Lt. Col. Shaffer Accuses Former CIA Dir. Tenet
The 9/11 catastrophe had seemed to take the path of many other national mysteries like JFK’s assassination, but now Lt. Col. Shaffer accuses Former CIA Dir. Tenet for blocking the military’s efforts to stop 9/11 terrorists.
Many books, documentaries and Internet videos clearly present the unresolved issues about the 9/11 attack. The official report says one thing while clear observation and science tells a different story entirely. At least this topic might serve as a good background for a thriller.
Yet now more secrets climb out of the darkness.(1) Just yesterday, a news-breaking report indicates that a line of high level government officials continue to reveal more evidence. Among many other whistle-blowers, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer now accuses former CIA Director George Tenet for taking some part in the 9/11 attacks as well as duping federal investigators.
Once the Judicial Watch successfully forced the DOD to declassify the Able Danger documents in late 2011 through a FOIA lawsuit, Shaffer is now able to disclose more information about how the CIA played a role in hindering the military’s efforts against terrorist plots.
In mid-2005, a year after the 9/11 Commission, Congressman Curt Weldon delivered a special speech in Congress about how the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) blocked the military and the FBI from using important information garnered from the Able Danger, a sophisticated program to track down terrorists. Once Weldon’s colleagues began to attack Weldon’s credibility, five Pentagon whistleblowers backed up his statements. The DIA also lifted Shaffer’s security clearance and even remove his pay and healthcare benefits. Weldon requested an investigation into this “problem” as he called it. And without an investigation, no one would discover exactly why top-level managers in the DIA did not want to use any of this highly useful information to prevent the 9/11 attacks.
The question remains, though, when will our officials carry out serious, unbiased investigations? As time goes on, we learn more details that contradict the official narrative.
Various credible people and organizations have investigated this catastrophe and discovered evidence totally contrary to the Bush Administration’s official investigation, The 9/11 Commission Report.
This controversy has become so frustrating and contentious that many Americans are exhausted and disappointed about not getting answers from elected officials. Some of the best documentaries on this event, 9/11: Press for Truth covers many of the questions and suggests some answers.
A handful of Bush cronies produced the unsatisfying “official investigation” of 9/11. Several public intellectuals, such as Gore Vidal, questioned if 9/11 were an inside job. Governor Jesse Ventura, in his TV series, Conspiracy Theory, found many holes in the official investigation.
Governor Ventura interviewed several eye-witnesses and learned how G. W. Bush’s friends at the CIA and elsewhere had classified many pieces of evidence–such as the aircraft black boxes–that might reveal new facts about the 9/11 event. It appears that G. W. Bush’s account of the catastrophe might also be just another set of lies, an official Conspiracy Theory from the White House, like the various justifications to bomb Iraq. A red flag arises now as the government withholds important evidence.
A Majority Demanded the Truth
We so easily forget how a majority of Americans demanded the truth about 9/11.
The polls show that a majority of Americans believe that 9/11 is an inside job. The lowest rates are in the 50% range. A collection of polls from Zogby, Scrips, Time Magazine, MSNBC, Scientists for 9/11 Justice, and other organizations show that Americans believe at the polling rates of over 60% and 80% that 9/11 was a set-up.
The view of these authentic witnesses agree that the World Trade Center buildings were demolished in a controlled and prepared manner. Some of the best presentations of these views are detailed in the videos produced by the independent organizations like 9/11 Consequences and also Zero: The Investigation into 9/11 among others.
Some of these documentary videos are less than an hour. Others are two or three-hour documentaries on YouTube.
Every American should watch one of these at least as a new perspective on the 9/11 attack. If you don’t have the time to watch any of videos, the text below serves as a skeleton summary, based on several investigative documentaries. However, these documentaries are thorough and include detailed testimonies from eye witnesses as well as expert, scientists.
Chomsky Weighs in
A highly respected public intellectual, Noam Chomsky says, in paraphrased form here: ‘G. W. Bush and his cabinet do not care about terrorist attacks. Bush and his cabinet would have to be insane to plan and execute such a horrible plot. There would be leaks from insiders. Also there would be scientists who examine the evidence to reveal the truth in scholarly journals.’ Chomsky’s criteria about uncovering the facts about 9/11 have surfaced. Chomsky seems to dance around the topic as if he were worried about losing credibility by speaking frankly.
Well, Chomsky’s criteria for an inside plot has come to light. Insider whistle-blowers like Susan Lindauer, Tony Farrell, Annie Macho, Sibel Edmonds, and others have leaked insights and hidden facts. There are also many scientists, architects, and engineers, like Dr. Steven Jones, who have testified in documentaries and written articles for science journals about many aspects of the 9/11 catastrophe, such as the highly suspicious way the buildings collapsed so swiftly and neatly.
The Bush Strongbox
Officials close to the Bush Administration try to discredit the facts that other independent organizations have discovered and presented from out of the secrets and darkness. Those close to the Bush Administration—mostly a group of neo-conservatives—consider any other perspective as a conspiracy theory. They strongly attack any independent analysis of the evidence.
Friends of the Bush Administration established a tightly packaged case of their official story—The 9/11 Commission Report. A longtime friend of the Bush family, Phillip Zelikow micromanaged The 9/11 Commission Report so much so that many officials in D.C. and others call it the Omission Report.
No matter how you understand the 9/11 attack, it was a carefully planned catastrophe.
PNAC Strategic Plans
Was it a coincidence that the neoconservative cabal created the PNAC, the Project for a New American Century? Was it a coincidence that they had laid out a plan to dominate areas of the world? Rove, Rumsfeld, Bush, Libby, Cheney, Kristol, Kagan, and many others are members of PNAC. Three years before 9/11/2001, they had already written and published an extremely right-wing manifesto to take control of the world. Did these elected officials and industry leaders ask the American people if we wanted to expand our empire into the oil rich Eurasia? Empires are costly. The American empire is now growing at the cost of domestic development.
In his book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski contributes as one of the main architects of the PNAC’s plans. One of the first steps in this project consists of paving the path for occupying Iraq. In order to justify this aggressive invasion, the PNAC needed a massive catastrophe. Despite a 70% majority public opinion that the U.S. should follow the UN leadership and resolutions, the Bush/Cheney cabinet pushed to attack Iraq urgently and immediately after 9/11.
A false-flag attack on the U.S. would create some popular consensus for the military invasion. This approach to gain public opinion to wage war has worked in several other U.S. wars. The Bay of Tonkin incidence serves as only one of many such well known examples.
The neocons were driven to implement their PNAC goals as expressed in their manifesto: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Was it a coincidence that the Twin Towers and Building 7 appeared to be a terrorist attack—like a new Pearl Harbor? Or like the Bay of Tonkin incident to justify the war in Vietnam? By carrying out such a horrible plot, most people would find it possible. The very boldness of the idea makes it unthinkable.
Follow the Money Trails:
Insurance Claims Recently Setup before 9/11
Was it a coincidence that the World Trade Towers and Building 7 were demolished or “pulled” down in a free-fall by thermate explosives on each floor in a timed sequence after the planes had hit the two towers? Firefighters in the buildings heard large explosions in sequence and on sequenced floors. Videos also show explosions on each floor.
Was it a coincidence that Larry Silverstein increased the “terrorists attacks” insurance only a few months before the event? It was Silverstein who used the phrase “pulled” when journalists asked him about how Building 7 was destroyed. The word “pulled” in this context, is a trade term for controlled demolition. No plane, no significant debris or fire hit Building 7, nevertheless it fell exactly as any other demolition.
The WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, as the other towers, were not generating enough leasing income to cover the costs. Maintenance and other liabilities, such as the asbestos inside the buildings added another large financial burden on Larry Silverstein. Many offices stood vacant.
In the Spring of 2001, not long before 9/11, Silverstein had arranged to add extensive insurance policies on the WTC Towers and Building 7, including insurance for any acts of terrorism. The insurance and lease agreements include Silverstein’s right to rebuild the buildings if they were demolished.
After the destruction of the towers, Silverstein earned several billions of dollars from insurance claims. His original investment was $15 Million. No airplane or any other significant debris had struck Silverstein’s Building 7, yet it collapsed in a free-fall manner and in the same time (6.5 seconds) as a controlled demolition, complete with a “classic crimp” or wedge that blows a seam in the building’s midsection so that it falls perfectly in its own footprint rather than falling outward onto neighboring buildings. The same type of “controlled demolition” occurred in the other WTC buildings.
Controlled Demolition of the Towers
Many witnesses have reported that unidentified maintenance men had been working extensively on the buildings for more than a month before 9/11. Were they setting up a demolition (with thermate)?
The official report claims that the jet fuel caused the extreme heat required to melt the steel beams. However, engineers and other experts from around the world say this official report is not plausible. With a maximum of 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit, jet fuel does not generate enough heat to cut or melt the steel beams. However elements of thermate was present in the Twin Towers, in the dust, in the smoke. Los Alamos scientists developed thermate, a concoction made to melt thick steel at degrees of heat far beyond temperatures generated by jet fuel—more than 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Compared to thermite, thermate reaches extremely high heat quickly and it generates a huge amount of gray clouds like those during collapse of the Twin Towers. Steel melts at 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit. Thermate has a unique ability to heat quickly to over 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Nothing else could have melted the steel beams in the Twin Towers.
Six weeks after 9/11, molten, liquid steel was found beneath the rubble of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. Many of the supporting beams in the Towers were cut—melted—diagonally exactly as in any other controlled demolition.
In the case of Building 7, there was no jet fuel to cause the demolition. But Building 7 housed the CIA and FBI among other organizations.
Was it a consequence that demolishing Building 7 destroyed piles of criminal evidence regarding all sorts of corporate fraud cases, such as Enron, WorldCom and others of this ilk?
Was it a coincidence that these types of steel-beam buildings had never collapsed in a demolition style before in the more than hundred-year history of this type of this construction? Experts recognize that these buildings were set up as a controlled demolition with a free-fall into each building’s footprint.
No Boeing Jet Struck the Pentagon
The Pentagon has the largest network of surveillance of most any building on earth. Yet the Pentagon officials will not release any video footage to confirm what exploded part of the Pentagon. The amateur videos made by civilian bystanders show no airplane at all, least of all a Boeing 747. Not a single piece of any airplane appears in the rubble. The holes left in the wall of the Pentagon are far too small (16 feet in diameter) to be caused by a Boeing 747 which has a diameter of more than four times the actual hole in the wall. The most likely cause of the explosion is some sort of missile.
Stand-Down Command on 9/11
On 9/11/2001, NORAD was already on day two of a week-long terrorist prevention exercise, called Vigilant Guardian. This exercise was a simulation of a real terrorist attack on the Twin Towers, including the use of hijacked commercial airliners.
At the time, Dick Cheney took sole command of NORAD. This was the first time in U.S. history that a president or vice president took control of the Air Force or an agency like NORAD.
Generals always had the authority to shoot down any hijacked or menacing aircraft, except on 9/11 and for the previous three months. Generals were not allowed authority to shoot down any aircraft during that period. Coincidence?
For two years before 9/11, NORAD had been carrying out exercises to deal with scenarios identical to the 9/11 attack. This contradicts what Bush and his cabinet members had said, “No one ever imagined such a terrorist attack by the use of planes.”
With a guilty demeanor, G. W. Bush said, “No one envisioned anyone flying airplanes into buildings.” Bush also mentioned in passing and seemingly in the slip of his tongue—on CNN TV, Sept. 15, 2006—that explosives were planted in the WTC buildings.
All fighter jets were ordered far afield from the real 9/11 attack. Only 15 fighter jets were left at Andrews Air Force Base, near the Pentagon. But these planes were ordered to fly long only after the Pentagon was struck.
Hours lapsed between the time the WTC buildings were hit and when the Pentagon was hit by something—a Boeing commercial airline according to the official story. This is a staggering lack of any Air Force intervention while Cheney was in a unique moment of commanding the Air Force.
The Congressional Investigation on 9/11
The Bush Administration had made every effort to avoid any investigation into the 9/11 catastrophe. Once the Congressional investigation did start, Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath. Instead Bush and Cheney agreed to discuss casually the event only together and not separately. Obviously, they were concerned of providing any differing accounts of the events.
Bush and Cheney attempted to appoint Kissinger to lead the Congressional investigation. Once the family members of 9/11 posed tough questions regarding Kissinger’s clients in the Middle East, he bowed out from any involvement in the investigation.
Former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean and former Congressman Lee Hamilton then took a lead in the investigation, while Phillip Zelikow took the executive lead. All three men were Republicans with longtime collaboration with the Bush I and the Bush II Administrations. This created a leadership in the Congressional investigation that was not in any way independent or unbiased. Zelikow had authority to decide which areas were worthy or not of any inquiry.
In other words, the Congressional Commission to investigate the 9/11 event was a complete hoax. Harper’s Magazine called it a “white wash.”
Zelikow made sure that the FBI, CIA, the Pentagon, and the Justice Department were not investigated. Zelikow’s loyalties remain with the Bush Dynasty. For this reason, the investigation was made by and for the interest of Bush and his cabinet and not for the Congress or any other branch. The Commission members were free to write their own story, their own conspiracy theory.
Who Benefits from the 9/11 Attack?
Osama bin Laden gained no benefit by the 9/11 attack. On Sept. 16, 2001, Osama bin Laden had said he had nothing to do with the attack. He was in need of medical care. In the Summer of 2001, he was treated in an American Hospital in Dubai, and around that time CIA agents had spent time with him in talks. He was a fugitive after 9/11, his life only became tougher as his stay in Afghanistan became more difficult. Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset since the 1980s. The CIA used al Qaeda members as field agents in the U.S.A. as well as in Eurasia.
Sadam Hussein gained no benefit from 9/11. He was accused of producing WMDs and of participating in Al Qaeda—an organization created by the CIA to fight the Soviet invasion. No one ever found any link between Sadam Hussein and al Qeada.
The Money Trail: Larry Silverstein, on the other hand, would gain billions of dollars from the demolished WTC buildings, as mentioned above.
Dick Cheney continues to benefit from the invasion of Iraq. As a shareholder in Halliburton, Cheney receives over a million dollars a year in dividends as Halliburton’s business drastically increases from war and restoration revenues.
The Defense Contractors benefit greatly from the wars as the demand for weapons only increases.
The Bush family has large investments in the Carlyle Group, a defense contractor brokerage. The Bush family has had business relationships, partnerships with the Saudi Monarchy for decades. Saudi princes have funded several businesses for the Bush family. The Saudi Monarch had no love for the Hussein regime.
American oil companies benefit greatly as the U.S. military occupies the strategic areas in Eurasia. The military provides safe access to the oil reserves in the region for the American oil companies which had planned to build oil pipelines through Afghanistan before 9/11.
Defense contractors, the Bush family, Cheney, and American oil companies gain huge amounts of money for the invasion of Eurasia. The 9/11 attack served as a spring board, justifying the new and highly lucrative wars. And all this while current alternative sources of energy are available to replace the need for petroleum (solar, wind, wave, geothermal).
The extreme right-wing in the U.S. Government benefits from the specter of terrorism. It allows the neo-conservatives in particularly to expand their PNAC goals to control foreign countries as well as the domestic control over the U.S. citizens as they limit civil and constitutional rights by such new laws as the Patriot Act and the NDAA.
People working in the secret services in Germany, England, in Saudi Arabia, in Israel, and in the U.S.A. and others, bought “put options” on American Airlines and United Airlines only a few days before 9/11. A put option means that someone can make a profit by buying a bet on a company’s stock value when it decreases. More than four thousand put options were made days before 9/11, while only about 700 “call options” were made in that time period. This only reveals that a number of people near or in the secret services agencies of certain countries had inside knowledge about the turn of events before 9/11.
What Happened to the Planes and Hijackers?
American Airline, Boeing 757, flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon according to the official report. But there is no debris of any airplane crash. No pieces of any Boeing commercial aircrafts were present anywhere. The hole in the side of the Pentagon was approximately 16 feet wide. A Boeing commercial aircraft is at least 100 feet in width.
The FBI confiscated some 86 videos of the area. Only after a subpoena, the FBI released 4 videos. No airplane appears in any of the videos provided to investigators and expert witnesses.
Expert witnesses state that it is possible, a fighter jet crashed into the Pentagon or, even more feasible, a missile. Whatever it was that crashed into the Pentagon could have been controlled via remote control like a drone or a missile.
According to many expert witnesses, the official explanation of the explosion at the Pentagon makes no sense at all.
Flight 93 Crashed in Pittsburgh
The official investigation claimed that Flight 93 crashed in a field in Shanksville, Pittsburgh where a whole in the ground was found but no airplane debris.
Two Flights Crash into the Twin Towers
The two planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175,that crashed into WTC1 and WTC2, could have been guided by GPS remote control, like drones. Technology to enable this type of flight was developed as early as 1984. In 2001, Raytheon Corporation had developed a refined and sophisticated remote control system for large commercial aircraft.
Many eyewitnesses and videos show that these planes were painted gray and without any commercial logos or identifications. Many witnesses on the videos say that the plans looked like military planes. There were also large black devices attached to the underbelly of the planes, clearly shown in the various videos available.
The Terrorist Hijackers
Three days after 9/11, the FBI Director Robert Mueller claims to know exactly the names of all 19 hijackers. In smaller, less complicated crash of commercial aircraft, the FBI has taken weeks to resolve the cause of crashes and any people involved.
Miraculously the passport of one of the hijackers was found on the street near the World Trade Center on 9/11. Somehow the passport slipped out of the terrorist’s pocket or travel bag only to survive the explosion and flames from the commercial airliner. Did the terrorist roll down a window in the aircraft and drop it out on the side walk below just before crashing?
The FBI claimed that the 19 hijackers were Islamist fundamentalists, and extremely puritan in their belief. Yet many witnesses had seen these men drinking heavily and acting up as if they wanted everyone to notice them. Witnesses said that the men used cocaine frequently.
The FBI claims that Mohammed Atta was the leader of the entire hijacking team. Nevertheless Mohammed Atta was on the FBI payroll for decades.
There are witnesses who saw Mohammed Atta and one of his hijacker partners, Ali Mari, drive from Boston to Portland, Maine, on 9/10 where they did everything they could do to make everyone notice them. There was an airport surveillance video of these hijackers presented all over the mainstream news. But the video is false—it was not a video from the Boston airport.
On 9/12/2001, Atta called his father and said he was alive and well.
Shortly after 9/27, Salam Alhasbi was found working in Saudi Arabia. The FBI claims that, like the other hijackers, Salam Alhasbi, was one of the 19 hijackers. Another 6 of the 19 hijackers were found in various countries in the Middle East. More than another 5 of the 19 hijackers were mercenaries on the CIA payroll. They were trained on various military bases in the U.S., but they were not trained to fly.
Months after 9/11, Former FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that there was no evidence to prove who the hijackers were. There was no evidence that the alleged 19 hijackers had any anything to do with the 9/11 catastrophe. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is “no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.”
1) Ex-Army Officer Accuses CIA of Obstructing Pre-9/11 Intelligence-Gathering, Truthout.com, Sunday, January 20, 2013. I did not create a link for this reference because the Website went down for some strange reason and for this particular article.
YouTube censored most parts of the video produced by 9/11.