Appendix C: Suppression or Destruction of
Evidence Pertaining
to 9/11
by Dr. Paul W. Rea, author of Mounting Evidence
© 2011 Do not sell, distribute, or publish without author's permission
____________________________________________________
© 2011 Do not sell, distribute, or publish without author's permission
____________________________________________________
Attempts to reduce public access to evidence began very early and continue to this day.
Suppression Begins within Hours of the Attacks
Shortly before noon on September 11, the controllers at New York’s Air Traffic Control Center who’d dealt with the hijacked flights made an audio recording of their recollections of what had just transpired. But before the end of the day, an FAA “quality assurance manager” crushed the tape, shredded it into pieces, and stuffed them in multiple trashcans. Then he dumped the trash (Washington Post 5/6/04). Air traffic controllers, airline employees, firefighters, eyewitnesses, and victims’ relatives were all told not to discuss what they’d seen or heard on 9/11.
A few days later, New York City officials decided that audio and written records of the Fire Department’s actions on 9/11 should not be released to the public (New York Times 7/23/02). The reasons were simple: the testimonials revealed occurrences that weren’t supposed to have happened, and they came from credible sources.
Many of these oral histories spoke of explosions in the Towers:
• Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory said, “I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”
• Firefighter Richard Banaciski added, “It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
• Paramedic Daniel Rivera recalled “It was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop.’” (NYT “The Sept. 11 Records” p. 9).
Accounts of explosions given by eyewitnesses were widely reported immediately after the attacks. However, their stories were quickly dropped by corporate/mainstream news media and were not pursued by the 9/11 Commission.
However, under the Freedom of Information Act The New York Times did sue; finally, in 2005, the City was forced to release most of the records. Today footage of firefighters’ eyewitness accounts is available at: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html. In addition, the complete rescue worker oral histories are available at: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html.
Suppression Immediately after Impact at the Pentagon
Just minutes after the crash at the Pentagon, dozens of government men in dark slacks and white shirts systematically removed small pieces of debris from the Pentagon lawn. Who were these guys, and how were so many able to assemble at the crash site so quickly?
Also within minutes of the crash, FBI agents began to confiscate tapes from security cameras near the Pentagon. One camera was at a Citgo gas station just across the street (Richmond Times-Dispatch 12/11/01); another was at a nearby hotel, where employees had already played back the tape (Gertz File 9/21/01). In addition, tapes from the Pentagon’s own cameras were similarly canned. In response to a Freedom of Information Act Request, the FBI acknowledged that it possessed 85 videos of the area that morning. To date, only four of them have been released, none of which shows any identifiable object. These videos show either a thin white blur, or nothing at all approaching the Pentagon.
Immediately after the attacks, the FBI also confiscated all the files at the Florida flight schools where three of the four alleged hijacker pilots had received training. According to a local law enforcement officer, the files were loaded into two Ryder trucks and driven onto a C-130 military cargo plane that took off for Washington with Florida Governor Jeb Bush aboard (D. Hopsicker Welcome to TerrorLand p.31). The files haven’t been seen since.
A week after the attacks, several news outlets reported that some of the alleged hijackers may have received training at secure US military installations (NYT 9/15/01& Newsweek 9/15/01). Although the military denied this, claiming it was different men with the same names (Washington Post, 9/16/01), it offered no proof that these Arabic men were not the accused hijackers. Attempts by independent journalists to confirm or refute these reports were blocked.
Similar Suppression Following Crash of Flight 93
In Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the FBI also gathered evidence as quickly; it also intimidated local witnesses, instructing them not to talk with the new media. From the doomed Flight 93, passenger Edward Felt made an emergency call, speaking of an explosion and seeing white smoke. The supervisor who took the call was gagged by the FBI (Mirror [UK] 9/13/02).
The Flight 93 crash site wasn’t treated as a crime scene, nor were the debris fields treated forensically. Debris fields were found as far as eight miles away, suggesting the plane might have broken up in the air. While the FBI did seal off the immediate area, the purpose was hardly to ensure scientific analysis. Longstanding professional protocols weren’t followed. Claiming it would be too time-consuming, the Bureau discarded a plan to map the area and mark the positions of debris (Longman Among the Heroes p. 262). Most of the evidence collected never surfaced again, and no NTSB report ever appeared, even though federal law required one.
The reason for this unprofessionalism, it’s long seemed, was simple: the scattered debris strongly suggested that the Boeing which made the small crater couldn’t have been intact on impact and was probably shot down. The flight’s voice recorder ends at 10:03 a.m., which the government claims was the time of impact. But a seismic study found that the plane actually hit the ground at 10:06. The FBI has not explained either the time discrepancy or the missing three minutes of tape (Philadelphia Daily News 9/16/02).
Complete Failure to Comply with Crime-Scene Protocol at WTC
Although the attacks were clearly the crime of the century, the impact areas weren’t treated as crime scenes to be studied. Ground Zero was sealed it off from journalists and photographers and deliberately disturbed before evidence could be tagged, photographed, and studied (AP 9/27/01).
The cleanup effort was immense. Thousands took part—including police, firefighters, and iron workers, many of whom came to New York voluntarily from all over the country (Guardian [UK] 9/11/09). Despite their heroic efforts and good intentions, the use of heavy machinery to remove debris greatly reduced the possibilities for learning much from “the Pile.” In a delightful irony, visitors who were threatened with arrest for taking photos were told “it’s a crime scene”—this was the bogus pretext for banning photos and videos (AP 9/27/01).
Wreckage from the World Trade Center (WTC) was rapidly destroyed. Less than two weeks after the attacks, the City accepted a proposal to recycle the steel from the collapsed buildings. The overwhelming majority of it was quickly cut up, shipped off, or melted down without proper documentation or forensic analysis, in violation of federal law (NYT 12/25/01). Most of the steel was quite literally on a slow boat to China. Although the steel was deemed of no use to investigators, it was considered important enough to equip all trucks hauling it with GPS locaters, at a cost of $1000 apiece, so its location could always be known (http://www.securitysolutions.com/mag/security_gps_job_massive/index.html).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) investigators of the WTC collapses had no subpoena power and little funding. They were prevented from interviewing some witnesses and severely limited in examining the disaster site, restricted from it except for what was basically a walk-through tour. Detailed blueprints of the Twin Towers were withheld not only from FEMA but also from the public, even though the buildings were constructed with public funds (NYT 12/25/01). Under threat of dismissal, FEMA investigators were told not to talk to the press. The disturbance of the site, the lack of access to it, the dearth of steel samples to study, and the intimidation all compromised FEMA’s investigation. Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering Magazine, called it “a half-baked farce” (Fire Engineering 1/02).
Forensic Evidence from Flights Also Withheld for Many Years
Government accounts for both the flight data and cockpit voice recorders have involved ongoing suppression—and are highly suspect. The FBI and later the 9/11 Commission claimed that not one of the four “black boxes” from Flights 11 and 175 was ever found in the World Trade Center rubble. Whereas the government line has been that all four boxes were destroyed, industry experts have pointed out that they are designed to be “nearly indestructible” (ABC 9/17/01). As one National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) spokesman remarked, “it’s extremely rare that we don’t get those recorders back. I can’t recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders” (CBS 2/23/02). The chances of all four recorders being destroyed are miniscule.
Although the Official Story claimed the “black boxes” from the planes that struck the Towers were never recovered, two men who worked extensively in the WTC wreckage reported that they’d helped federal agents locate the boxes—and that the agents immediately carted them off, never to be seen or heard since (Philadelphia Daily 10/28/04).
Similar cloaks of secrecy have surrounded the cockpit voice recorders which were recovered. In the case of Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the Commission claimed that the cockpit voice recorder was too badly burned to provide useful data (Report p. 456). In the case of Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, the FBI recovered the tape but initially refused to release it. After intense pressure from victims’ families, the FBI finally agreed to play the cockpit voice recorder tape but only for these relatives, who were not to divulge what they’d heard. No recordings could be made by the listeners; wireless headphones were used so the audio signal couldn't be intercepted (Pittsburgh Post Gazette 4/21/02). In 2006, the tape was also played at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui but, though transcripts became available, the Justice Department prevented the original audio from becoming part of the public record (District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia7/31/06).
What were the Feds trying to hide?
“Building What?”
To this day, a great many people don’t knew that WTC Building 7, a 47-story, steel-framed skyscraper, also came down on 9/11. Though a plane never hit the building, it mysteriously disintegrated, dropping symmetrically into its footprint at near free-fall speed. Though networks did initially report the building’s fall (CBS 9/11/01), they’ve almost never shown the video footage again.
For years, then, the fall of WTC-7 has been virtually blacked out by the mainstream media. New York Times reporter James Glanz characterized the building’s disintegration as “a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world” (NYT 11/29/01), but neither Glanz nor the Times has given WTC-7 much of any coverage. Neither the FEMA nor the NIST Report gave a plausible scientific explanation for how the small fires in the building could have made it fall down. In fact, NIST deliberately failed to consider troubling evidence such as “the Swiss cheese steel,” whose extreme deformation implied far higher temperatures than were possible without explosives. And the Commission’s Report didn’t even mention the unprecedented fall of WTC-7. This systematic suppression meant that—fully eight years after the attacks—a New York judge would ask “Building what?” when someone mentioned WTC-7 in his courtroom (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20100527162010811).
The Three-Stage Suppression of Military Intelligence
In 1999 and 2000, using “data mining” techniques, the Pentagon’s Project Able Danger amassed a huge amount of data on key al Qaeda operatives, including several of the alleged hijackers. However, in 2000 the Defense Intelligence Agency destroyed the program’s most relevant documentation (Government Executive 9/21/05). According to one of the officers, the deletions included “an immense amount of data for analysis that allowed us to map al Qaeda as a worldwide threat with a surprising presence within the United States” (NYT 9/22/05). They included a truly vast number of documents—about 2.5 terabytes, equal to one-fourth of the print holdings in the Library of Congress (Associated Press 9/15/2005).
In 2003, as the 9/11 Commission began to investigate the attacks, several former members of Able Danger came forth to state that, over a year before the attacks, their military intelligence unit had identified four of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. These included “ringleader” Mohamed Atta. But the Commission wasn’t interested; although the officers all recalled that Atta was identified on a chart they’d prepared, the Commission deemed their reports to be unreliable and continued to claim that no one in government knew who Atta was before the attacks (Kean-Hamilton Statement 8/12/05).
In 2005, after word of the Commission’s blockage of Able Danger’s findings emerged, the Pentagon also tried to block disclosure. And on at least three occasions Department of Defense lawyers blocked officers from the unit from sharing their information with the FBI (NYT 8/9/05). The day before hearings were scheduled in Congress, the Defense Department ordered the former members of Able Danger not to testify (UPI 9/21/05). After additional pressure from Congress, the three prominent witnesses were finally allowed to testify (Sacramento Bee 11/24/05 & 2/15/06). In his brief testimony, Able Danger member Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer affirmed under oath that he’d personally informed the Commission’s Executive Director Philip Zelikow of the intelligence findings (C-SPAN 2/14/06). Still, Able Danger wasn’t even mentioned in the Commission’s Report.
Even if Congress had wanted full disclosure, that would have been impossible because the Defense Intelligence Agency had already deleted the preponderance of the evidence. Thus a key question has to arise: What was so “sensitive” about the Able Danger findings that the Agency would dump them, the Commission would block consideration of them, and the Pentagon would attempt to keep the officers in charge of the program from disclosing some of them?
When evidence is systematically suppressed or destroyed, it’s always important to ask questions:
• Who is doing this?
• What are they most interested in covering up?
• Why are these areas so sensitive?
• What do these sensitive areas imply about what really went on?
One of the principles guiding selection of areas of focus for Mounting Evidence is simple: if “they” want don’t want us to know about something, that makes the rest of us all the more interested.
Sources: Much of this information derives from a short document posted at the 911Truth website (http://www.sf911truth.org/flyer2.pdf) and much of this information was compiled from The Complete 9/11 Timeline at the History Commons (http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project).
Back to Other Writings
Suppression Begins within Hours of the Attacks
Shortly before noon on September 11, the controllers at New York’s Air Traffic Control Center who’d dealt with the hijacked flights made an audio recording of their recollections of what had just transpired. But before the end of the day, an FAA “quality assurance manager” crushed the tape, shredded it into pieces, and stuffed them in multiple trashcans. Then he dumped the trash (Washington Post 5/6/04). Air traffic controllers, airline employees, firefighters, eyewitnesses, and victims’ relatives were all told not to discuss what they’d seen or heard on 9/11.
A few days later, New York City officials decided that audio and written records of the Fire Department’s actions on 9/11 should not be released to the public (New York Times 7/23/02). The reasons were simple: the testimonials revealed occurrences that weren’t supposed to have happened, and they came from credible sources.
Many of these oral histories spoke of explosions in the Towers:
• Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory said, “I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”
• Firefighter Richard Banaciski added, “It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
• Paramedic Daniel Rivera recalled “It was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop.’” (NYT “The Sept. 11 Records” p. 9).
Accounts of explosions given by eyewitnesses were widely reported immediately after the attacks. However, their stories were quickly dropped by corporate/mainstream news media and were not pursued by the 9/11 Commission.
However, under the Freedom of Information Act The New York Times did sue; finally, in 2005, the City was forced to release most of the records. Today footage of firefighters’ eyewitness accounts is available at: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html. In addition, the complete rescue worker oral histories are available at: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html.
Suppression Immediately after Impact at the Pentagon
Just minutes after the crash at the Pentagon, dozens of government men in dark slacks and white shirts systematically removed small pieces of debris from the Pentagon lawn. Who were these guys, and how were so many able to assemble at the crash site so quickly?
Also within minutes of the crash, FBI agents began to confiscate tapes from security cameras near the Pentagon. One camera was at a Citgo gas station just across the street (Richmond Times-Dispatch 12/11/01); another was at a nearby hotel, where employees had already played back the tape (Gertz File 9/21/01). In addition, tapes from the Pentagon’s own cameras were similarly canned. In response to a Freedom of Information Act Request, the FBI acknowledged that it possessed 85 videos of the area that morning. To date, only four of them have been released, none of which shows any identifiable object. These videos show either a thin white blur, or nothing at all approaching the Pentagon.
Immediately after the attacks, the FBI also confiscated all the files at the Florida flight schools where three of the four alleged hijacker pilots had received training. According to a local law enforcement officer, the files were loaded into two Ryder trucks and driven onto a C-130 military cargo plane that took off for Washington with Florida Governor Jeb Bush aboard (D. Hopsicker Welcome to TerrorLand p.31). The files haven’t been seen since.
A week after the attacks, several news outlets reported that some of the alleged hijackers may have received training at secure US military installations (NYT 9/15/01& Newsweek 9/15/01). Although the military denied this, claiming it was different men with the same names (Washington Post, 9/16/01), it offered no proof that these Arabic men were not the accused hijackers. Attempts by independent journalists to confirm or refute these reports were blocked.
Similar Suppression Following Crash of Flight 93
In Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the FBI also gathered evidence as quickly; it also intimidated local witnesses, instructing them not to talk with the new media. From the doomed Flight 93, passenger Edward Felt made an emergency call, speaking of an explosion and seeing white smoke. The supervisor who took the call was gagged by the FBI (Mirror [UK] 9/13/02).
The Flight 93 crash site wasn’t treated as a crime scene, nor were the debris fields treated forensically. Debris fields were found as far as eight miles away, suggesting the plane might have broken up in the air. While the FBI did seal off the immediate area, the purpose was hardly to ensure scientific analysis. Longstanding professional protocols weren’t followed. Claiming it would be too time-consuming, the Bureau discarded a plan to map the area and mark the positions of debris (Longman Among the Heroes p. 262). Most of the evidence collected never surfaced again, and no NTSB report ever appeared, even though federal law required one.
The reason for this unprofessionalism, it’s long seemed, was simple: the scattered debris strongly suggested that the Boeing which made the small crater couldn’t have been intact on impact and was probably shot down. The flight’s voice recorder ends at 10:03 a.m., which the government claims was the time of impact. But a seismic study found that the plane actually hit the ground at 10:06. The FBI has not explained either the time discrepancy or the missing three minutes of tape (Philadelphia Daily News 9/16/02).
Complete Failure to Comply with Crime-Scene Protocol at WTC
Although the attacks were clearly the crime of the century, the impact areas weren’t treated as crime scenes to be studied. Ground Zero was sealed it off from journalists and photographers and deliberately disturbed before evidence could be tagged, photographed, and studied (AP 9/27/01).
The cleanup effort was immense. Thousands took part—including police, firefighters, and iron workers, many of whom came to New York voluntarily from all over the country (Guardian [UK] 9/11/09). Despite their heroic efforts and good intentions, the use of heavy machinery to remove debris greatly reduced the possibilities for learning much from “the Pile.” In a delightful irony, visitors who were threatened with arrest for taking photos were told “it’s a crime scene”—this was the bogus pretext for banning photos and videos (AP 9/27/01).
Wreckage from the World Trade Center (WTC) was rapidly destroyed. Less than two weeks after the attacks, the City accepted a proposal to recycle the steel from the collapsed buildings. The overwhelming majority of it was quickly cut up, shipped off, or melted down without proper documentation or forensic analysis, in violation of federal law (NYT 12/25/01). Most of the steel was quite literally on a slow boat to China. Although the steel was deemed of no use to investigators, it was considered important enough to equip all trucks hauling it with GPS locaters, at a cost of $1000 apiece, so its location could always be known (http://www.securitysolutions.com/mag/security_gps_job_massive/index.html).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) investigators of the WTC collapses had no subpoena power and little funding. They were prevented from interviewing some witnesses and severely limited in examining the disaster site, restricted from it except for what was basically a walk-through tour. Detailed blueprints of the Twin Towers were withheld not only from FEMA but also from the public, even though the buildings were constructed with public funds (NYT 12/25/01). Under threat of dismissal, FEMA investigators were told not to talk to the press. The disturbance of the site, the lack of access to it, the dearth of steel samples to study, and the intimidation all compromised FEMA’s investigation. Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering Magazine, called it “a half-baked farce” (Fire Engineering 1/02).
Forensic Evidence from Flights Also Withheld for Many Years
Government accounts for both the flight data and cockpit voice recorders have involved ongoing suppression—and are highly suspect. The FBI and later the 9/11 Commission claimed that not one of the four “black boxes” from Flights 11 and 175 was ever found in the World Trade Center rubble. Whereas the government line has been that all four boxes were destroyed, industry experts have pointed out that they are designed to be “nearly indestructible” (ABC 9/17/01). As one National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) spokesman remarked, “it’s extremely rare that we don’t get those recorders back. I can’t recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders” (CBS 2/23/02). The chances of all four recorders being destroyed are miniscule.
Although the Official Story claimed the “black boxes” from the planes that struck the Towers were never recovered, two men who worked extensively in the WTC wreckage reported that they’d helped federal agents locate the boxes—and that the agents immediately carted them off, never to be seen or heard since (Philadelphia Daily 10/28/04).
Similar cloaks of secrecy have surrounded the cockpit voice recorders which were recovered. In the case of Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the Commission claimed that the cockpit voice recorder was too badly burned to provide useful data (Report p. 456). In the case of Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, the FBI recovered the tape but initially refused to release it. After intense pressure from victims’ families, the FBI finally agreed to play the cockpit voice recorder tape but only for these relatives, who were not to divulge what they’d heard. No recordings could be made by the listeners; wireless headphones were used so the audio signal couldn't be intercepted (Pittsburgh Post Gazette 4/21/02). In 2006, the tape was also played at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui but, though transcripts became available, the Justice Department prevented the original audio from becoming part of the public record (District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia7/31/06).
What were the Feds trying to hide?
“Building What?”
To this day, a great many people don’t knew that WTC Building 7, a 47-story, steel-framed skyscraper, also came down on 9/11. Though a plane never hit the building, it mysteriously disintegrated, dropping symmetrically into its footprint at near free-fall speed. Though networks did initially report the building’s fall (CBS 9/11/01), they’ve almost never shown the video footage again.
For years, then, the fall of WTC-7 has been virtually blacked out by the mainstream media. New York Times reporter James Glanz characterized the building’s disintegration as “a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world” (NYT 11/29/01), but neither Glanz nor the Times has given WTC-7 much of any coverage. Neither the FEMA nor the NIST Report gave a plausible scientific explanation for how the small fires in the building could have made it fall down. In fact, NIST deliberately failed to consider troubling evidence such as “the Swiss cheese steel,” whose extreme deformation implied far higher temperatures than were possible without explosives. And the Commission’s Report didn’t even mention the unprecedented fall of WTC-7. This systematic suppression meant that—fully eight years after the attacks—a New York judge would ask “Building what?” when someone mentioned WTC-7 in his courtroom (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20100527162010811).
The Three-Stage Suppression of Military Intelligence
In 1999 and 2000, using “data mining” techniques, the Pentagon’s Project Able Danger amassed a huge amount of data on key al Qaeda operatives, including several of the alleged hijackers. However, in 2000 the Defense Intelligence Agency destroyed the program’s most relevant documentation (Government Executive 9/21/05). According to one of the officers, the deletions included “an immense amount of data for analysis that allowed us to map al Qaeda as a worldwide threat with a surprising presence within the United States” (NYT 9/22/05). They included a truly vast number of documents—about 2.5 terabytes, equal to one-fourth of the print holdings in the Library of Congress (Associated Press 9/15/2005).
In 2003, as the 9/11 Commission began to investigate the attacks, several former members of Able Danger came forth to state that, over a year before the attacks, their military intelligence unit had identified four of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. These included “ringleader” Mohamed Atta. But the Commission wasn’t interested; although the officers all recalled that Atta was identified on a chart they’d prepared, the Commission deemed their reports to be unreliable and continued to claim that no one in government knew who Atta was before the attacks (Kean-Hamilton Statement 8/12/05).
In 2005, after word of the Commission’s blockage of Able Danger’s findings emerged, the Pentagon also tried to block disclosure. And on at least three occasions Department of Defense lawyers blocked officers from the unit from sharing their information with the FBI (NYT 8/9/05). The day before hearings were scheduled in Congress, the Defense Department ordered the former members of Able Danger not to testify (UPI 9/21/05). After additional pressure from Congress, the three prominent witnesses were finally allowed to testify (Sacramento Bee 11/24/05 & 2/15/06). In his brief testimony, Able Danger member Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer affirmed under oath that he’d personally informed the Commission’s Executive Director Philip Zelikow of the intelligence findings (C-SPAN 2/14/06). Still, Able Danger wasn’t even mentioned in the Commission’s Report.
Even if Congress had wanted full disclosure, that would have been impossible because the Defense Intelligence Agency had already deleted the preponderance of the evidence. Thus a key question has to arise: What was so “sensitive” about the Able Danger findings that the Agency would dump them, the Commission would block consideration of them, and the Pentagon would attempt to keep the officers in charge of the program from disclosing some of them?
When evidence is systematically suppressed or destroyed, it’s always important to ask questions:
• Who is doing this?
• What are they most interested in covering up?
• Why are these areas so sensitive?
• What do these sensitive areas imply about what really went on?
One of the principles guiding selection of areas of focus for Mounting Evidence is simple: if “they” want don’t want us to know about something, that makes the rest of us all the more interested.
Sources: Much of this information derives from a short document posted at the 911Truth website (http://www.sf911truth.org/flyer2.pdf) and much of this information was compiled from The Complete 9/11 Timeline at the History Commons (http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project).
Back to Other Writings
