The January 20, 2008 report by the Sunday Times, FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft, briefly summarized Edmonds’ allegations about the file in this way: “She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.” According to an article by former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi, the file name 203A-WF-210023 indicates it’s an “FBI Washington Field Office, Counterintelligence Division, Turkish Unit File.”

When the Times asked Edmonds about FBI File 203A-WF-210023, she said, “The file refers to the counterintelligence programme that the Department of Justice has declared to be a state secret to protect sensitive diplomatic relations.” The article goes on to say that, “the FBI responded to a [Liberty Coalition] freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file.” No other information was given regarding the latter document.

The Times’ January 20 report was the second of three articles concerning interviews with Edmonds and their own investigation. The first was For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets on January 6, and the third was Tip-off thwarted nuclear spy ring probe on January 27. These reports received mainstream media coverage in Europe, Asia and Australia and were widely circulated online, but were ignored by US mainstream media, despite their relevance to US national security, Edmonds’ established credibility as a witness, and her relatively high public profile as a whistleblower barred from testifying in court cases due to ‘state secrets’ gag orders in 2002 and 2004.* In a 2009 deposition under oath, Edmonds affirmed her allegations as reported by the Times, as well as testifying to her knowledge of other, related, crimes and corruption. This deposition was also ignored by US MSM.

January 2011, I submitted a FOIA request for FBI File 203A-WF-210023 and records with references to Tom Lantos, a deceased Congressman (D-CA) featured in Sibel Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege Gallery (posted in conjunction with the January 6 Times report; click here for names/info). In some of their correspondence regarding my request, the FBI seems to indirectly confirm the existence of the file, such as by saying there were 3429 “potentially responsive” pages, and that “[Lantos] shares the same investigative file.” However, in its final response the FBI refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, saying its “investigatory interest” in an “individual or organization” could be revealed (see relevant FBI correspondence, scanned in reverse chronological order). FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E) was cited, which exempts sensitive techniques, procedures and guidelines from disclosure.

I appealed to the DOJ Office of Information Policy (OIP), and received the March 12, 2012 letter stating that, “All of the information responsive to your request [for records concerning FBI File 203A-WF-210023] is classified.” FBI’s withholding was affirmed on “partly modified grounds”; FOIA exemption (b)(1) is the only one cited, which exempts classified information from disclosure. The letter also says the responsive information is being referred to the DOJ Department Review Committee (DRC) for declassification review.

Significance of DOJ’s confirmation of FBI File 203A-WF-210023

The March 12 DOJ response is significant for several reasons. One is that it’s the first official public acknowledgment of the existence of FBI File 203A-WF-210023; the DOJ has implicitly acknowledged its existence by stating that the information responsive to my request for this file (and Lantos references) is classified. This official confirmation of the file’s existence gives additional credence to Edmonds’ already credible allegations.

Was the fact of the existence of FBI File 203A-WF-210023 previously classified information?

The DOJ March 12 response is also significant because it means the fact of the existence of FBI File 203A-WF-210023 is not classified information. Based on the Times’ description of the FBI’s 2008 response to the Liberty Coalition, it seems likely the fact of its existence was classified at that time. Note that, in 2011, the FBI responded differently to my request; rather than affirmatively stating that responsive records didn’t exist, they simply refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, aka a Glomar response.

Considering that “203A” means it’s an FBI Counterintelligence Division, Turkish Unit file, in 2008 the FBI was probably using the FOIA (c)(3) exclusion, which permits the FBI to not only withhold records “pertaining to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism,” but to, “as long as the existence of the records remains classified information, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of [the FOIA].” According to still in effect 1986 guidance from Attorney General Ed Meese, when using any of the three subsection (c) exclusions, the proper agency response is to advise requesters that, “there exist no records responsive to your FOIA request.”

The Meese guidance has long been public but little known. In 2011 there was some controversy over the standard exclusion response when DOJ attempted to codify it in a proposed rule change, following a federal judge’s discovery that DOJ had “provided false and misleading information to the Court” about the existence of records requested under FOIA. In 2011, Judge Carney made public an unclassified version of a ruling in that case that called attention to the standard exclusion response and stated: “The Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the Court.” The DOJ dropped its proposed rule change following the controversy, but, contrary to what most media reported, DOJ is only rethinking its approach, and will continue its decades-long practice of asserting to the public that responsive records don’t exist, when subsection (c) exclusions are utilized.

DOJ denied that the practice constitutes “lying”, but it can be expected that requesters have been misled by the exclusion response. The Times reporters’ interpretation of the FBI’s 2008 response to the Liberty Coalition FOIA would seem to be one example; they wrote that the FBI was “claiming that [FBI File 203A-WF-210023] did not exist.” The Times article concludes, “An FBI spokesman said he was not familiar with the case file but he added: ‘if the FBI says it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist.’” Of course, the FBI may say it didn’t actually say the file didn’t exist; it simply said responsive records didn’t exist (because the law permits it to exclude the requested records from the category of ‘responsive’ records).

The Meese guidance gives the purpose of the standard (c) exclusion response: “… so that no telling inferences can be drawn by requesters.” Hopefully, due to the controversy, advocates for transparency/accountability are better prepared to draw ‘telling inferences’ from agency responses. However, as most media stated or implied a new practice was proposed and then dropped, many requesters may still be confused.

Since receiving the March 12 DOJ letter, I’ve FOIA’d all records pertaining to classification and declassification of the fact of the file’s existence, all records pertaining to declassification review of the file’s contents, and the contents of the FBI and DOJ administrative case files pertaining to my 2011 FOIA request.

The information in FBI File 203A-WF-210023 is classified: why?

Another significant fact is that, per the DOJ March 12 letter, “all of the information … is classified.” The proper purpose of classification is to prevent disclosure of information when national security could be harmed as a result. Clearly, national security could be harmed by exposure/disruption of an investigation into an international nuclear black market network facilitated by high-level US officials.

However, Edmonds has said that “by the end of January 2002” the investigation was shut down. Those implicated have long been aware of the investigation, and the passage of time has also reduced the sensitivity of this information. More than ten years later, there have been no arrests or indictments, let alone trials. No public information indicates that any part of the US government – executive office or agency, Congress or court – is working to establish accountability.

Based on Edmonds’ 2009 testimony and other public statements, it may be the claims about the need to protect “national security”, “diplomatic relations” and “state secrets” are an attempt to conceal threats to national security, to protect a corrupt system and powerful, well-connected corrupt entities, and to cover up associated crimes. Assuming Edmonds’ allegations are factual, this cover up is itself is potentially criminal and also a national security concern, in addition to the other crimes and the failure of the US government to hold those involved accountable. It seems likely the national security interests of the US republic would be better served, at this point, by public hearings, testimony under oath and disclosure of records, than by silence and continued suppression of information pertaining to this file.

DOJ confirmation of FBI File 203A-WF-210023 aids disclosure efforts

Finally, DOJ’s March 12 acknowledgment is significant is because it will aid efforts to compel disclosure of records pertaining to FBI File 203A-WF-210023, which, in turn, may help to establish truth and justice. OIP’s referral of the information to the DRC is standard practice, and a useful step forward 28 CFR § 17.14(a)(2)(2010) PDF. It’s possible that with a level of oversight above the FBI, some or all of the information in this file will be declassified in the near future. However, considering the DOJ’s track record concerning transparency and accountability, there isn’t much reason to have hope here.

As the FOIA requester, my options at this point are: 1) Wait for DRC to finish its review, which could be sooner or later. 2) Sue for release of the records. This is unlikely to be productive, as federal judges tend to defer to the government in matters concerning national security, and doing so while DRC is reviewing the file would be premature. 3) Cancel this FOIA-triggered review and request a ‘mandatory declassification review’ (MDR) by the FBI. Cancellation would be necessary because a single requester isn’t permitted to request records under both FOIA and MDR at the same time.

The National Security Archive at GWU recommends the MDR process when classified information is involved, as it provides for appeal to the National Archives’ Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP). Excepting the US president, ISCAP is the final authority on classification, and it has a much better track record on declassification than agencies or courts. According to the 2010 annual report (PDF) of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) (ISCAP’s parent organization), during the 1996-2010 period, 63% of pages pertaining to MDR appeals were declassified in their entirety, 29% were declassified in part, and only 8% were denied.

I decided to go with option 1) above, as other researchers have now filed requests for MDR of FBI File 203A-WF-210023. A helpful person at ISOO informed me that these two processes do not conflict when initiated by different individuals or organizations, and may facilitate each other. The DRC referral may mean the FBI has already done a declass review in response to my FOIA request; if so, FBI may simply deny these MDR requests outright, as agencies are only obligated to do a review every two years, in response to requests from the public. Any denial by FBI can be appealed to DRC, by which time it may have completed some or all of the FOIA-triggered review. Any denial by DRC can be appealed to ISCAP. And, if FBI fails to respond to these MDR requests in a year, or if DRC fails to respond in 180 days, appeals can be made directly to ISCAP. See here for more info on MDR appeals.

There’s no telling when ISCAP will finish its review, and no guarantee that anything will be declassified. If ISCAP does not declassify the information in this file, the only authority above it is the US president. There’s no formal process by which members of the public can appeal to the president, but any agency representative on ISCAP’s panel (DOJ has one) has the option of appealing to the president to overrule any ISCAP panel decision on declassification. The FBI will also have an opportunity, prior to release of any declassified information, to review it again and apply FOI/PA exemptions.

Conclusion

While disclosure’s important, it isn’t needed to know what needs to be done about FBI File 203A-WF-210023. The decade-long suppression of information concerning this investigation – aided and abetted by Establishment politicians, appointees, bureaucrats and media – is reason enough to withdraw support from them, and to support alternatives. But, this is just one of many examples of how the legitimacy of the US Establishment has been undermined by its own corruption. If the US is to be a republic in more than name only, the people need to check the concentration of power in the hands of those who would be unaccountable. Hopefully, the people will act before some loose nuke comes home to roost. Considering that Establishment politicians and media used, and continue to use, 9/11 as justification for foreign interventions and a domestic security state, it can be expected that a nuclear attack would likewise be used as a pretext for further militarism and erosion of liberty.

* Background: Sibel Edmonds’ allegations and FBI File 203A-WF-210023

For those unfamiliar with Sibel Edmonds’ case, Giraldi’s article Found in Translation provides a good summary, and it also addresses criticism of Edmonds’s claims. Also see this bulletpoint list of her many allegations. The Sibel Edmonds profile timeline at History Commons provides greater detail and context concerning significant events and entities, with links to sources. Bradblog and AntiWar have covered many significant developments in her case, and Luke Ryland has done a great deal of original research and analysis. Edmonds has her own websites; JustACitizen.com archives information pertaining to her case, and BoilingFrogsPost.com is devoted to publishing new information and analysis on corruption and media failures. She also recently published a book, Classified Woman, regarding her experiences as a whistleblower and the implications.

I. State authority will be of little value in a 9/11 investigation, and the Campaign has made inaccurate and misleading representations concerning what is possible and feasible for the proposed Commission to accomplish.

The 9-11cc.org FAQ: Is the Citizens 911 Commission Campaign’s approach legally sound? states that, “Legislative Counsels of the states of California and Oregon … drafted the legal language,” and that in the case of Massachusetts (where the ballot initiative was certified) “Several attorneys review [a proposed initiative] for the Attorney General, who then certifies it as legal and constitutional.” Furthermore, “It is [Mike Gravel's] guess that more than ten attorneys in three states, who do nothing but review initiatives and draft legislation for their respective legislatures, have thus acknowledged the legality of our proposed 9-11 initiative.” It may be the case that the initiatives comply with state legal and constitutional requirements, but this says nothing about a more important question; whether or not a state-level investigation has meaningful authority over federal government witnesses and records.

According to the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign FAQ: Who Chooses the New Commission? How Will It Operate? web page:

Q. Will the Commission have the power to subpoena suppressed evidence, like the videos of the Pentagon that have been classified and withheld by the FBI? Can we subpoena the CIA? The NSA? The Bush presidential archives? Can we call Bush to testify, or is he immune?

A. Yes, all of the above can be exercised by the Commission.

This answer is misleading. The states belonging to the federal union known as the USA do not have the power or authority to oversee the federal government, except through the members elected to Congress by those states. Subpoenas can be issued by a commission authorized to do under state law, but federal agencies are not obligated to comply with state subpoenas for federal records, due to the sovereign immunity of the US federal government:

The complete immunity of a federal agency from state interference is well established. United States v. Owlett, 15 F. Supp. 736, 741 – Dist. Court, MD Pennsylvania 1936

It has been long settled that the United States cannot be sued, either in federal court or in any state forum, unless it has waived sovereign immunity. … States and comparable entities are treated no differently than any other litigant. Indeed, the lower courts have repeatedly held that, absent a waiver, the United States cannot be forced to obey a subpoena issued by a state court, state grand jury, or state legislative committee. [emphasis added] Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. US, 490 F. 3d 50, 71 – Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit 2007

Persons no longer employed by the US government or not subpoenaed in their official capacity would be in a different situation, if subpoenaed to appear before a state commission and submit to questioning under oath. However, as the “Who Chooses” FAQ acknowledges, the Commission will have little recourse should they fail to appear:

The more likely scenario, however, is that certain individuals and agencies that the Commission subpoenas (presumably those with something to hide) will refuse to respond. Little can be done about this unless any one of these officials enters the state whose powers are used by the Commission to issue the subpoenas.

In addition to those with “something to hide,” other witnesses might decline to appear if they believe that doing so might have adverse consequences, such as on their career path within the Establishment, or otherwise.

A related issue concerns evidence currently classified under federal law; state authorities cannot declassify and release this information. A subpoena does not authorize a witness to disclose classified information to people not cleared to receive it. Doing so would put the witness in legal jeopardy, and, as we have seen from the US government’s response to the Wikileaks disclosures, the US government may consider information to be classified even when it’s publicly available.

A state-level investigative commission is not in a much better position than any other type of organization or even an individual, as far as securing access to records and testimony. Any member of the public (or an organization) can request Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) of classified records, or request/sue for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). An ever-growing number of 9/11-related government records obtained this way are available for free download at 911Datasets.org.

There are other problems limiting the already limited effectiveness that a state-level 9/11 investigation would have. Commissions are regularly authorized under federal and state laws to conduct investigations, and issue reports and recommendations. Sometimes a commission’s findings are influential and their recommendations are adopted, but in many cases they are challenged, or simply ignored, and ultimately have no substantive effect. This is frequently the case when the findings or recommendations are not favored by the economic, social and political elites that control the federal government, most state governments and most of the major media, as would be the case with any findings that undermine the official 9/11 narrative. As noted in the “Who Chooses” FAQ, “the report itself does not have binding legal power.” A state commission may find many experts and witnesses willing to give testimony under oath – many have spoken at many 9/11 conferences. However, it is questionable whether this would significantly increase the amount of consideration given to a commission’s findings. Referrals for indictments can be made, but state, federal or international prosecutors are under no obligation to pursue them, or to investigate.

On its About page, the Campaign implies the Commission would be “free of governmental interference.” However, in most states, state legislatures can tamper with or overturn citizen initiatives. In Colorado, the primary state currently being targeted by the Campaign, an initiative can be overturned by a simple majority vote in the legislature. In North Dakota, a secondary target, a 2/3 majority is required. In Massachusetts, where the effort has been postponed until 2013/14, all that is needed is a simple majority. It might be argued that representatives in the legislature risk incurring the public’s wrath by doing so, but a persuasive case could be made to the public that the initiative would be a waste of taxpayer resources, given states’ lack of authority over the federal government. In Appendix A of the “Strategic Plan” the Campaign acknowledges some of this information, concerning some of the states addressed.

Most Establishment Democrats and Republicans and mainstream journalists are committed – either through ideology, corruption or moral/psychological weakness – to the official 9/11 myth and to Establishment rule/ideology in general. It is to be expected they will work to undermine voter support for a state-level 9/11 investigation prior to passage of a law, and, should a law be passed, to undermine the integrity of any new 9/11 investigation, as well as any findings produced that significantly contradict the official 9/11 myth – without regard to the facts or the public interest in truth and justice. Unless and until the People, in sufficient numbers, reject domination and control of government, economy and society by big business and elites, and replace the Establishment’s federal representatives with true public servants, there is little possibility of an honest investigation of 9/11.

The “Who Chooses” FAQ acknowledges the limited potential effectiveness of the Commission with repeated references to the importance of “public opinion” and “public pressure.” However, the public can be mobilized to take action within or outside the system without a state-level commission, and there’s no evidence a largely ineffective commission would be conducive to educating, organizing or mobilizing the public concerning accountability for 9/11. Rather, a commission (and the campaign to create one), by requiring substantial time, energy, money and other resources from the public, will detract from potentially more effective efforts.

II. Contrary to representations that have been made, the Campaign and proposed Commission are not structured in a way that makes them publicly accountable, nor does the Commission truly represent direct democracy, as the commissioners would not be chosen by the people.

A short history of the Campaign’s activities demonstrates why accountability and public oversight are needed: In October 2010, Mike Gravel began fund-raising for a 9/11 investigation by California state ballot initiative; at this time no draft initiative text or proposed outline for a commission/investigation had been publicly presented. By May 2011, according to draft minutes of a conference call, Mike Gravel was abandoning the California effort as it was “hard to do because persons being placed on a Commission required a constitutional change,” and that Oregon and Alaska “were the focus efforts for the November 2012 election.” In August 2011, the Campaign filed a petition for the 2012 election in Massachusetts, and during that time publicly stated it was seeking to raise $100,000 in conjunction with this effort. Recently, the Massachusetts effort was postponed to 2013/14, as there is neither time nor funds to gather the required number of signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. Instead, the Campaign now seeks to raise $1.12 million to fund campaign signature gathering and promotion in Colorado and North Dakota. This apparent lack of foresight and preparation is disturbing — and even more so as, currently, over $1 million is being solicited from the public.

The public that supports the Campaign and the proposed Commission has little to no oversight over either one, as they are currently organized. The Campaign Steering Committee and Board of Directors are currently composed of four self-selected members: Mike Gravel, Byron Belitsos, Ken Jenkins and George Ripley. According to the “Who Chooses” FAQ, these members will, at their discretion, “expand the Steering Committee to include the leaders of the initiative campaigns in the enacting states.” The “Who Chooses” FAQ also says the steering committee will choose the commissioners who will lead the 9/11 investigation. So does the petition filed in Massachusetts for 2012, which is a template for the Colorado and North Dakota initatives (see Appendix A, Strategic Plan), as well any other state the campaign targets — including Massachusetts in 2013/14: “The Citizens 9/11 Investigation Commission Campaign Steering Committee, incorporated in the State of California, shall select 15 or more persons to serve as the initial members of the commission.” The Campaign has called this a “people’s investigatory Commission that is directly elected in a statewide election” (“Who Chooses” FAQ), but this characterization is inaccurate; the people are not electing the commission. Rather, the people would be passing, by popular vote, a law authorizing a self-selected group of people to select another group of people to lead the commission. As neither the Campaign nor the proposed Commission are directly elected by the public, the public has no way to hold them accountable — such as by removing or replacing members — for their conduct of the campaign, investigation, use of funds and representations made to the public.

According to its recently issued Strategic Plan, the Campaign is seeking to incorporate as a 501c4 non-profit organization, and will be posting its articles and by-laws at the website at some point. It has not disclosed whether it will be creating a membership process with the board of directors and steering committee subject to election; if it does, this would create a measure of accountability and public oversight for the Campaign. The Commission members, however, would still be accountable only to the Campaign. The Campaign has made some budgeting and accounting information available on its website, but it is not obligated to do so; if it succeeds in incorporating as a non-profit, it will be required to report certain kinds of financial and other information.

Another problem is that the initiative petitions, as drafted (see Strategic Plan, Appendix A and Massachusetts petition), do not require the proposed Commission’s administrative, financial and investigative records, or its meetings and hearings, to be open to the public; the text simply says the Commission is to issue a report, which is to include information in certain categories (see Section 2(4)). It may be that the respective states have disclosure and reporting requirements, but the interest of transparency and accountability, detailed disclosure and reporting requirements for a 9/11 investigative commission should be incorporated into any law authorizing one.

Even if the issues outlined in this Section II are adequately addressed, the effectiveness of a 9/11 investigation under state authority will be very limited, as established in Section I above. The main point of this section is to document that, despite the Campaign’s statements about direct democracy and people power, the organizers of the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign have not trusted the people with the power; instead, they have reserved it to themselves.

III. Conclusion

To summarize:

1) Regardless of what state an initiative is passed in, the commission proposed by the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign will be largely ineffective due to the US federal government’s sovereign immunity, and the discretion of state legislatures and attorneys general.

2) Even if a state investigation could be effective, the Campaign and proposed commission are not structured in a way that makes them publicly accountable. They do not truly represent direct democracy, or a circumvention of the Establishment and governmental processes.

3) The commission’s potential has been inaccurately represented by the Campaign. The law proposed would not well serve the cause of truth and justice for 9/11, and the Campaign and the Commission will consume a great deal of time, money and other resources, that would be better spent on educating, organizing and mobilizing the public to effect change through the system, and through non-violent direct action.

A new investigation of 9/11 is needed to establish truth and justice; to determine exactly what happened before, on and after the 9/11 attacks and who all the responsible parties are, and to hold them accountable. If the People take back control of the US government from the Establishment through the electoral process, this could be accomplished by a Congressional or criminal investigation. A truth and reconciliation commission is another option. At some point, if the balance of international power becomes more even, as a result of US economic decline and/or the development of other nations, an international coalition or court may be able compel disclosure and accountability concerning 9/11. This is an imperative for the international community as the false pretext of “9/11” has been used to justify the continuing ‘war on terror’, military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, and has led to the death of well over a million civilians, and the rendition, torture and indefinite detention of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people.

Various public opinion polls have shown there is broad dissatisfaction with the “two-party” monopoly, as well as broad skepticism regarding the official account of 9/11. A new investigation is not needed to understand that the official US government account of 9/11 is false, even fraudulent, and that the Establishment is unable or unwilling to confront this truth and establish justice. These websites provide plenty of evidence of this: The Complete 9/11 Timeline hosted by HistoryCommons.org; 911Research.WTC7.net; 911Review.com; STJ911.org; Journalof911Studies.com; AE911Truth.org. Simply acknowledging the inadequacy of the official account and calling for a new investigation undermines the Establishment’s mere appearance of legitimacy, and it reduces the power that “9/11” has over the human psyche. People can make decisions based on this knowledge, such as by boycotting Establishment politicians and media, and supporting alternatives through speaking, writing, voting, spending, organizing and other forms of activism.

See Each of our Individual Voices Is More Important Than We’ve Realized and The False Logic of Hopelessness (Why the Elephant Should Stand Up to the Mouse) by George Washington.

“Enabling 9/11 was a job done at the office, with memos” (15).

It is a non-controversial fact that the NSA, CIA and FBI missed a number of opportunities to disrupt the 9/11 plot. Many, but not all, of these failures were documented by the four main investigations that dealt with pre-9/11 intelligence failures: those by the Congressional Joint Inquiry, the 9/11 Commission, the Department of Justice Inspector General and the CIA Inspector General. The best-known investigation, the 9/11 Commission, ultimately concluded that 9/11 was preceded by “four kinds of failures: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management” (339). This is the narrative largely held to by mainstream politicians and media, but these explanations do not credibly account for what happened at the NSA, CIA and FBI in the years, months and weeks leading up to 9/11. This has been demonstrated by a number of researchers, but Kevin Fenton’s* book, Disconnecting the Dots, has the most comprehensive documentation and in-depth analysis to date. Primarily using the official reports, the available source records and some reporting by mainstream media and journalists, Fenton documents how specific CIA and FBI officials engaged in deliberate efforts to protect the 9/11 plot from discovery and disruption by FBI investigators, and that the most probable explanation is that this was done in order to enable the 9/11 attacks.

One of Fenton’s major strengths is that he limits himself to his area of expertise; Disconnecting the Dots is narrowly focused on the pre-9/11 intelligence failures and the official investigations of these failures. The book is a complex and dense compilation of interrelated names, dates, bits of information and sequences of events, a situation that is unavoidable due to the complex nature of the subject. Fortunately for the reader, Fenton’s style and presentation are simple and lucid, which helps make the complicated and often unclear nature of the subject more easily understood. Whenever possible, he names those responsible for the decisions and actions being examined, though this is sometimes impossible due to the limited amount of information that has been made public. Whenever a particularly complex set of issues or series of events have been examined in a chapter, Fenton provides a summary at the end of that chapter, and at a number of points in the book he summarizes what can be understood from the pattern of facts presented up to that point. His analysis considers the full range of available evidence, assesses the quality of individual pieces and does not go beyond the evidence. When he does draw conclusions they are generally conservative and understated, and he is careful to address other possible explanations for the evidence.

The way the book is structured is useful. It is composed of 50 short chapters plus a prologue and epilogue, two appendixes, a section with copies of supporting documents, a selected bibliography and an index. The book proceeds largely in chronological order, with each chapter focused on a particular development in the chain of events leading to 9/11, or on the way subsequent investigations dealt with these things. The chapter titles are derived from revealing and significant statements, mostly from official sources, that convey the subject or main idea of that chapter. Footnotes are used instead of endnotes; for every statement of fact, the reader can simply look to the bottom of that page to see what the source is.

Fenton begins his book in 1996, which is when the NSA began surveillance of Osama bin Laden associate Ahmed al-Hada’s Al Qaeda safe house and communications hub in Yemen. The NSA did not willingly share this intelligence with the CIA or the FBI at first. The CIA discovered the NSA surveillance by accident, and bin Laden unit (Alec Station) chief Michael Scheuer fought hard to get transcripts from NSA, but was only briefly successful. The CIA began independently monitoring the Yemen hub, but was apparently only able to intercept the incoming side of communications. According to one report, however, at some point it managed to bug the house. After Scheuer was replaced by Richard Blee, the NSA agreed to allow the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center (of which Alec Station was a part) to detail officers to NSA to review transcripts, but the CTC only detailed one officer, and only for a brief period of time in 2000. The plots for the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa (over 200 dead, 4000 injured), the 2000 attack on the USS Cole (17 US sailors killed) and the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon (nearly 3000 dead) all involved communications to this hub and persons associated with it, yet intelligence from NSA or CIA monitoring was not used to thwart any of these plots.

The NSA monitored calls made by alleged 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi to the Yemen hub during their time in the US. It has been reported that NSA was technologically incapable of tracing the US end of calls and was simultaneously reluctant to do so because of FISA restrictions on monitoring calls that have one end in the US. Besides the internal contradiction, these claims are dubious because the FBI was able to create a map of Al Qaeda’s global network based on Yemen hub intercepts, and because NSA could have easily obtained authorization under FISA law at the time. Fenton also devotes a chapter to the NSA’s pre-9/11 warrantless monitoring which was done in conjunction with the major telecommunications providers, a clearly illegal program which apparently has never been investigated. Another chapter examines DOD SOCOM’s Able Danger data-mining program, which reportedly identified Mohammed Atta and other alleged operatives in the US prior to 9/11.

The bulk of Fenton’s book is devoted to CIA and FBI failures, and principally concerning the presence in the US of Almihdhar and Alhazmi. This is partly because investigations of NSA activities by the Joint Inquiry and 9/11 Commission were superficial, and very little information about what they did learn has been made public. It is also because the CIA and FBI’s failures are so significant. The ‘failures’ were not a small number of isolated mistakes spread among many people in a large bureaucracy, and concerning people unknown to the CIA. Rather, a small number of people at the CIA, principally in Alec Station, repeatedly performed in ways that facilitated the activities of a small number of Al Qaeda operatives who had already been linked to Yemen hub and the 1998 US embassy bombings; a high profile, mass-casualty attack on US interests.

According to Fenton’s research, two figures clearly bear great responsibility for obstructing the FBI and national security principals regarding Almihdhar and Alhazmi; these are former Alec Station chief Richard Blee and one of his deputy chiefs, Tom Wilshere (aka Tom Wilshire). Obstructive actions by their subordinates and personnel at other CIA stations are also documented. On multiple separate occasions in 2000 and 2001 when it was brought to his attention, Wilshere failed to watchlist Almihdhar and Alhazmi, and failed to notify the FBI that they possessed US visas and had traveled to the US. On at least one occasion, January 5, 2000, Wilshere explicitly instructed, through his subordinate “Michelle,” that an FBI detailee to the CIA, Doug Miller, was not to notify the FBI about Almihdhar’s US visa. This demonstrates that both Miller and Wilshere recognized the significance of this information at the time. Additional evidence that this was recognized as significant is the fact that Michelle then sent a cable to several CIA stations informing them that the US visa information had been passed to the FBI, though it had not. In May 2001, Wilshere was detailed to the FBI’s International Terrorist Operations Section (ITOS) where he worked directly with section head Michael Rolince. While there, he continued to withhold information from the FBI, and also undermined FBI agents attempting to open criminal investigations into Zacharias Moussaoui and Almihdhar, which would almost certainly have led to the disruption of the 9/11 plot.

The clearest documentary evidence implicates Wilshere and certain CIA subordinates and colleagues (FBI analyst Dina Corsi is involved in a number of significant incidents of obstruction, including the provision of false information to FBI agents, and so are other FBI officials), but much of the evidence implicating Wilshere indirectly implicates Blee. For instance, Blee was almost certainly one of the Counterterrorist Center (CTC) officials that received three July 2001 emails from Wilshere that demonstrated his awareness and understanding of the links between Alhmidar and Khallad bin Attash, and between them and an impending massive attack on US interests.

Direct evidence of wrongdoing on Blee’s part includes his falsely informing Black and Tenet on two occasions that surveillance of Al Qaeda operatives at the Kuala Lumpur meeting was ongoing, when officially it had stopped. Also, there is no record of Blee informing his superiors, CTC Director Cofer Black and DCI George Tenet, about Almihdhar and Alhazmi’s travel to the US, or about Almidhar’s return to the US, which Wilshere officially learned of on August 22, and may have learned of in early July, and would have informed Blee about. Fenton considers that Blee may have been hiding this information from them and they may have been ignorant of it, or that they may have indicated to Blee that they did not want an official record of their awareness of certain information, which could later implicate them in wrongdoing.

It is difficult to believe Tenet and Black were unaware of Almihdhar and Alhazmi’s US travel, but there’s no documentary evidence or witness testimony that they were. The CIA IG executive summary states that in early 2000 some 50-60 personnel at CIA, from managers to junior employees, at HQ and foreign stations, read one or more of six cables pertaining to the US travel. After 9/11, both Tenet and Black made false statements under oath that had the effect of shielding Blee and others from accountability. Fenton observes that while they may have been involved in facilitating 9/11, these lies may have stemmed from a calculus that covering up served larger interests, such as protecting the CIA from being disrupted during the ‘war on terror’, and preserving their own status and reputations.

In attempting to explain the facts (I’ve provide an incomplete summary of a small number of those included in Fenton’s book), some observers have maintained that incompetence, negligence, interagency mistrust and rivalries, and personality conflicts played a role in the pre-9/11 obstruction. Others, including former Bush administration counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, have suggested that the CIA’s failure to pass on information to the FBI and high level national security principals was an effort to prevent interference with a CIA operation to penetrate Al Qaeda operations in the US, perhaps to develop intelligence on their network or to recruit operatives as double agents. Some have alleged that alleged 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were Saudi agents before or after joining Al Qaeda, and ultimately double or triple-crossed their handlers. Still others have proposed that some in the Saudi royal family and GID desired an attack on the US, and provided financial and other assistance. According to these views, the failure of official investigations to get at the ‘whole truth,’ can be explained as stemming from the Establishment’s desire to protect important foreign relations, and to prevent embarrassment, distraction and/or the exposure of an illegal but well-intentioned CIA operation during a time when the full resources of these agencies, plus Saudi oil, were needed to defend the US and fight the ‘war on terror.’

Fenton convincingly demonstrates that these explanations also cannot credibly account for the full range of facts on the public record, and that the most probable scenario is that Blee and/or Wilshere and possibly others intentionally facilitated the 9/11 attacks, with the cooperation of subordinates who may have been unaware of the true purpose of their actions. If the goal was simply to develop intelligence on al Qaeda’s US network or recruit operatives as double agents, then the 9/11 plot could have been disrupted prior to the attacks. Almihdhar and Alhazmi’s activities in the US would have been monitored, and logistical elements of the plot plus most or all of the other members of the network would have become apparent, given the relatively poor security procedures followed by the alleged hijackers.

Some have suggested that the CIA’s sharing of some information with the FBI, State and INS after August 22 is evidence the CIA had stopped protecting Almihdhar and Alhazmi. However, this idea is undermined by the fact that Wilshere and Corsi, in particular, withheld other information, and worked to prevent the opening of a criminal investigation, which was both permissible and justified, despite false information to the contrary provided by Corsi. Again, there is nothing in the public record to indicate Blee passed on the information about the presence of Almihdhar and Alhazmi in the US to his superiors. These are not the actions of officials who are trying to prevent an attack on the US.

Many in the US government national security structure, including Blee and Wilshere, were aware in July and August 2001 that a large-scale spectacular attack against US interests was in the works; the infamous July 10 Rice-Tenet-Black-Blee meeting makes this clear, and the August 6 PDB indicates the plot could be targeting US cities and involve hijacked planes. Those shielding Almihdhar and Alhazmi would have known they were playing with fire, and that they could get burnt should their illegal operation be uncovered by the investigations that could be expected to follow such a massive and destructive intelligence failure.

Instead, many of those involved in obstructing FBI investigations were promoted after 9/11, including Blee, who replaced Gary Berntsen as the CIA station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan (a premier front in the so-called ‘war on terror’) shortly before the failure to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. Blee also played a role in the development and management of rendition, interrogation and torture programs under the Bush administration. Fenton notes that while some of those involved in these programs may have believed they were important for US national security, others would certainly have understood that torture often produces false confessions and could be used to extract confessions useful for making a case for linking Iraq to 9/11. Indeed, false confessions were used in exactly this way. CIA control of access to prisoners would also prevent the FBI from asking questions and possibly receiving information regarding the CIA’s pre-9/11 failures.

How the four investigations dealt with the intelligence failures is also a major focus of Fenton’s book. His strongest criticism is of the DOJ IG and the 9/11 Commission reports, though he notes problems with all four official investigations. A critique of the full CIA IG report is not possible as only an executive summary has been released, but as Fenton observes, the report was rewritten under pressure from then DCI Porter Goss. Problems include conflicts of interest, failure to pursue lines of inquiry pointing to malfeasance, apparent acceptance at face value of witness inability to recall key events, allowing agency ‘minders’ to be present during interviews, and omissions and distortions of key evidence.

In some cases the public reports name certain people (usually with an alias) in connection with specific mistakes made, but in other cases they do not. In some cases errors are implicitly documented but not acknowledged as such, while in other cases they are overtly acknowledged but explained away, noted superficially in passing, or relegated to an endnote. In some cases, important evidence is entirely omitted. For instance, there is no mention, let alone discussion, in the redacted Joint Inquiry report, the unclassified DOJ IG report, or the 9/11 Commission Report, of Wilshere’s July 23 email, which clearly demonstrated that, during a time in which he had been obstructing FBI investigations and would continue to do so, Wilshere understood that bin Attash and Almihdhar would be involved in the next attack, which was widely believed would be massive. The official reports did not conclude that any of the ‘failures’ were intentional, but it is not apparent from the reports whether this line of investigation was even pursued. No one at NSA, CIA or FBI has been held accountable as a result of these investigations, even for negligence or incompetence.

Fenton gives special attention to the work of Barbara Grewe, a principal investigator of CIA-FBI issues for both the DOJ and 9/11 Commission. The presence of minders is an obvious conflict of interest, and some 9/11 Commission staffers formally objected to this, concluding that witnesses were being intimidated and that minders were otherwise interfering with interviews, but Grewe asserted to the Commissioners that minders were not causing problems. Grewe conducted or was involved interviews of many key witnesses, such as Richard Blee, Tom Wilshere and Dina Corsi, and drafted the related sections of the reports, which contain a number of significant omissions, distortions, discrepancies and contradictions.

Fenton also notes the influence of Philip Zelikow regarding certain aspects of the 9/11 Commission investigation and its final report. Zelikow was the Commission’s executive director, though he had extensive conflicts of interest, including a personal friendship with George W. Bush’s National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. Zelikow reportedly exercised great control over the choice of staff, the direction of the investigation and the drafting of the final report. It is difficult to see how certain omissions and distortions in the official reports can be anything other than deliberate efforts to manipulate official and public perception of the 9/11 events.

Fenton concludes the documentary record raises serious questions about the conduct of personnel at NSA and FBI, but what can be clearly established is that Blee and Wilshere were working to protect Almihdhar and Alhazmi from discovery and arrest by the FBI. In doing so, they were assisted by the actions of CIA and FBI colleagues and subordinates, some or all whom may have been misled about the purpose of their actions. Tenet and Black may have been involved, but there is no hard evidence they were aware, prior to 9/11, of efforts to protect Almihdhar and Alhazmi. Following 9/11, they protected those whose ‘failures’ contributed to 9/11, including by making false statements under oath. The official investigations were inadequate, and the public reports are misleading in many respects. These may be evidence of a cover up.

Fenton does not assert that the motives of either Blee or Wilshere can be determined by the evidence made public so far. The question as to why they did what they did remains, with the purpose of facilitating the 9/11 attacks being the most probable explanation that, in Fenton’s opinion, is supported by the public evidence. He notes that a great deal of documentary evidence remains suppressed, and states the public will have a clearer understanding of 9/11 when certain records are made public. He believes, however, that a truly independent inquiry would be needed to get to the whole truth about the intelligence failures surrounding 9/11.

I agree with Fenton that a new investigation into 9/11 is needed. It seems unlikely, though, that Blee was the highest-level person involved in a plot to protect the 9/11 hijackers in order to enable 9/11. In my view, it is more probable that Blee himself would have been installed, recruited or manipulated by, or working in conjunction with, a covert and powerful insider network that sought a 9/11 event as a catalyst for wars to control regions with geo-strategic resources in declining supply as global demand rises; establish a US national security state; secure massive long-term public spending on the military-corporate complex; and renew and extend the global power of the US as their empire. In his prologue and epilogue, Fenton acknowledges this possibility, but it is not something he believes can be concluded is a fact, based on the public evidence. It is noteworthy that this was the pre-9/11 agenda of the Project for the New American Century, many of whose members became principals in the George W. Bush administration, and that this ‘coincidence’ was not examined by the 9/11 Commission or the mainstream media. There is other indirect and circumstantial evidence for a plot larger than Blee and Wilshere surrounding the intelligence failures, as well as evidence concerning other aspects of the 9/11 events, as well as the big picture. As this evidence is either below Fenton’s standards or outside his area of expertise, he’s unwilling to base conclusions on it.

I don’t have any particular expertise, but I do think this evidence is considerable. For instance, someone might have been able to predict that the Bush administration would wage a war on Al Qaeda following a mass-casualty attack on US soil. They might also have known that a pretext for such a war was desired. It does not seem likely, however, that a CIA station chief – an important but not high-level position – could be confident that they would not simultaneously be made a scapegoat if their unit was directly responsible for failing to prevent a successful Al Qaeda attack on US soil, let alone not held accountable for willfully obstructing the FBI from doing so, as the documentary record indicates happened. Rather, it seems likely that Blee would have required assurance that he would be protected from any fallout over CIA’s failure to prevent the attacks; on his own authority he did not have the power to derail official inquiries and turn them into the whitewashes they ultimately turned out to be.

CIA personnel not under Blee’s command – at stations in Yemen, Bangkok and Pakistan – acted in ways that are difficult to explain as anything other than deliberate attempts to conceal information about Almihdhar and Alhazmi from the FBI, and from personnel at other CIA stations, such as the one in Kuala Lumpur. And, as Fenton documents, FBI HQ personnel Dave Frasca, Michael Maltbie and Rita Flack, along with Tom Wilshere, consistently undermined the attempts of Minneapolis FBI agents to investigate Moussaoui. Fenton notes that it isn’t clear whose idea it was to do so. However, as he also observes, it was obvious at the time to other FBI and CIA personnel that Moussaoui was a threat, and that HQ’s stated reasons for blocking a criminal or FISA investigation were bogus. It seems likely this would have been obvious to Frasca, Maltbie and Flack. They had reason to understand what they were doing was wrong, potentially criminal, and that a terrorist attack might be the result. It seems unlikely they would simply trust the judgment of Wilshere, a recently-transferred CIA manager. The CIA was an agency with which the FBI had a long history of inconsistent cooperation and some level of rivalry. As Wilshere and Blee would be personally unable to protect them from any fallout, it defies my imagination how they could have been convinced to go along with these efforts, unless they knew they would be rewarded in some way, and protected from any fallout.

Other examples, noted by Fenton, include surveillance of Al Qaeda operatives in the US by Saudi and Israeli intelligence; the shut down of Able Danger; the NSA’s pre-9/11 warrantless monitoring of US persons; and the failure of four separate official investigations to conclude there was wrongdoing, despite documenting evidence of it. All of these things individually are difficult to explain if Blee is the highest-level person with full knowledge of a goal to enable 9/11. When considered together, it is difficult to believe these are a coincidence; that Blee got lucky, over and over. However, none of this is direct evidence, and conceivably the whole truth is more complex. A full investigation is in order.

In the epilogue, Fenton acknowledges the existence of many other unanswered 9/11 questions. He questions whether there was a relationship between the failures outlined in the book and other “alleged failures” surrounding 9/11 – specifically the failure to intercept any of the hijacked airliners over a nearly two hour period – and states the only way this can be resolved is with a “new, credible investigation” (394). Assuming there is a relationship – and coincidence/luck seems unlikely – then a plot to facilitate 9/11 must have existed which was much larger than Blee. However, these other areas are outside of Fenton’s area of expertise, and, being cautious and conservative regarding a very serious matter, he only points to these as areas deserving of closer scrutiny, and does not render prior judgment on what a full investigation might uncover. In my view, his credibility is enhanced by his refusal to do so. He supports a credible investigation, and that is what is needed.

If someone wants to gain a broader understanding of 9/11, I would recommend visiting the site Fenton contributes to, HistoryCommons.org, in particular the section called The Complete 9/11 Timeline. Two other very useful web-based resources are 911Research.WTC7.net and 911Review.COM. Three credible books dealing with a broader focus are: The Complete 9/11 Timeline by Paul Thompson; The Road to 9/11 by Peter Dale Scott; and The War on Truth by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed.

Disconnecting the Dots is a valuable aid to those seeking to understand what happened at NSA, CIA and FBI leading up to 9/11, who was involved, what evidence is available, and what are some of the lines of investigation that need to be pursued. This book is also useful for understanding how this information and these questions fit into the whole of the events surrounding and intersecting 9/11, for those who are familiar with, or will research other areas of 9/11. One will not gain a broad understanding of the entirety of the problems with the official 9/11 conspiracy theory from this book, but, by itself, it disproves the Establishment’s explanation of 9/11 and proposes a much more probable explanation. It is clear that a new investigation is called for simply based on the evidence and analysis presented in it. Any new investigation cannot itself be considered credible if it does not account for the facts in the contexts Fenton presents them, does not pursue the questions he raises, and does not conduct itself in a transparent manner, including by compelling those named to testify in public under oath, and by making the underlying records public.

*Disclosure: Kevin Fenton and I are both contributors to HistoryCommons.org. In addition, many of the 9/11 Commission records that Fenton cites in Disconnecting the Dots were obtained by me, from the National Archives.

An interview I conducted with Fenton on August 8, 2011 is kindly being hosted by Jeff Hill at PumpItOut.com:

http://www.pumpitout.com/disconnectingthedots.html

Source url: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_911_timeline_6263EdmondsUnderOath#complete_911_timeline_6263EdmondsUnderOath

As Bruno Bruhwiler said in a comment at 911blogger after he was made aware of my article: “It took me less than a minute to Google ‘Terrorist Threat’ and ‘California Penal Code’ and I found Penal Code 422. Terrorist Threat and Criminal Threat both fall under California Penal Code 422.” http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-15/wearechangela-organizer-faces-terrorism-charge#comment-233921

Google is a tool I should have used before posting my article. I apologize to anyone who relied on it, and particularly to Bruhwiler and his associates, as my article implied they may have committed wire fraud by saying he had been charged with making a “terrorist threat.” Assuming Bruhwiler is committed to non-violent activism and that the charges against him are baseless, I wish him the best of luck in fighting them in the court system, and for being recompensed for any injustices and mistreatment he may have suffered in the LA penal system.

A google search for ‘Terrorist Threat’ and ‘California Penal Code’ gets the below as the top three hits: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%27Terrorist+Threat%27+and+%27California+Penal+Code%27&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

“In California, Terrorist or Criminal Threats are Illegal. A terrorist or criminal threat is a threat of violence, threat to hurt, injure or kill others with the intent of intimidating or frightening them, or causing public panic. Examples of terrorist or criminal threats include:… Threatening harm or injury to a neighbor” http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/criminalthreats.html

“Section 422 of the California Penal Code makes it illegal to make criminal threats (formerly called ‘terrorist threats’)”. http://www.shouselaw.com/criminal_threats.html

“Despite its name, the crime of terrorist threats does not necessarily implicate al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations for their inflammatory speech or their attempts at political blackmail. Instead, the offense has more to do with situations involving domestic violence, hate crimes, bomb threats, and school violence. The question presented as to when is a threat actually a violation of the criminal law presents a tension between an individuals free-speech rights and the government’s duty to protect its citizens.” http://www.criminalattorney.com/news/terrorist-threats/

It does not excuse the fact that my research should have been more thorough, but so that the public can understand why I was led to believe that referring to a charge under Sec. 422 was being improperly characterized as a “terrorist threat,” (which I had associated with the “post-9/11 world”, the “war on terror”, indefinite detention, rendition, Guantanamo, Bagram Air Base, etc.), here’s the text of the code:

CALIFORNIA CODES: PENAL CODE: SECTION 422-422.4

422.  Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison. For the purposes of this section, “immediate family” means any spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household. “Electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=00055010631+7+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

March 20, 2010, thousands of people gathered across from the White House in D.C. and thousands more gathered around the U.S. to commemorate the 7^th anniversary of the illegal U.S. attack on Iraq, and to protest Obama’s continuation of the violent occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and other abuses of power. Eight people- Cindy Sheehan, Elaine Brower, Matthis Chiroux, Jon Gold, Leflora Cunningham-Walsh, Dennis Frostbutter, Alex MacDonald and James Veeder- engaged in civil disobedience and were arrested.

Many people spoke at the D.C. rally, including peace activist Cindy Sheehan, organizer of the Peace Of The Action campaign and Camp OUT NOW. Cindy called for people to physically disrupt the activities of the war machine, and quoted from Mario Savio’s 1964 speech at Berkeley:

“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part; and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers and all the apparatus and you’ve got to make it stop; and you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free the machine will be prevented from working at all.”

After marchers stacked symbolic coffins on the sidewalk next to the White House, Cindy Sheehan and the others named above refused U.S. Park Police orders to stay behind a barrier or to move, and they were arrested. According to Sgt. David Schlosser, who cited Title 36, Section 7.96 of the Federal Code, the charges were “crossing a police line” and/or “refusing to obey a lawful order.” Schlosser said that Leflora Cunningham and another person, whose name who he did not have at the time I spoke to him, were released; the others are being held pending arraignment on Monday, March 22. [update: the six who were held were arraigned and released March 22; they pled not guilty.]

Truth activist Jon Gold cited the 9/11 cover up and exploitation of the attacks to justify pre-emptive war as the reason for his civil disobedience. He dedicated his arrest to 9/11 victim Robert McIlvaine, Jr. and the 2971 other victims of 9/11. Cindy Sheehan has previously called for a full investigation of 9/11, and March 17 she invited truthers to participate in Camp OUT NOW.

The bombing and subsequent invasion of Iraq in 2003 were justified by the Bush Administration’s false assertions that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, had ties to Al Qaeda, and was linked to 9/11. 9/11 was the license for the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, torture, warrantless wiretapping, and other subversions of the Constitution- and Obama has cited 9/11 to justify continuation of the same. Given that this license for war and abuse of power (the official 9/11 narrative) has been shown to be false in many aspects; that evidence indicates the involvement of parties other than Bin Laden and Al Qaeda; and that the 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash and effectively a cover up, it is as important to demand true answers and accountability for 9/11 as it is to demand the end to the illegal wars and occupations, abuse of prisoners and draconian security measures that have stemmed from 9/11. For this reason, a significant number of people at the rally had 9/11 Truth signs and were handing out materials which presented evidence and raised questions.

Well over 7000 U.S. and allied troops, contractors and journalists have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the U.S. invasions. And over 8000 Afghan civilians, and at least 815,000 (possibly over 1.3 million) Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the Bush-launched and Obama-continued wars. Over 1.65 million have been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, these deaths and injuries are a result of the false information and propaganda fed to the public about 9/11 by the Democrats, Republicans and the owners of the military-industrial-financial-media complex that is profiting from war and the abuse of power.

We the People bear responsibility for the death and destruction as well; this is our government, and those that serve in it are our public servants, though they may be compromised or corrupt. There was a republic, but we have not kept it, as Benjamin Franklin admonished; now we have a pretense of a republic. Many Americans believe this is as good as it gets in an imperfect world, and vote the ‘lesser evil’, or don’t bother voting at all because the ‘two’ parties both serve the interests of corporations and the economic elite, and the system is rigged against other candidates. Others support independent candidates or third parties on principle, have turned to independent media and moved their money to local banks or credit unions. Many people are actively working to reform the system and increase transparency and accountability. (see links on the left side; suggestions appreciated).

When the Iraq War was launched, a few hundred thousand in the U.S. protested, joined by hundreds of thousands more around the world. Thousands, probably over ten thousand around the U.S., protested the wars this year, but were not willing to risk arrest (myself included). Those who are engaging in civil disobedience and being arrested in order to disrupt the criminal operation of our government by corrupt special interests are putting their bodies on the gears of the war machine. Eight is not enough to stop it. Eight thousand would only slow it down for a time. Still, I find their determination and bold action inspiring, for the same reason that the actions of Rachel Corrie in Gaza and the Tank Man of Tianenmen Square and inspiring.

Buckminster Fuller commented once, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” There are over 6 billion people alive on Earth today, and hundreds of thousands are born and die every day. In the course of human history, hundreds of millions have been killed in conflicts over land, resources, ideologies and selfish designs on power. Hundreds of millions have needlessly suffered and died because money and power are valued more than love and life. All known systems of government become corrupted in human hands, but everywhere that human beings live in large numbers, people accept corrupt government as a lesser evil compared with chaos and anarchy. I don’t know what will make the “existing model obsolete,” but I hope we find it soon.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead

“Whatever you do may seem insignificant to you, but it is most important that you do it.” – Mohandas Ghandi

Dennis Frostbutter exhorts the crowd

War protest: occupation of White House sidewalk
Elaine Brower, Matthis Chiroux, Jon Gold, Dennis Frostbutter and Alex Macdonald in view:

Leflora Cunningham-Walsh arrested

Jon Gold arrested

Jon Gold dedicates arrest to 9/11 victims before being taken to jail

L-R at bottom center: Matthis Chiroux, Elaine Brower and Cindy Sheehan at the paddy wagon

Bike Cops and Peace Signs

I. Summary of Erik Larson 2010 Shinki and Ed Paik Video

II. Ed Paik says he was inside the A-One office when the plane flew past; Shinki says he was outside

III. From inside the office, Ed Paik saw the right wing- and perhaps the fuselage

IV. Shinki Paik said the VDOT tower antenna was “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees”

V. Ed Paik’s drawings and gestures for CIT have been misrepresented

VI. Conclusion

I. Summary of Erik Larson 2010 Shinki and Ed Paik Video

The video is mainly footage from my January 2010 interviews with Shinki and Ed Paik, but also includes 2006 video footage of Ed being interviewed by Russell Pickering, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, which was recorded by Dylan Avery. Ed’s 2006 testimony largely confirms what he told me in 2010. In my interviews, Shinki and Ed Paik said that on September 11, 2001, they were in their shop’s office watching and discussing the news coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Center, when they heard the increasingly loud noise of a large jet approaching their location, very low. Shinki was behind the counter, and Ed was in front of it, and the noise was so loud, they both instinctively ducked. At this point, Shinki and Ed’s accounts diverge. Shinki said Ed “went out” and he saw Ed outside, ducking, when the plane passed by. There is a large window in front of the counter, and a large window in the door, which give a view of their parking lot, Columbia Pike, and the other side of the road. Shinki saw the outside get dark briefly, but did not see any part of the plane. According to Ed, he was inside when the plane flew past, and while ducking in front of the counter, he looked up and out the window, and saw the “big”, “black” “right wing” of a plane for “1 or 2 seconds”. In two places on the August 2006 Avery footage, Ed indicates he was in the office. In my interview, Ed says his “feeling” was the body of the plane was very low and directly over their shop, with the right wing extending over their parking lot and Columbia Pike. In 2010 he said he did not see the body of the plane, but in the 2006 footage he described the body as “gray.” Shinki said that after the plane passed, he saw the VDOT antenna “bent over” towards the Pentagon “about 60, 70 degrees”, and that it was not like this before the plane went past. He recalls noticing that on September 11, but Ed didn’t remember seeing the bent antenna. Both remember it being worked on; Shinki thought it was the following day or soon after, and Ed seemed sure it was the next day that people were working on it. Ed also recalled talking to others in the area regarding the work being done on the tower, and that they were also under the impression that the plane had hit the antenna.

II. Ed Paik says he was inside the A-One office when the plane flew past; Shinki says he was outside

As of this writing, if they have it, CIT has not released footage from their 11/4/06 interview (used in NSA) in which Ed Paik states his own location when the plane flew past; they have only released footage that shows him describing and pointing out the plane’s location and heading. However, 1/24/10, CIT released August 2006 footage of Shinki Paik, in which he says Ed first went outside, and then the plane flew over:

Shinki Paik: “… And at the last moment my brother jumped out the office and as soon as he went out he was just scooping down and I was sitting here, and then standing, and then I think at that moment a big airplane just flew over. … As soon as he went out, jumped out he was scooping down on the ground and then I think he thought something hitting him and then I see here inside … the kinda black cloud a little bit.”

Craig Ranke: “A shadow?”

Shinki: “[inaudible] shadow, yeah.”

Shinki Paik reported the same sequence of events to me, 1/5/10:

Shinki Paik: “We heard some- enormous- almost incomprehensible noise- is that something is dropping here. So we kinda scootin’ down here [demonstrates ducking]. But my brother- in a way he felt more ‘dangerous’ and insecure- insecurity or something- he went out [points to door] and jumped out. And as soon as he went out, I saw he was he was doing like this, right? [demonstrates ducking and covering his head] And something flip a second [makes fast motion with hands] and a little bit dark in the sky- and about less than a second or something, boom! And we ran out [makes running motion with fists]. Across the street is a … State of Virginia Traffic [inaudible] Center. We look to the Pentagon side, there’s a plume of smoke coming up.” (0:10)

However, in my interview of Ed Paik 1/9/10, he says he saw the plane through the office front window, and that he went outside after it passed by:

Ed Paik: [Ed is standing in front of the counter] “Shinki sitting over there, I’m standing up here. We’d been talking about the Twin Towers. And then we heard about- the big sound. And then I just look out like this [bends over, ducking and turning head to look out the front window] and then aircraft- I can hear- black, big wing as it goes- heading to that way [motions with arm, sweeping from West to East, roughly parallel to Columbia Pike]

Erik Larson: “So- were you outside when it happened?”

Ed: “After that- I saw it, and after that I go out.”

Erik: “So, you were inside when the plane flew over.”

Ed: “Yeah- flew this way.” [indicates path with his hand, West to East, parallel to Columbia Pike, again]

Erik: “OK. But you were looking outside the window.”

Ed: [bends head down, and points outside] “Looking outside here.” (1:10)

I was surprised to hear Ed say he had been in the office and had only seen the right wing of the plane through the window, as Shinki had indicated he was outside, and CIT have always represented Ed as being in A-One’s parking lot. For instance, on the Loose Change forum 8/25/06, Aldo Marquis (Merc) said, “Edward actually went outside when they heard the jet approacing [sic] and actually saw the plane.” On the CIT forum 12/6/07, Craig Ranke referred a graphic of the parking lot as “Edward’s POV”. And CIT’s films ‘Pentacon’ and ‘National Security Alert’ feature Ed in the A-One parking lot gesturing and describing the flight path and location of the plane’s body and wings (Ed Paik’s account starts at 16:45 in NSA, but the footage can be seen in this youtube short, starting at 2:53).

When I reviewed the August 2006 interview of Ed Paik by the Loose Change/CIT/Russ Pickering crew, I noticed that Ed had, at that time, indicated he was in the office when he saw the plane, though it is a bit unclear due to his English being rough:

Ed Paik: “I heard about the- a very big jet sound- looks like just up to here [puts hand above head, close] I just look at outside [turns head]- big black wing coming- that way [motions with hand] and then I just running out- then 2, 3 seconds- boom! (Avery 0:01, Larson 3:37)——

Aldo Marquis: “You didn’t see it come over you, then.”

Ed Paik: “I cannot see that, because at the time- I- facing through the- in the office. So the airplane coming this way- [points]- to the- my right hand side- it goes- [sweeps arm fast]- to the Pentagon.” (Avery 1:30, Larson 3:59)

If an eyewitness account is going to be used in reference an event, it needs to be acknowledged where they said they were when they witnessed it. And if an eyewitness says that person was somewhere else, that needs to be taken into account as well. Even when eyewitness are in close proximity, their accounts sometimes differ on significant details, and Ed and Shinki’s accounts are a prime example. Both of them are consistent in regarding their own accounts from 2006 to 2010; so who’s right about Ed’s location when the plane flew past? Ed is adamant that he was inside, and physically demonstrates where he was and how he reacted. What he described seeing on 9/11, in both 2006 and 2010, is from the vantage point of his being in the office. My interview of Ed was in front of Shinki; he didn’t say anything to correct Ed, and I confirmed Ed’s location with him twice. It seems to me the most likely explanation is that Shinki’s recollection of the sequence of events got confused, as everything happened so fast; according to Ed, he ran outside immediately after seeing the plane pass. In any case, it’s not logical to use Ed’s account of where the plane was, but discount or omit where he says he was when he saw it.

CIT may or may not have footage of Ed Paik from their 11/4/06 interview in which he describes his location. Certainly, they should have been aware of his statements from August 2006 which place him in the office- and Aldo Marquis is the one who said, “You didn’t see it come over you, then.” If Aldo and Craig felt it was unclear, they should have clarified his location in their November 2006 interview of him; not doing so is sloppy research. If they were aware that Ed says he saw the plane from the office, and they did not disclose this- in order to create the impression that Ed was in the parking lot- this is manipulative and dishonest journalism. Ironically, Craig Ranke said on the CIT forum 8/9/09, “Witnesses are data points. You can only rely on them for the general placement of the plane in relation to the ground they are standing. You can’t use a witness to extrapolate what you want regarding the placement of the plane in an area that they would not even be able to witness from their location! That is spin and is deceptive.”

In this photo Ed demonstrates how he ducked:

In this photo Ed points out the window, indicating where he saw the plane:

III. From inside the office, Ed Paik saw the right wing- and perhaps the fuselage

Ed Paik’s testimony is consistent from 2006 and 2010 regarding his being in the office when the plane passed by. It’s also consistent in that, in addition to the loud jet sound and his impression that the plane was very low, he clearly recalls seeing a big, black wing (Ed saw the wing from underneath, shadowed from the sun). The only significant difference is that in the 2006 LC/CIT/Pickering interview, he said he saw the body of the plane (perhaps an engine?), which he described as “gray” (similar to an American Airlines plane). Also in the 2006 interview, he said he believed the right wing tip was extending over Columbia Pike- far enough to hit the VDOT tower:

Russell Pickering: “Did you see anything about the airplane, how many engines, what color, anything about the plane?”

Ed Paik: “Uh, no, I just only- feeling’s it looks like a- black wing- very huge, black wing. That’s what I saw then.”

Aldo Marquis and another person: “Black wings?”

Ed: “Yeah.”

Aldo: “Do you remember what color the plane, the body was?”

Ed: “Body’s look like gray- kind of gray. And the wing- underneath wing is looked like, uh, black, because I saw it like (turns head, then turns back, motioning with hands, fast). Soon as the uh- passed, away. (Avery 0:56, Larson 5:41)

——

Russell Pickering: “In relation to your street, would you say like here’s one wing tip, here’s another wing tip- right in the middle of the airplane, where would you put that in relation to the street?”

Ed Paik: “Right wing; right wing is at the end of the street. Left wing, I cannot see the (inaudible). Right wing is at end of street.”

Russell: “The right wing was as far out as the tower, so the center of the airplane was near the road.”

Ed: “Yeah, on the road, yeah. That’s why it hit the antenna.” (Avery 2:44, Larson 6:20)

Also in the 2006 interview, Ed also says the plane almost hit the last building of the Navy Annex (2:31), but even from the vantage point of the parking lot, Ed would not have been able to see this, which is clear from CIT’s footage used in Pentacon and NSA. It seems he was either speculating, or perhaps incorporating into his account what another witness had described. CIT ignored or neglected to note Ed’s statements regarding his location, but made special note of this by adding text to the youtube video which transcribed that part of his statement. Again, ironic, considering Craig Ranke’s 8/9/09 statement; “You can’t use a witness to extrapolate what you want regarding the placement of the plane in an area that they would not even be able to witness from their location! That is spin and is deceptive.”

In my interview of him, Ed says that he did not see the body, but he describes the wing as a “triangle”. Considering Ed’s 2010 statement describing the wing as a “triangle” in conjunction with his 2006 statement in which he describes the body as gray, it may be that he saw the wing close to the base, and that he got a glimpse of the fuselage in 2001- enough to recall its color, in 2006.

2010 Erik Larson interview:

Erik Larson: “To be clear, when you looked outside, how much of the plane could you see- just the wing part, or could you see any of the body?”

Ed Paik: “No. Just the- body side- [points to his roof] my roof side [places hand above his head]

Erik: “OK, so all you saw was the wing.”

Ed: “Right hand side, the wing. That is my feeling … because- if I see the one that is left-hand side, then I can see the body, and [inaudible]. But I don’t see anything, only kind of a triangle side [makes shape with hands]- kind of an- a wing [motions with right hand, West to East]. One second or two.”

Erik: “What do you mean, ‘triangle side’?”

Ed: “Looks like [traces out triangle shape with hands]- right-hand side…”

Erik: “It was like the right wing, that you saw?”

Ed: “Right wing, that’s right.” (4:51 – segment starts at 4:19)

I took the below two photos while down on one knee in front of the counter, to approximate Ed’s position.

This photo shows the view directly out the front window, about where Ed says he was:

This photo out the front window shows the VDOT tower on the left:

There are at least a couple possibilities for the plane’s location that account for Ed’s seeing the right wing (and possibly the fuselage) from this vantage point:

1) If the plane was close to the tops of the telephone poles and crossing Columbia Pike, left wing tip close to the Sheraton Hotel, fuselage almost directly over his shop, heading NE over the Navy Annex (aka FOB #2), as CIT claims, then all Ed might have seen was the right wing, and perhaps the fuselage. However, this path would mean the plane was below the line of sight of Dawn Vignola and Tim Timmerman at the Sheraton, and they both said they could see it at that point, which was shortly before it disappeared behind some buildings closer to them. In my interview with Dawn Vignola, she also said she had seen the plane cross in front of the Sheraton. A plane on this ‘north path’ would also mean that Madelyn Zakhem (who was outside on the south side of Columbia Pike) would have seen it over the Navy Annex- not directly above her, as she reported in 2001, and confirmed to Russ Pickering/CIT in 2006. This ‘north path’ also conflicts with the 2001 account of CIT witness Terry Morin, who reported seeing the plane for several seconds until a row of trees blocked his view, that it had “red and blue stripes down the fuselage”, and he “believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines”. If Morin had seen it directly over top of him from between wings of the Annex, he would have seen the plane for less than a second (at his minimum estimated speed of 350 kts/402 mph/590 fps), and could not have seen any markings on it. There are no markings visible in the simulation in NSA, which can be seen starting at 3:28 in CIT’s 1/24/10 youtube video. In 2006, Morin states the plane would have hit the Air Force memorial now at the north east end of the Annex. (3:34) However, in 2001 Morin said, “The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB.” “Essentially” implies the plane was not ‘exactly’ or ‘directly’ overhead.

2) Another possibility is that the plane was traveling approximately on the ‘official’ flight path (based on FDR and radar data, allowing for margin of error). From Ed’s vantage point ducking inside the shop and looking up out the front window, the right wing (and perhaps the fuselage) may have been all he could see for the “one or two seconds” that he saw the plane- and his “feeling” like the fuselage was over his shop may have been due to a common perspective error known as ‘forced perspective’. This flight path would also match the accounts of Vignola/Timmerman, Zakhem and Morin (2001). In addition, there’s some evidence the plane clipped (see section IV) the antenna on the VDOT tower (on the left in the 2nd photo; 169’ above ground at antenna tip). However, even if it did not- if it was slightly above or north of the antenna tower- the flight path would still match the accounts of Ed Paik, Madelyn Zakhem and Terry Morin (in 2001), as well as being within a margin of error for the FDR and radar data.

IV. Shinki Paik said the VDOT tower antenna was “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees”

Less than 200 yards from the Paik’s shop, on the south side of the street, is an antenna tower on VDOT property. Shinki Paik told me the antenna on top of the tower was “bent over, not right angle, 90 degrees, but I would say about 60, 70 degrees.” When I asked when he noticed this, he said, “I believe it was the same day [9/11].” (8:44) Ed had not noticed the antenna was damaged (7:02), but both Ed and Shinki said that there was a crew working on the tower soon after 9/11. They both attributed this to the antenna having been hit by the plane, though they acknowledged they didn’t see the antenna get hit. (Erik Larson 2010 video)

According to Craig Ranke on the Loose Change forum 8/31/06, CIT “confirmed with the VDOT employees that the antenna was not clipped.” When Arabesque, Adam Larson and John Farmer raised questions about possible damage to the VDOT tower, Craig Ranke elaborated 3/17/08 on the CIT forum, “That same day we spoke with many people at the VDOT and all of them told us that the antenna WAS NOT damaged and that the feds used the VDOT building as emergency headquarters on 9/11 and were probably adding extra communication or something of that nature.” No names are cited, and there are no direct quotes, but the use of the words “probably” and “or something” implies the “many people at the VDOT” weren’t sure what was being done on the tower.

Craig also said in the 3/17/08 post, “We first spoke with Edward’s brother Shinki Paik the day before we spoke with Edward Paik. Shinki did not see the plane but he told us that they saw workers on the antenna the next day and figured they were repairing it because the plane hit it.” However, when I interviewed Shinki, he offered on his own that he had seen the antenna, “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees.” If Shinki mentioned this to CIT, they’ve never acknowledged it. As of this writing, CIT’s full video footage from their interviews with Shinki and Ed Paik have not been made public.

Craig, again from the 3/17/08 post: “If the plane was over the antenna it would support the official flight path but this is not where Edward or ANY of the witnesses (including VDOT employee Madlene Zackhem) claim they saw the plane.” Craig is correct in saying, “If the plane was over the antenna it would support the official flight path”, but as I showed and documented in the previous section, the accounts of Columbia Pike witnesses Madelyn Zakhem and Terry Morin (2001) support the official flight path, and Ed Paik’s account makes the most sense if that’s where the plane was. This photo taken by Steve Riskus and enlarged by John Farmer may show a bent antenna, but the image quality is poor, so it’s hard to say for sure:

In any case, while proof the antenna was hit by the plane would prove the plane was on the official flight path, the plane could have cleared the top of the antenna or to the north side of it, and would still be within a margin of error for the official flight path, and it would still match the eyewitness accounts. As Adam Larson (no relation) demonstrates in this article: OBSTACLE? IMPOSSIBLE. WHY THIS ANTENNA THING IS A NON-ISSUE.

V. Ed Paik’s drawings, statements and gestures for CIT have been misrepresented

CIT has represented their video footage of Ed Paik in the A-One parking lot (a vantage point Ed says he was not at) pointing to his roof and gesturing while describing his impression of the flight path, as evidence of the plane’s flight path. In addition to featuring it this way in Pentacon and NSA, CIT created a gif from their footage of Ed and put text on it that says, “Ed Paik pointing out heading of plane: ‘Body this way’”:

However, from the footage, it’s clear that at this point Ed says, “Body here”, not “Body this way.” In the footage of Ed used in Pentacon and NSA (see this youtube short, at 2:53), Ed does not say “Body this way” at any point. It’s also clear from the footage, that in the first clip in the gif, Ed is pointing to where he believed the body of the plane was over their shop, while indicating the path by moving his hand parallel to Columbia Pike. And in the 2nd clip, Ed is pointing to the location where he believed the body of the plane was when it flew past; he’s not “pointing out heading of plane”, as the gif’s text claims. This is also evident in that none of his drawings match the ‘heading’ allegedly being pointed out in the gif. Also worth noting from this segment is that Ed points perpendicular across Columbia Pike, and says, “Right wing is this way”, indicating that he perceived the right wing to be over Columbia Pike.

CIT has also represented Ed Paik’s 3 drawings of the flight path as evidence of the plane’s flight path. However, these were drawn on photos that don’t match Ed’s actual perspective from his vantage point in the office (according to his own account), and are based on his impression of what he saw for “one or two seconds”, and his “feeling” where the plane’s body was. And, considering the plane was traveling about the length of 2 football fields per second, he probably saw the right wing (and possibly the body) for less than a second. These 3 drawings, while contradicting the official flight path in some respects, also contradict each other and the alleged ‘north of Citgo path’. For instance, in the top drawing at the above link, Ed has drawn a line roughly parallel to Columbia Pike, which has the plane flying over the Navy Annex and directly into the Pentagon; this line passes south of the Citgo gas station, which is out of view in that photo. This first drawing also contradicts the one CIT uses most often, the bottom one, an overhead view which shows the flight path as being roughly parallel to the official path, but further north of it. And the middle drawing has the plane flying wholly or partially over top of the Sheraton Hotel, also contradicting the bottom drawing.

These drawings and gestures don’t diminish Ed’s credibility as a witness; he was trying to be helpful, and when asked by CIT to speculate, he did so. Clearly, witness drawings and gestures from perspectives they didn’t have cannot be relied on as accurate, even if they aren’t obviously contradictory. And representing the results as giving anything other than a general, but inconclusive, idea of where the plane came from, where it was when Ed actually saw it, and where it was headed, is deceptive and a disservice to the public. Again, this is ironic, considering that Craig Ranke, taking issue with a critic’s interpretation of the drawings, said on the CIT forum 8/9/09, “Witnesses are data points. You can only rely on them for the general placement of the plane in relation to the ground they are standing. You can’t use a witness to extrapolate what you want regarding the placement of the plane in an area that they would not even be able to witness from their location! That is spin and is deceptive.” CIT will say that Ed’s account is corroborated by other witnesses, they are not relying on it alone; however, they’ve cherrypicked the statements of the other witnesses, made selective interpretations that support their theory while denying other possibilities, and apply double- and dubious- standards when judging the credibility of witness accounts that indicate the plane was on the official flight path, even slandering witnesses in some cases. Arabesque and Adam Larson have documented numerous examples of this, in addition to what I’ve pointed out in this essay:

William Lagasse: “These poles were not knocked down” CIT: “He didn’t see the light poles” by Arabesque

The South Path Impact: Documented by Adam Larson

Roughshod Over the Suspicious Ones by Adam Larson

VI. Conclusion

In summary: Shinki and Ed Paik place Ed in different locations at the moment the plane passed, and CIT, as of this writing, has not acknowledged Ed’s account placing himself in the office, if they were aware of it. According to Ed’s 2010 account, he mainly saw the right wing of the plane, from inside the office, for “one or two seconds”, though in 2006 he recalled seeing the body. Ed said he did not see the plane from the parking lot, and did not ‘see’ it fly over their shop; he qualifies his placement of the fuselage over their shop by saying his “feeling” is that’s where it was. Shinki specifically recalls seeing the VDOT antenna bent over; if Shinki said this in CIT footage, or if CIT was aware of this, they’ve never disclosed it, as of this writing. CIT has cited unnamed VDOT employees as saying the antenna was not damaged, to counter the hypothesis that it was. Ed’s drawings and gestures in CIT videos were based on seeing the wing for “one or two seconds”, and his “feeling” about where the body was. The gestures were made at a location he says he did not witness the plane from, and the drawings are based on perspectives he did not have. In addition, elements of these drawings variously support the official flight path, contradict each other, and contradict the FDR/radar flight path, as well as the path reported by Madelyn Zakhem, and Terry Morin in 2001.

My impression of Shinki and Ed Paik from my own and the other interviews, is they did their best to honestly and accurately describe what they recall seeing. However, while eyewitness testimony can be accurate- and seem compelling- in some cases, witnesses often miss significant details, make incorrect interpretations and recall things inaccurately, even when they’re sure they’re right. Human beings are subject to errors in judgment, perspective and memory, and in the case of an event that is over in “one or two seconds”, errors are more likely. Language barriers and misunderstandings between witnesses and questioners can also play a role in witness accounts being misinterpreted.

There are problems with some elements of Shinki and Ed Paik’s accounts, but CIT has compounded these by omitting or distorting elements of Ed and Shinki’s accounts, while selectively interpreting and hyping other elements. CIT has a history of doing this, they’ve consistently done it in ways that support their theory about ‘north path’ and ‘Pentagon flyover’, and their doing so- while accusing their critics of being ‘agents’ and ‘disinformation’- has created controversy and undermined their own credibility. Whether or not it’s intentional on their part, CIT have caused disruption and division in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and have distracted some activists from larger questions and more conclusive evidence of wrong doing on the part of those charged with defending the United States and its Constitution- for instance, the fact that the Pentagon was hit at all. I support disclosure and accountability for 9/11 and the way “the day that changed everything” has been exploited to justify a national security state, massive increases in funding for the military industrial complex, wars, torture and subversion of the Constitution. I support independent research and investigation 9/11 and related events- including study of efforts and ideas that distract, divide and disrupt the 9/11 Truth Movement. Not because ideas and efforts that are distracting and disruptive are worth of pursuing in themselves, but because learning which theories are false or inconclusive narrows the field of research to the most productive lines of investigation, and because learning which efforts are impeding progress can improve the effectiveness of activists who are seeking truth and justice.

From their apartment, Dawn Vignola and her roommate Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman saw American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, September 11, 2001. Shortly afterward, they gave witness accounts to local and national TV media. In 2007, they were interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), who attempted to discredit their testimony. I interviewed Dawn and her husband, Dan Ferrigno, January 5, 2010 at that same apartment and found them credible; they talked openly with me, their accounts have not changed since they were first offered, and I saw for myself that Dawn and Tim could have easily seen what they claimed to have seen.

On September 11, 2001 Dawn Vignola shared a 16th floor apartment with Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman, in Arlington, VA, which overlooked the Pentagon and the surrounding area. They were both at home, and Dawn was on the phone with her husband, Dan Ferrigno, because of what was happening in New York. She saw the plane approaching out the West window, over the top of a line of trees, and then it turned East. She could see the AA, and in the bright sun the plane appeared to be white. (See here for photos of the Boeing 757 N64AA, the plane that was American 77 on 9/11; notice how it appears white in the photos where there is direct sun on it). It was flying above the line of trees and buildings, and seemed to be over 395 or Columbia Pike.

As the plane disappeared from view past the window’s North edge, she went over to the window on the North side and watched for the plane, which she had noticed was flying unusually low; she and Tim were accustomed to seeing airplanes flying over the area, including over the Pentagon, as Reagan National Airport is close by. She saw the plane cross in front of the Sheraton Hotel on Columbia Pike, then it disappeared from view behind some nearby buildings. She watched for it to appear in view on the other side of a neighboring apartment building; it did, and she and Tim saw it impact the Pentagon, about 3/4 of a mile away. They did not see the plane fly over- in fact, it hit so low at the base, it looked like it hit the heliport first.

At the time, there was only vacant land and buildings under construction in between their building and the Pentagon, and these did not obstruct their view of the heliport. Since then, shorter buildings have been built in that area, but they still can still clearly see the upper floors of the Pentagon. In person everything appears much larger and clearer than it does on the accompanying video; when the camera is zoomed in, it actually gives a better idea of how large everything appears in person. Dawn and Tim had a clear view of the impact side and the airspace over the Pentagon, and would have seen the plane fly over- or seen something else hit- if that had happened. In addition, Dan’s office across the Potomac River had a view of the airspace over the Pentagon; he was looking at it while on the phone with Dawn, and saw the black smoke rising, but did not see a plane flying over or away from the Pentagon.

This is a short video of the view from Dawn’s apartment, with my narration based on the above points: The View from Vignola’s Contradicts CIT

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcUCrZETIb0&hl=en&fs=1]

This photo gives an approximate idea of how large the Pentagon appears from Dawn and Dan’s apartment, but still does not accurately convey how clear everything appears in person (also note that the shorter buildings in the middle were not there on 9/11; the view of the heliport was not obstructed):

This Google Earth image shows Dawn Vignola’s apartment and the line of sight to the Pentagon, as it was on 9/11/01. As can be seen from this photo, the area between her apartment and the Pentagon was largely vacant, with some construction going on:

Shortly after they saw the impact, Dawn called WUSA, the local CBS channel, and was interviewed live on the air. Tim was listening to the questions as they were asked by the TV reporter, and he can be heard in the background offering his input to Dawn, some of which she passed on over the phone. Later, Tim was interviewed by CNN. Dawn’s account has not changed since that interview; it is the same account she gave to Citizen Investigation Team in 2007 (judging by what CIT has said about it), and the same account that was given to me. Dawn is no longer in contact with Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman. There are a number of hits for ‘Hugh Timmerman’ online, but I did not attempt to track him down for comment; CIT has said they could not locate him.

Since 9/11, various people have claimed that AA 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. As there are numerous witness accounts of an AA 757 crashing into the Pentagon, some crash skeptics have questioned those accounts. For instance, in the case of Dawn’s account, blogger Steven Welch alleged that Tim was ‘coaching’ Dawn in her account, and claimed neither testimony could be considered credible. And, according to Dawn and Dan in my interview of them, when Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (CIT) interviewed them in November 2007, Craig and Aldo were not simply interested in receiving Dawn’s account and verifying the view from the apartment. Rather, they sought information that would support their theory that the plane known as AA 77 had flown over the Pentagon, dismissed the elements of Dawn’s testimony that did not support this theory and attempted to persuade Dawn and Dan they were mistaken and their theory was correct. (For 2 sides to this story, see the ‘Plan271’ thread at CIT’s forum)

CIT insists they’re objective and have not done anything improper in their investigation and reporting. For instance, in a 12/12/09 podcast interview by Paul Tassopulos, Craig Ranke said, “Citizen Investigation Team, myself and Aldo Marquis, have been to Arlington, Virginia several times to interview dozens of eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack. We went there with no pre-conceived notions about what happened- we went there with no particular theory in mind. Our entire goal was to objectively ask the people on the street what they saw, and report it, and let the chips fall where they may.” (2:05) However, it is clearly not the case that they went to Arlington with “no pre-conceived notions about what happened”; as early as 1/11/06, before Craig and Aldo joined the Loose Change forum, Aldo Marquis had posted an article online titled “Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)“. Lloyd England says the plane knocked a light pole through his cab’s windshield, and numerous photos place him, his damaged cab and a broken light pole at the scene. Aldo attempted to show that England could not be telling the truth about what happened, and that the scene was staged. If the plane knocked the light pole through the windshield of England’s cab, the plane was on the ‘South of Citgo’ path, (not on the ‘North of Citgo’ path, as CIT claims certain other witness accounts prove), and this disproves CIT’s ‘flyover’ theory. And according to Pentagon crash witness Mike Walter, when he met Craig and Aldo at his barbeque on the first trip to Arlington, “They were saying things like, ‘Are you sure the plane didn’t land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?’ They kept coming up with all these scenarios.”

Dawn and Dan invited Craig and Aldo into their apartment, talked with them at length and gave them permission to record the view from their apartment, but declined to be interviewed on camera, as Dawn was close to 9 mo. pregnant at the time, and felt it would be invasive of her personal privacy. CIT recorded conversation at the apartment anyway, (and their phone conversations), without Dawn and Dan’s knowledge or consent. In a comment thread at 911Blogger, Craig Ranke acknowledged this at least in part, saying, “Obviously while we video taped her POV with her consent after being invited to her home our discussion with her at the time was recorded by the video camera. And we most certainly did record our initial conversations on the phone with her as we do with EVERY phone call we make in our investigation.”

“One-party consent” is all that’s required in Federal jurisdictions and 38 states, but there are differing opinions on whether it’s ethical for journalists to record subjects without their knowledge or consent; “Some journalists see taping as an indispensable tool, while others don’t like the formality it may impose during an interview. Some would not consider taping a call without the subject’s consent, others do it routinely.” Craig Ranke defended CIT doing it, stating that in Virginia “one party consent” to a conversation being recorded is all that’s required by law (true), and that they do this “so nobody can falsely accuse us of behaving inappropriately or saying or doing something underhanded or deceptive.”

CIT also recorded a conversation with Lloyd England without his knowledge or consent, and released it (in part), claiming it was a “virtual confession” and that it supported their previously-issued charge that he is an “accomplice” to the 9/11 attacks and subsequent cover up. (See this discussion thread at 911Blogger for alternative views on whether Lloyd England’s statements are a “virtual confession”). It seems another reason CIT might record interviewees without their consent or knowledge is the potential for capturing bits of unguarded conversation which they can represent as damaging to the credibility of witnesses whose testimony contradicts their ‘flyover theory’; certainly they’ve demonstrated they will release recordings if it they think it does. As CIT haven’t released their recordings of Dawn and Dan, it may be there’s simply nothing on them they feel would work to their advantage if released. CIT expert Adam Larson (no relation) has documented a consistent pattern of CIT attempts to dismiss or discredit witness accounts that support the ‘South of Citgo’ path or plane hitting the Pentagon; 33 cases, including Dawn Vignola, Tim Timmerman and Lloyd England: CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART III: ROUGHSHOD OVER THE SUSPICIOUS ONES.

On 11/29/07, CIT published an entry on their forum titled Details of our Nov 2007 research trip to Arlington, more data proving a deception, and included this statement regarding their interview of Dawn: “Previously published witness Dawn Vignola who was coached by her former roomate [sic] Hugh Tim Timmerman on the radio as an eyewitness declined to be interviewed on camera but let us into her Pentagon City high rise apartment to get shots of her POV and the one of the best possible views of the the event from high up. Dawn swears that the plane was white and although with her panoramic view she got a great look at it approaching from a ways away, once it got near the Pentagon it was obscured by the building in front of her until a split second before the explosion. She says it hit the heliport. We know this isn’t true because there was no damage to the heliport so likely the explosion and fireball simply concealed what the plane really did.”

Following this, on 1/15/08, on CIT’s forum, Aldo Marquis posted an entry titled, Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 “impact” witnesses, and under a sub-heading for witnesses categorized as, “Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact”, he listed Dawn Vignola as “(TALKED TO by CIT, claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position)”

1/21/08, ‘plan271’ confronted Craig and Aldo on the CIT forum regarding inaccurate/misleading statements about ‘coaching’, the view Dawn and Tim had of the plane, the Pentagon and the crash, and what they had said about it. Craig and Aldo defended making an issue out of Tim interjecting comments during Dawn’s TV interview, although in dialogue with plan271 they referred to it as Tim ‘helping’ Dawn. They also denied accusing Dawn and Tim of lying, but continued to insist they could not have seen what they said they saw:

Craig Ranke, 1/21/08: “As soon as we saw the view from their apartment I knew instantly that there is no way she would have been able to physically see an impact and could only have deduced it based off the explosion.”

Aldo Marquis, 1/21/08: “We believe Timmerman and Vignola merely deduced the impact.”

12/5/08 (perhaps earlier) CIT posted this .gif of video from Dawn and Dan’s apartment:

“Timmerman and Vignola’s panoramic view on 9/11” (Compare this to the photo and video above)

Notice this was filmed wide angle, from the middle of the apartment (not from Dawn’s vantage point); this gives uncritical viewer’s the impression that Dawn and Tim could barely see the Pentagon, which is not true.

Dawn and Dan are aware of the allegations and misrepresentations regarding Dawn and Tim’s accounts. Dawn told me that after seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon, she felt it was important to alert the media, but hadn’t expected to be put on the air live, and had not wanted to attract attention. But now they’re part of the controversy over ‘what’ hit the Pentagon.* Dawn and Dan OK’d my coming to their apartment to record the view and spoke with me for over an hour, but due to their experience with CIT, they did not want the conversation recorded, and I didn’t. As Dawn explained in a January 2, 2010 email to Michael Wolsey, which she authorized for public release, “I am now hesitant to have a telephone conversation recorded or even to be interviewed since my experience has been that I cannot trust how it will loaded onto the Internet or whether others will be able to access it and then edit it, unjustly, for their own pursuits. The last time I trusted someone in this sort of matter, in particular Craig and Aldo, I found my words being distorted, taken out of context, and/or insinuations that I meant something other than what I said.” In the near future, Dawn and Dan will be launching a website that will host photos, video, Dawn’s personal account written down shortly after witnessing the Pentagon crash, and other related material, in an effort to set the record straight.

For more information on Citizen Investigation Team, see the articles written by Arabesque and Adam Larson.

This article by Arabesque is a helpful overview, with information on many specific incidents and examples: CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy

*NOTE: This article was written to shed light on Dawn Vignola’s and Tim Timmerman’s witness accounts, and the manner in which CIT has conducted its investigation and reporting. I support independent research and investigation of 9/11, and there are many reasons to question the official version of events. I take issue with selective interpretation of evidence, absolute claims regarding events for which contradictory or incomplete evidence exists, and the promotion of speculation as fact.

Certainly, the US government should release all photos, video and documentation related to ‘what’ hit the Pentagon. By withholding evidence, the US government is diminishing its credibility, as well as fueling the controversy about ‘what’ hit, and this in turn has distracted from larger questions, including the questions about why the Pentagon was hit at all; about the reason there was no air defense over D.C. more than half an hour after the second WTC impact, close to an hour and a half after the first signs of hijacking, after a ‘summer of threat’ that included warnings from different nations about an impending attack on the US using planes, when the CIA, FBI, NSA and SOCOM had developed their own intelligence on the impending plot, when the FAA, NMCC, NORAD and NEADS have procedures that enable quick interception of aircraft and had known for decades of attempts to use aircraft as missiles, and when the NSC and White House were aware of “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” (Aug 6 PDB)

The 9/11 Commission omitted and distorted facts that are part of the public record, including in its own and other government reports. The Complete 9/11 Timeline at HistoryCommons.org gives a comprehensive overview of what’s known about 9/11 and related entities and events, based on ‘mainstream’ sources. In addition, 9/11 Research, and the Journal of 9/11 Studies, document many unanswered questions and disturbing facts related to the total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7, and about NIST’s investigation of same. The big picture and thousands of details make the case that there needs to be a full, independent investigation of 9/11, before that day- or any other terrorist attack- are used again to justify increased funding for the military-industrial complex, foreign interventions, and draconian domestic security measures.

I had asked McKinney what she saw as the biggest challenges and opportunities for the 9/11 Truth Movement. She said she had supported NYCCAN and felt justice was disserved in the judge’s decision to disallow it. She suggested that a People’s Tribunal might be worth pursuing, but that something with legal authority would be best. She also said that she will be pursuing the issue if she gets reelected to Congress.

I particularly liked Ralph Nader’s response when I asked about the biggest unanswered questions; he said, “Who’s responsible?” is the biggest.

I asked Kucinich the status on his committee’s investigation into 9/11, and he said that it is an issue he maintains an interest in- he has questions about pre-9/11 financial transactions- but that his committee has been swamped dealing with Wall Street investigations and the economic meltdown.

David Swanson said 9/11 has not been investigated, and a full investigation is an important issue.

Ralph Nader

Dennis Kucinich

David Swanson