><ul><li>Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence. </li></ul><ul><li>The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.” [signatory, petition for reinvestigation] </li></ul>
  9. 9. DR. Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan; <ul><li>&quot;We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to &quot;pancake&quot; at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations.&quot; [essays, Counterpunch] </li></ul>
  10. 10. Catherine Austin Fitts – Assistant Secretary of Housing under George H.W. Bush. Former Managing Director of Dillon, Read & Co; <ul><li>&quot;The official story could not possibly have happened... It’s not possible. It’s not operationally feasible... The Commission was a whitewash.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>(also a signatory to petition for reinvestigation) </li></ul>
  11. 11. Daniel Ellsberg, PhD: Former State Department envoy to Viet Nam, former U.S. Marine Corps officer. Former military analyst for the Rand Corporation.  Most well known for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971 <ul><li>&quot;There is no question in my mind, that there is enough evidence to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of the kind we have not seen. With subpoenas, general questioning of people, releasing a lot of documents. There’s no question that very serious questions have been raised about how much they knew before hand and how much involvement there may have been.&quot; [Radio interview, 7-14-06] </li></ul>
  12. 12. Philip J. Berg, Esquire – Former Deputy Attorney General, State of Pennsylvania. <ul><li>&quot;The official story of what actually took place on 9-11 is a lie.&quot; [AFP 10/29/04] </li></ul><ul><li>(also signatory to petition calling for reinvestigation) </li></ul>
  13. 13. William Christison: 28-year CIA analyst, director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis <ul><li>“ After spending the better part of the last five years treating these [alternative 9/11]theories with utmost skepticism, I have devoted serious time to actually studying them in recent months, and have also carefully watched several videos that are available on the subject. I have come to believe that significant parts of the 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the ‘official story’ put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false. ” </li></ul><ul><li>“ I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. “ </li></ul>
  14. 14. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.  U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech) <ul><li>&quot;A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash.  It’s impossible. … </li></ul><ul><li>I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen…that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder.&quot; </li></ul>
  15. 15. After looking at this information, people almost all come away with: <ul><li>An awareness of the grave threat to the Constitution and the American way of life </li></ul><ul><li>An understanding of the way that our media has been manipulative and complicit in the cover-up of this information </li></ul><ul><li>A renewed commitment hold our elected officials accountable to the law and basic moral principles and, most importantly… </li></ul>
  16. 16. <ul><li>A strong desire DO SOMETHING! </li></ul>
  17. 17. Before we get started, there are a few things that we need to get out of the way:
  18. 18. First, let’s talk about “Conspiracy Theory” <ul><li>According to Webster’s Online dictionary “Conspiracy” is: </li></ul><ul><li>1 . A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act. </li></ul><ul><li>2 . A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot). </li></ul><ul><li>3 . A group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose. </li></ul>
  19. 19. <ul><li>“ Conspiracy Theory” then, would be a hypothesis or explanation of observed facts or events which relies on Conspiracy as the explanation. </li></ul><ul><li>Although it is a perfectly legitimate logical exercise when observing coordinated events, the term “Conspiracy Theory” has been stigmatized in popular culture and therefore has a sensationalist effect when used. </li></ul><ul><li>Those who refer to people who question the official story of events as “conspiracy theorists” use this terminology for its sensational effect, to stigmatize and discredit the individual and avoid logically addressing the facts. </li></ul>“ Conspiracy Theory”
  20. 20. Conspiracy Theory vs. Coincidence Theory <ul><li>When faced with observations of facts or events that appear to be coordinated, there are two approaches to explain them: </li></ul><ul><li>Conspiracy Theory </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The idea that the apparent parallels of chance are a result of coordination. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Coincidence Theory </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The idea that the apparent parallels are a result of pure chance. </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Conspiracy Theory vs. Coincidence Theory <ul><li>The problem with Coincidence theory as that because it relies on chance, it becomes less likely to be correspond with reality each time it is employed to explain corresponding events . </li></ul><ul><li>In certain situations, conspiracy theory is obviously the more logical choice, given the probabilities. For example… </li></ul>
  22. 22. Conspiracy Theory vs. Coincidence Theory <ul><li>The official explanation of 9/11 is a Conspiracy Theory, by definition . </li></ul><ul><li>It begins with the presumption that a conspiracy, or a group of 2 or more individuals must have been responsible. </li></ul><ul><li>This is perfectly logical, since it would be preposterous to assume that the impacts at all 3 buildings within the space of 2 hours, was a coincidence. </li></ul>
  23. 23. Conspiracy Theory vs. Coincidence Theory <ul><li>Unfortunately, the official story, after using conspiracy theory to explain the coordination of the hijackings themselves, relies heavily on “Coincidence Theory” to explain a host of other observed facts regarding 9/11. </li></ul><ul><li>Keep in mind that coincidence can be perfectly plausible to explain isolated events, but when you continue to rely on it to explain more and more observations of a particular event or series of events, its plausibility goes down because of the laws of probability. </li></ul>
  24. 24. How the official story uses Coincidence Theory <ul><li>The official story, as embodied by the 9/11 Commission report uses “coincidence theory” in 2 primary ways: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. By specifically attributing certain observations, which were integral to the success of the attacks to “coincidence” or to coincidental and unfortunate incompetence. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Or, as is far more common, by simply not addressing certain observations of fact and thereby implying that they are the result of chance occurrence and are therefore not relevant or worthy of scrutiny or explanation. </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. <ul><li>The sudden, global and symmetrical collapses of 3 steel high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center due to localized, asymmetrical damage and fires. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No steel frame high-rise building has EVER experienced global collapse due to structural weakening from fire, either before or since 9/11. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The multiple military air defense drills simulating hijacking of planes and building impacts which facilitated the 9/11 attacks both by confusing and diverting air defenses. </li></ul>Areas of 9/11 fact in which Coincidence Theory is relied upon by the official explanation:
  26. 26. Areas of 9/11 fact where Coincidence Theory is relied upon by the official explanation: <ul><li>The multiple intelligence ‘failures’ which facilitated the attacks, and specific prior knowledge regarding the attacks. </li></ul><ul><li>The history and nature of the individuals designated as “Al Qaeda” and their connections to the CIA, MI6 and Pakinstan’s ISI as well as the strategic use of these “operatives” by Western intelligence agencies in several global conflicts as recently as Bosnia. </li></ul>
  27. 27. Areas of 9/11 fact where Coincidence Theory is relied upon by the official explanation: <ul><li>The statements of motive prior to 9/11 by individuals and policy groups, many of whom are now the key architects of U.S. Foreign and domestic policy. </li></ul><ul><li>The widespread political opportunism surrounding 9/11, and efforts to implement long-standing foreign and domestic policies based on 9/11 and the threat of Islamic Terrorism. </li></ul>
  28. 28. Areas of 9/11 fact where Coincidence Theory is relied upon by the official explanation: <ul><li>In each of these cases alone, coincidence would be an improbable explanation. When considered in totality, it is so astronomically unlikely as to be practically impossible. </li></ul><ul><li>We will examine some of these in detail, but by no means exhaustively. Do your own research! </li></ul>
  29. 29. Second, let’s talk about the burden of proof: <ul><li>The burden of proof regarding September 11 th , 2001 is on the shoulders of those who have given us an account of events, just as in a criminal trial. </li></ul><ul><li>The Bush Administration and the Justice Department gave us an explanation of the events, that Bin Laden and 19 fanatical Muslims were independently responsible. </li></ul><ul><li>They then asked us to completely change all of our domestic and foreign policy based on this explanation. </li></ul>
  30. 30. Have our public officials met this burden? Have they even attempted to? Consider the following statement:
  31. 31. “ The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks.” This statement was made by Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, when asked why Bin Laden is not wanted in connection with 9/11. (Ed Haas, 6-5-2006)
  32. 32. What does this mean? <ul><li>The Bush Administration and agencies under its control were so busy acting on their explanation of the events of September 11 th , that they could not be bothered to substantiate it. </li></ul><ul><li>The Democrats were either fine with this, or they were so afraid of appearing “unpatriotic” that they did not demand evidence before authorizing wars based on this explanation. </li></ul>
  33. 33. There are only 2 possibilities here, and either one should make you angry: <ul><li>Either you are not important enough or intelligent enough for these officials, who we elect to serve us, to take the time to you show evidence… </li></ul><ul><li>OR THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING! </li></ul>
  34. 34. <ul><li>Why do I believe that Osama Bin Laden and 19 Islamic radicals were independently responsible for 9/11? </li></ul><ul><li>Have I been shown evidence for this assertion? </li></ul><ul><li>Is my belief in this assertion a result of a logical, empirical process? </li></ul>Here are a few questions to ask yourself, and keep in mind during this presentation:
  35. 35. <ul><li>Why should I doubt the official explanation of 9/11? </li></ul>
  36. 36. 5 Primary reasons : <ul><li>The official story is in direct conflict with many of the observed facts. </li></ul><ul><li>The official story relies heavily on coincidence in explaining multiple facts, making it inherently dubious </li></ul><ul><li>Certain aspects of the official story have been revised multiple times since 9/11/01. </li></ul><ul><li>The official story does not explain, or attempt to explain, many of the observed facts and events. </li></ul><ul><li>The official story, or the 9/11 commission report, was formulated by those without either the incentive or disposition to be objective, honest or exhaustive. </li></ul>
  37. 37. Areas of observed facts that the “official narrative” is in direct conflict with, or fails to explain: 1. The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
  38. 38. So what is the official explanation of the Collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7? <ul><li>There have actually been at least 4 accounts for the collapses of the twin towers that have been at one point or for certain purposes considered the official explanation including: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The initial FEMA report </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Silverstein/Wiedlinger report </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(undertaken to support Larry Silverstein’s Insurance claim) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The findings of the 9/11 Commission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(origin of the ‘pancake’ effect, no mention of building 7) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The most recent 2005 NIST report </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(slightly different from 2004 hypothesis, abandoned ‘pancake’ effect) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>These theories are all mutually exclusive, giving substantially different explanations for the collapses. </li></ul><ul><li>Many people discussing the collapses of the buildings, on both sides of the debate, are still caught up in discussions based on these earlier reports, creating a great deal of misunderstanding. </li></ul><ul><li>We will deal only with the most recent, and most widely accepted hypothesis, which is the one issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2005 report. </li></ul>
  39. 39. What the NIST explanation says: <ul><li>“ [NIST’s] hypothesis is that the towers collapsed ultimately due to the fires they suffered: As the fires burned, the buildings’ steel core columns buckled and shortened. This shifted more load to the buildings’ perimeter columns, which were already affected by the heat of the fires, and caused them to give way under the increased stress.” </li></ul><ul><li>It is important to note that NIST’s theory is “essentially a fire theory”, relying on the combination of fire and increased stress from the weight of the floors above the impact zones (12 and 28 floors respectively) to initiate collapse. </li></ul>
  40. 40. What the NIST report does NOT do: <ul><li>The NIST report does NOT claim that jet fuel melted steel, but only that the fires weakened the steel enough to initiate collapse in under the stress from 12 and 28 floors. </li></ul><ul><li>NIST makes no mention of molten metal found at the collapse site in the weeks and months after 9/11, described in numerous reports. </li></ul><ul><li>The NIST report only attempts to explain the events which lead to “collapse initiation”. They offer no explanation as to why the collapses were global. [ National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 82  ] </li></ul><ul><li>The NIST report does not attempt to explain the collapse of Building 7, but made only some “preliminary findings”. </li></ul>
  41. 41. In 1975 history performed for us an experiment that was DIRECTLY relevant to NIST’s hypothesis in several ways. <ul><li>On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire , which &quot;burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced&quot; (NY Times, 2-15-75) </li></ul>
  42. 42. How is this 1975 fire relevant to 9/11? <ul><li>The main factors to which NIST attributes “collapse initiation” were present in this incident, which did not result in even a partial collapse or even damage to the steel that would require replacement: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fires of 1,275 farenheit, which would be comparable to the most favorable estimates of temperature to the official story, and which are well in excess of the temperatures which NIST found evidence for and also well in excess of the likely temperatures according to Kevin Ryan’s thermodynamic calculations (which estimated a maximum of 600°F): </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NIST’s own studies “found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482°F (250°C)” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A whopping 99 floors of weight above the affected area, as opposed to 12 and 28 on 9/11. </li></ul></ul>
  43. 43. What does this mean about NIST’s hypothesis? <ul><li>Since NIST’s hypothesis relies primarily on the combination of weakening of the steel due to fire (not the impact of the aircraft), and the weight of 12 and 28 floors, then a similar collapse should have been observed in 1975 under the weight of 99 floors and fires that burned for twice as long, or three times as long (depending on the tower). </li></ul><ul><li>Even if the damage to the outer structure from the impacts makes the key difference in initiating collapse, the “shortening” of the steel core that NIST attributes to fires alone should still have been observed in the 1975 fire. </li></ul>
  44. 44. What about Building 7? <ul><li>At approximately 5:30 PM on the afternoon of 9/11/01 WTC 7, a 47-story high-rise steel building collapsed </li></ul><ul><li>It was never hit by a plane, though it had localized fire and damage at the bottom of the south side of the building. </li></ul><ul><li>Also, building 7 had an asymmetrical support structure further decreasing the possibility of a symmetrical collapse from structural damage. </li></ul><ul><li>It collapsed in a perfect, symmetrical fashion at near free-fall speed into its own footprint. </li></ul>
  45. 45. What explanation of building 7’s collapse have we been given? <ul><li>The 9/11 Commission completely disregarded the collapse of building 7 </li></ul><ul><li>The NIST report, while it made some initial speculations, has not attempted to explain this collapse. </li></ul><ul><li>Consider the following statement from the head of the NIST Investigation, Dr. Shyam Sunder to the New Yorker magazine on March 20, 2006 </li></ul>
  46. 46. What about Building 7? <ul><li>“ ...truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7” </li></ul><ul><li>I would submit that they are having trouble “getting a handle on it” because they are restricted to the hypotheses that are consistent with the official story </li></ul><ul><li>If you substitute the hypothesis of controlled demotion, there is no difficulty in getting a handle on it, because all of the data is consistent. </li></ul>
  47. 47. Is there a hypothesis that DOES account for the observed facts? <ul><li>All 3 World Trade Center building collapses exhibited 11 tell-tale characteristics that would have been expected if, and only if, these were examples of controlled demolition . </li></ul><ul><li>Since these characteristics had only been observed previously in cases of controlled demolition, then the most logical hypothesis to begin with would have been controlled demolition. </li></ul><ul><li>Several of the live television reports on 9/11 reflected this logical assumption: </li></ul><ul><li>None of the official explanations, to date, has even attempted to explain most of these characteristics. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>These 11 characteristics and descriptions are quoted from Dr. David Ray Griffin in his essay “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True”. </li></ul></ul>
  48. 48. Further information on Controlled Demoltion Direct links for all available at www.utah911truth.com in the “collapses” section <ul><li>Dr. Steven E. Jones, Physics Dept. BYU </li></ul><ul><li>Why Indeed did the WTC buildings Collapse? www.st911.org </li></ul><ul><li>Lecture/Power point available on google video or at www.st911.org </li></ul>Kevin Ryan, Chemist & former manager, U.L. Detailed analysis of the NIST report Video & power point presentation from the Chicago 9/11 Truth Conference 2006 www.st911.org Jim Hoffman, software engineer, mathematics and polymer chemistry. Detailed analysis of collapses at http://911research.wtc7.net
  49. 49. Characteristics of Controlled Demolition <ul><li>1. Sudden Onset </li></ul><ul><li>2. Symmetrical Collapse (straight down) </li></ul><ul><li>3. Near Free-Fall Speed </li></ul><ul><li>4. Total Collapse (not partial or localized) </li></ul><ul><li>5. Sliced Steel </li></ul><ul><li>6. Pulverization of Concrete </li></ul><ul><li>7. Pyroclastic Dust Clouds </li></ul><ul><li>8. Horizontal Ejections </li></ul><ul><li>9. Demolition Rings </li></ul><ul><li>10. Eyewitness testimony of Explosions </li></ul><ul><li>11. Molten Metal </li></ul>
  50. 50. Further information on Controlled Demolition Direct links for all available at www.utah911truth.com in the “collapses” section Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic DVD Documentary www.911truth.org 9/11 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions DVD Documentary www.infowars.com Activist DVD-R copies of a variety of 9/11 films are available for free locally in the Salt Lake City area, or anywhere for the price of shipping. Email [email_address] Or visit www.utah911truth.com and go to the DVD’s section
  51. 51. Areas of observed facts that the “official narrative” is in direct conflict with, or fails to explain: 2: 9/11 Air Defenses: Drills, Confusion and Contradiction
  52. 52. Where were the Air Defenses? <ul><li>Major problems with the response of our Air Defenses on September 11 th , 2001 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Standing protocols that would have prevented the attacks were not followed. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At least 6 separate drills or “wargame” scenarios were being run on the morning of 9/11/01. These drills included the insertion of fake radar “inputs” and had the effect of confusing and distracting first responders, as well as diverting available aircraft away from the area. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Pentagon has changed their account several times, and was suspected by the 9/11 Commission of falsifying and withholding information, even to the extent that the Commission considered criminal charges. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What were “the orders” spoken of by secretary of Transporation Norman Minetta? </li></ul></ul>
  53. 53. Intercept Protocols <ul><li>Remember that “intercept” does not necessarily mean “shoot down”. Intercept protocols involve a series of graduated response steps, and a “shoot-down” is the last resort. </li></ul><ul><li>It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters for any one of the following situations: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>An aircraft goes off course </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Radio contact with it is lost. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The transponder is turned off. </li></ul></ul></ul>On 9/11 the 4 hijacked aircraft met not just one, but all 3 of these criteria!
  54. 54. Intercept Protocols <ul><li>Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. </li></ul><ul><li>The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. </li></ul><ul><li>Why were these protocols not followed to prevent the attacks? </li></ul>
  55. 55. Why were the attacks not prevented by air defenses? <ul><li>Confusion from at least 6 separate drills or “wargames” being run at the time of the attacks, which simulated hijackings and planes impacting buildings. </li></ul><ul><li>Possible stand-down orders </li></ul>
  56. 56. War game drills on 9/11/01 <ul><li>CIA / National Reconnaissance Office exercise: Simulation of a plane crash into the NRO headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) – Not a &quot;terrorism&quot; exercise, resulted in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the &quot;real&quot; 9/11 was taking place. Effects: Made it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes. [ AP, 10/21/02] </li></ul><ul><li>Vigilant Guardian: Simulated very closely the hijackings of 9/11. </li></ul><ul><li>Effects: Top NORAD personnel were confused, not sure if the 9/11 hijackings were “real-world or exercise” [Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 3, 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Northern Vigilance: Planned months in advance, involved deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska and northern Canada. Effects: Ensured that there would be fewer fighter planes available to protect the East Coast on 9/11. Confusion from simulated information fed into radar screens. [Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 ] </li></ul>
  57. 57. <ul><li>Other drills on 9/11/01 which have been referenced and reported on, but few, if any, operational details have been made available: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vigilant Warrior [Richard Clark, &quot;Against All Enemies“ 2004] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Northern Guardian [Toronto Star, December 9, 2001] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tripod II: Bio-Warfare exercise scheduled for 9/12/01. Effects: FEMA was deployed to the NYC area on 9/10/01 according to FEMA spokesman Tom Kenny. [Dan Rather interview, 9/12/01][Giuliani 9/11 Commission, May 2004] </li></ul></ul>War game drills on 9/11/01
  58. 58. Possible Stand-Down orders? <ul><li>On May 23, 2003 Secretary of Transportation Norman Minetta testified before the 9/11 Commission. During his testimony he stated that he arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) underneath the East Wing of the White House at about 9:20 a.m (when flight 77 would have been heading towards the Pentagon). </li></ul><ul><li>Vice President Richard Cheney and other staff were already present in the center, with Mr. Cheney clearly in command. Minetta described a conversation that took place between Mr. Cheney and an unnamed &quot;young man” regarding orders that had been given before Minetta’s arrival stating: </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, &quot;The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.&quot; And when it got down to, &quot;The plane is 10 miles out, &quot;the young man also said to the vice president, &quot;Do the orders still stand?&quot; And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, &quot;Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?&quot; </li></ul>Was this a stand-down order? If not, why was flight 77 not intercepted? Despite the fact that this testimony directly contradicted VP Cheney’s testimony about his location at the time, the 9/11 Commission did not investigate further. Minetta’s testimony was ommitted from the final report despite being aired live on CSPAN and widely available on the internet.
  59. 59. Other lingering questions about the Air Defenses <ul><li>Why was a new Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction given in June 2001 requiring the intercept orders be issued by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld personally? [CJCSI3610, June 1, 2001] </li></ul><ul><li>This directive superceded earlier directive [2/18/1997] and “stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act” with regard to intercept of hijacked aircraft. </li></ul><ul><li>Why were the fighter planes that reached Washington seven minutes after the crash of flight 93 told by the Mission Commander, &quot;negative clearance to shoot the aircraft&quot; over the Nation's Capitol . [Friday, July 31, 2004 at Congressional hearings on &quot;The 9/11 Commission Report“] </li></ul>
  60. 60. Falsification and Contradictions <ul><li>Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather. </li></ul><ul><li>Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. [Washington Post, 8/2/2006] </li></ul><ul><li>Thomas H. Kean, head of the 9/11 Commission said: &quot;We to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied” </li></ul>
  61. 61. Falsification and Contradictions <ul><li>Sen. Dayton (D-MN) Pointed out in congressional hearings on 7/31/04 that if the timeline of air defense response as promoted in the 9/11 Commission report is correct, then the timeline presented repeatedly by NORAD during the previous two years was completely wrong . Yet now no one at NORAD is willing to comment on their own timeline! </li></ul><ul><li>Senator Dayton said: “This is just unbelievable negligence . It doesn't matter if we spend $550 billion annually on our national defense… if people don't pick up the phone to call one another. And this was not an occasional human or failure. This is NOTHING BUT human error and failure to follow established procedures and to use common sense.” </li></ul><ul><li>… their [NORAD’s] Commission testimony 20 months later covered up those truths. They lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission to create a false impression of competence, communication, coordination and protection of the American people. </li></ul>
  62. 62. Areas of observed facts that the “official narrative” is in direct conflict with, or fails to explain: 3. The creation, foreknowledge and facilitation of “Al Qaeda”
  63. 63. What is “Al Qaeda”? <ul><li>Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that: </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Al Qaeda&quot; is not really a terrorist group but a database of international Mujiheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.” </li></ul><ul><li>[ Pierre-Henri Bunel November 20, 2005 Wayne Madsen Report and World Affairs, Delhi] </li></ul>
  64. 64. History of “Al Qaeda” or “the Database” <ul><li>Operation Cyclone: 1986-1992 </li></ul><ul><li>The CIA and MI6 (British Intelligence) recruit and train more than 100,000 militants to Help Fight Afghan “jihad” against the Soviet Union. </li></ul><ul><li>In the late 1980s, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, feeling the mujahedeen network has grown too strong, tells President George H. W. Bush, “You are creating a Frankenstein.” However, the warning goes unheeded. </li></ul><ul><li>Thousands of mujahedeen fighters return to their home countries after the war is over and engage in multiple acts of violence. One Western diplomat notes these thousands would never have been trained or united without US help, and says, “The consequences for all of us are astronomical.” [ Atlantic Monthly, 5/1996 ] </li></ul>
  65. 65. History of “Al Qaeda” or “the Database” <ul><li>1992-1995: The Pentagon Uses Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to fight against the Serbs in Bosnia </li></ul><ul><li>The Pentagon helps bring thousands of mujaheddin and other Islamic militants from Central Asia into Europe to fight alongside the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs. [ Spectator, 9/6/2003 ; Wiebes , 2003 ] </li></ul><ul><li>Bin Laden plays a key organizing role. [ Los Angeles Times, 10/7/2001 ] As a result, the Balkans become a “safe haven” and “staging area” for Islamist terrorism. [ Washington Post, 11/30/1995 ; Los Angeles Times, 10/7/2001 ] </li></ul>
  66. 66. History of “Al Qaeda” or “the Database” <ul><li>CIA and MI-6 were running an Al Qaeda training camp until as late as 1995 </li></ul><ul><li>The training at Darunta, mainly involved the manufacture and the use of the explosives by terrorists . [French DGSE report, dated January 9, 2001, Wayne Madsen Report 5-25-06] </li></ul><ul><li>According to this same DGSE report, the Darunta Al Qaeda training camp passed from control of the CIA to Bin Laden in 1995. </li></ul><ul><li>The classified documents that Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was charged with removing from the National Archives involved an alleged bombing plot by Ahmed Ressem, an Al Qaeda operative who trained at Darunta. </li></ul><ul><li>What was Sandy Berger covering up by stealing and destroying these documents? </li></ul>
  67. 67. Okay, so these CIA assets called Al Qaeda turned against us, right? <ul><li>A blatant example of media distortion is the so-called &quot;blowback&quot; thesis: &quot;intelligence assets&quot; are said to &quot;have gone against their sponsors&quot;; &quot;what we've created blows back in our face.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>The &quot;blowback&quot; thesis is a fabrication. The evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the &quot;Islamic Militant Network&quot;. </li></ul><ul><li>Since the end of the Cold War, these covert intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have in become increasingly sophisticated. </li></ul><ul><li>Michel Chossudovsky: </li></ul><ul><li>Economics professor, consultant to devoloping countries, Committee on economic and monetary reform, researcher and author on Yugoslavia wars, author of “America’s War on Terrorism”. </li></ul><ul><li>[globalresearch.ca 10-9-2001] </li></ul>
  68. 68. What is the ISI? <ul><li>Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI is the largest and most powerful of the three main branches of the intelligence agencies of Pakistan. </li></ul><ul><li>During the Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s the CIA enhanced the covert-action capabilities of the ISI. A number of officers from the ISI's Covert Action Division received training in the US and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen, Islamic fundamentalists of Pakistan and Arab volunteers. </li></ul><ul><li>The ISI actively collaborates with the CIA. It continues to perform the role of a ‘go-between' in numerous intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA. The ISI directly supports and finances a number of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. [ Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research CA 10-9-2001] </li></ul>
  69. 69. What is the relationship between Al Qaeda and the ISI? <ul><li>In the mid 1980’s the Pakistani ISI starts a special cell of agents who use profits from heroin production for covert actions “at the insistence of the CIA.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ This cell promotes the cultivation of opium, the extraction of heroin in Pakistani and Afghan territories under mujahedeen control. After the withdrawal of the Soviet troops, the ISI’s heroin cell started using its network of refineries and smugglers for smuggling heroin to the Western countries and using the money as a supplement to its legitimate economy. But for these heroin dollars, Pakistan’s legitimate economy must have collapsed many years ago.” [ Financial Times, 8/10/2001 </li></ul><ul><li>The ISI grows so powerful on this money, that “even by the shadowy standards of spy agencies, the ISI is notorious. It is commonly branded ‘a state within the state,’ or Pakistan’s ‘invisible government.’” [ Time, 5/6/2002 ] </li></ul>
  70. 70. CIA and ISI ties to “Al Qaeda” <ul><li>Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert working at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, says, “the CIA still has close links with the ISI.” Harrison is said to have “extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia.” He also claims that the US worked with the ISI to create the Taliban. [ Times of India, 3/7/2001 ] </li></ul><ul><li>Operation Diamondback , a sting operation uncovering an attempt to buy weapons illegally for the Taliban, bin Laden, and others, ends with a number of arrests. An Egyptian named Diaa Mohsen and a Pakistani named Mohammed Malik are arrested and accused of attempting to buy Stinger missiles, nuclear weapon components, and other sophisticated military weaponry for the Pakistani ISI. [ South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 8/23/2001 ; Washington Post, 8/2/2002 ] Malik appears to have had links to important Pakistani officials, and Mohsen claims a connection to a man “who is very connected to the Taliban” and funded by bin Laden </li></ul>
  71. 71. CIA and ISI ties to “Al Qaeda” <ul><li>Osama Bin Laden was treated at and American Hospital in Dubai from July 4-14, 2001, accompanied by his personal physician, Ayman el Zawahiri, and other local dignitaries. </li></ul><ul><li>During his stay, he was visited by a local CIA official. </li></ul><ul><li>This CIA operative was called back to the CIA's McLean, Va., headquarters July 15 [Elizabeth Bryant: Le Figaro, UPI] </li></ul>
  72. 72. To Summarize… <ul><li>“ Al Qaeda” is nothing more than a network of mujihadeen terrorists that were trained, funded and utilized over the past 30 years by the CIA, ISI and British MI-6. </li></ul><ul><li>This funding and cooperation with Al Qaeda is documented to have continued long after the end of the Afghan-Soviet conflict to as recently as July 2001, 3 months before the 9/11 attacks. </li></ul>
  73. 73. What does this mean? <ul><li>All of this documentation of cooperation between the CIA, Al Qaeda and the ISI should directly affect how we interpret the information that we are about to go over, which will cover: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The funding of the September 11 th attacks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The ACTIVE obstruction of investigations into Al Qaeda operatives prior to September 11 th </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The facilitation of the alleged hijackers </li></ul></ul>
  74. 74. Financial Ties <ul><li>Shortly before 9/11 the then-head of the ISI, General Mahmood Ahmed wired $100,000 to the lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta. This was confirmed by the FBI investigation and Indian intelligence officials tracing the financial ties of the hijackers. [Wall Street Journal 10/10/01, Times of India, 8-15-02] </li></ul><ul><li>In the week leading up to 9/11 Ahmed was in the US and met with the Pentagon, National Security Council, CIA director Tenet, &quot;unspecified&quot; White House officials. </li></ul><ul><li>On the morning of 9/11, Ahmed was at  a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees. [Chussudovsky, 6-20-01] </li></ul><ul><li>Despite all of this information, the 9/11 Commission report had the audacity to claim: “we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding” [9/11 Commission report pg. 172]. </li></ul><ul><li>Given what we have already established about the ISI’s nature as a traditional funding intermediary between the CIA and mujihadeen terrorists, this evidence raises serious questions not only about Pakistan’s involvement but the involvement of the CIA . It certainly deserved to be addressed by the 9/11 Commission! </li></ul>
  75. 75. Facilitating the 9/11 attacks <ul><li>White House Obstruction of Bin Laden investigation </li></ul><ul><li>In July 2001, FBI counterterrorism expert John O’Neill says, “The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” He adds, “All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.” </li></ul><ul><li>On August 22, 2001 John O’Neill resigned from the FBI because of repeated obstruction of his investigations into al-Qaeda. [ New Yorker, 1/14/2002 ] </li></ul><ul><li>On August 23, 2001 O’Neill began his new job as head of security for the World Trade Center, and was later killed in the 9/11 attacks. </li></ul><ul><li>O’Neill speculated about the reasons for which his investigations were obstructed, but hindsight and evidence that has come to light give us a better perspective on this obstruction. Could the CIA and White House have been protecting their operatives? </li></ul>
  76. 76. Facilitating the 9/11 attacks <ul><li>9/11 Hijackers trained at the Pensacola Naval Air Station? </li></ul><ul><li>As many as four of 19 suspected hijackers participated during the 1990s in the base's flight training program for foreign military trainees, according to reports in The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine. [Pensacola News Journal, 9-17-01] </li></ul><ul><li>The students are instructed in everything from warfare specialty training to air navigation meteorology and land/water survival, according to the Pentagon. Local military officials refused to comment on the media reports. They referred calls on the subject to the FBI, which also refused comment. [Pensacola News Journal, 9-17-01] </li></ul>
  77. 77. Facilitating the 9/11 attacks <ul><li>Head US Consular Official was told to Issue Visas to mujihadeen terrorists. </li></ul><ul><li>Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, claims that during this period he is “repeatedly told to issue visas to unqualified applicants.” He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. Springmann loudly complains to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He is fired and his files on these applicants are destroyed. </li></ul><ul><li>Springmann said: &quot; What I was doing was giving visas to terrorists - recruited by the CIA and Osama bin Laden to come back to the United States for training to be used in the war in Afghanistan against the then Soviets.&quot; , the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah , possibly as part of this program . [ BBC, 11/6/2001 ; Associated Press, 7/17/2002 ; Fox News, 7/18/2002 ] </li></ul>
  78. 78. Facilitating the 9/11 attacks <ul><li>2 Al Qaeda hijackers tracked by CIA and allowed to enter the US prior to 9/11. </li></ul><ul><li>In January of 2000, the CIA tracked two of the alleged hijackers of flight 77 to a secret Al Qaeda summit in Malaysia, then looked on as they re-entered America. </li></ul><ul><li>Alhazmi and Almihdhar then lived openly in the United States, using their real names, obtaining driver’s licenses, opening bank accounts and enrolling in flight schools—until the morning of September 11. [Newsweek Isikoff and Klaiman] </li></ul>
  79. 79. Motive, disposition and Opportunism before and after 9/11. <ul><li>The information we have seen to this point destroys the official theory and its explanations (or lack thereof) based on coincidence and incompetence. </li></ul><ul><li>Since it is impossible to explain the events of 9/11/01 without relying on a conspiracy theory of some sort, we must now ask ourselves two questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What sort of conspiracy was capable of causing these attacks, given the preceding information? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who had the motive and disposition to do so? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who has obstructed efforts to investigate 9/11? </li></ul></ul>
  80. 80. Disposition for false-flag attacks and terrorism <ul><li>History shows indisputably that both governments in general, as well as the United States government specifically have engaged in “false-flag” attacks for war provocation or to shape public sentiment. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The Sinking of the Maine (Spanish American War, intiating act) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The Sinking of the Lucitania (WWI, initiating act) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The Reichstag Fire (enabled Hitler’s rise to power) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pearl harbor (WWII </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Operation Ajax (CIA staged terrorism in Iran, blamed on Mosadeq) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Operation Gladio (NATO terrorism against civilians in Europe, blamed on communist militants) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Operation Northwoods (operational strategy to create a pretext for war with cuba, invonlved hijacking planes and attack U.S. citizens) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The already-discussed use of the Al Qaeda mujihadeen network to create crisis and pretext for intervention. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Seattle WTO protests (a small group of black-masked ‘anarchists’ were used to create violence and unrest as a pretext for a sweeping crack down on all protestors. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  81. 81. Disposition for false-flag attacks and terrorism <ul><li>“ The CIA is a state-sponsored terrorist association. They don’t look at people as human beings, they are nothing but pieces on a chess board.” </li></ul><ul><li>Verne Lyon, former CIA from the Documentary “Secrets of the CIA” (available at Google video) </li></ul>
  82. 82. Motive: Who Benefits? <ul><li>The “Project for a New American Century” is a foreign policy think tank founded in 1997 whose goal is to promote American global leadership and military dominance. [www.newamericancentury.org] </li></ul><ul><li>Among the Project’s members are many current and former Bush II Administration officials, and other key figures including: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Dick Cheney </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Donald Rumsfeld </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Paul Wolfowitz </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Scooter” Libby </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Jeb Bush </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>William Kristol </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Elliot Abrams </li></ul></ul></ul>
  83. 83. Motive, in their own words <ul><li>In September of 2000, PNAC published a report titled: “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” </li></ul><ul><li>This report calls for America to assume its role as the world’s lone superpower, and a transformation of America’s military into a dominant worldwide force. </li></ul><ul><li>On page 51, the report states: </li></ul><ul><li>“ the process of transformation …is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” </li></ul>
  84. 84. Motive by advocates of globalization <ul><li>In their 2005 report “Building a North American Community” the Council on Foreign Relations calls for a common currency and common security border between the USA, Canada and Mexico. </li></ul><ul><li>This report invokes the events of September 11 th at least 8 separate times in justification for these steps towards political globalization which would undermine US national sovereignty and the rule of Constitutional law. </li></ul>
  85. 85. Statements of motive by advocates of globalization <ul><li>&quot;There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster to carry out what his father [talked about] and that is a New World Order.“ </li></ul><ul><li>Former Senator and CFR member Gary Hart. 9/12/2001, the day after the attacks. </li></ul>
  86. 86. Motive by advocates of globalization <ul><li>&quot;Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence . When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.&quot; </li></ul>Henry Kissinger, Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburg meeting.
  87. 87. Propping up the “Official Myth” <ul><li>The Bush Administration resisted a formal investigation into the 9/11 attacks, but eventually relented under pressure from the victim’s families. </li></ul><ul><li>The director of research for the 9/11 Commission was a Bush Administration insider named Philip Zelikow who was later revealed to have been the primary author of the Bush preemptive war doctrine. </li></ul><ul><li>Professor Zelikow's area of academic expertise is in the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” </li></ul>
  88. 88. Propping up the “Official Myth” <ul><li>In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance [biography page, wikipedia] </li></ul><ul><li>In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs (the publication of the CFR) he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” </li></ul><ul><li>In this article Zelikow speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could …undermine America’s fundamental sense of security. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. </li></ul>
  89. 89. What Does this Mean? <ul><li>Organizations and individuals of significant influence in the Bush Administration stood to benefit from the 9/11 attacks. Those stated benefits have been realized in the wake of 9/11. </li></ul><ul><li>After caving to pressure from the victims’ families, the Bush Administration conceded to an investigation and then placed, in a position of key influence as director of all research, an insider. </li></ul><ul><li>This Administration insider, rather than being an expert in criminal investigation, was possibly the most qualified individual in the world to fashion a re-orienting “National Myth” around the events of 9/11 that would serve as a foundational, transcendent event for the war on terror and the new American Empire </li></ul>
  90. 90. <ul><li>I think we’re starting to get a picture now of what is going on! </li></ul>
  91. 91. What Can Be Done? <ul><li>Much has been done, and many Americans are becoming aware of this information. YOU ARE NOT ALONE, and this is NOT a fringe-minority of Americans: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>According to an October 14 th New York Times/CBS News poll, 81% of Americans distrust the official account, with 53% saying that the administration is “Hiding Something” and 28% saying that they are “Mostly lying” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Only 16% of respondents said that they believe the Bush Administration is “telling the truth” about 9/11 </li></ul></ul>
  92. 92. Why has this happened? <ul><li>This dramatic shift in public opinion has happened despite a complete refusal by the mainstream media to address the problems with the 9/11 commission report, and alternative explanations seriously </li></ul><ul><li>This shift has happened due to grass-roots efforts of people who have become aware of this and become active in spreading the truth. </li></ul>
  93. 93. Summary: Healing America’s Wound <ul><li>First we must accept responsibility for our mistake as American citizens: </li></ul><ul><li>Instead of reacting with historical perspective, and vigorously investigating all of the relevant facts, we failed our posterity and allowed our reason and judgment to be corrupted by a horrific event.   We looked for, accepted and acted upon answers that were given to us while the shock and awe psychological effect was still fresh, and long before such claims could possibly have been validated. We gave in to fear. </li></ul><ul><li>Our public officials were so ready with their answers and solutions, encouraging us to act on these irrational impulses. Irrational because they were based, as admitted, on no hard evidence or any empirical process to which the American public was given access.    </li></ul><ul><li>For this, history may never forgive us.  5 years after this tragic event we must acknowledge that it is the seminal, foundational event which has justified the hostility to and erosion of our Constitutional Republic and the principles which it embodies.    </li></ul>
  94. 94. <ul><li>An Objective, comprehensive investigation with the full force of law is needed: </li></ul><ul><li>We need to act immediately to reverse this course, and heal the open, infected wound upon our nation that is the September 11th attacks - a wound which does not heal because of the actions and rhetoric of those whose agenda and aspirations constantly benefit from its reopening.   </li></ul><ul><li>Unless we act now to heal this would through a relentless pursuit of truth, a commitment to bring to justice those truly responsible, and most importantly a COMPLETE REJECTION OF FEAR as a basis for political action, we will have to face our children and grandchildren and admit that we failed them as the trustees of their liberty and prosperity which the Constitution was designed to secure to them.  </li></ul>Summary: Healing America’s Wound
  95. 95. Some things that we all can do: <ul><li>Speak to our friends, families and neighbors and even complete strangers. It is worth leaving our comfort zone to save our Constitutional Republic! </li></ul><ul><li>Burn and/or distribute activist DVD’s of 9/11 documentaries, or send video links to your email list. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DVD copies are available for free in the Salt Lake Area, or for a nominal shipping fee from www.utah911truth.com </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Links for the following powerful documentaries can be found easily by searching at www.video.google.com </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Terror Storm </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Loose Change 2 nd Edition </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>9/11 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improbable Collapse </li></ul></ul></ul>
  96. 96. Some things that we all can do: <ul><li>There is a growing number of candidates from all over the political spectrum who support a new investigation into 9/11. Support these candidates! [list available at www.911truth.org ] </li></ul><ul><li>Vote for and promote Candidates who support the Constitution, government accountability and the rule of law, regardless of party. </li></ul><ul><li>Write letters to the Editor of you local newspaper exposing the truth and in support of a new 9/11 investigation. </li></ul><ul><li>Send links to relevant research, news articles and videos to your whole email list. </li></ul><ul><li>And, most importantly… </li></ul>
  97. 97. RISE ABOVE THE FEAR! <ul><li>Presentation by Spencer Morgan. All original content Copyright 2006 Out of Babylon </li></ul>Other good resources: www.Utah911truth.com www.infowars.com http://911research.wtc7.net www.st911.org www.journalof911studies.com www.911blogger.com www.911truth.org www.911podcasts.com www.colorado911visibility.org

×