Some Action - Governor Kean confronted in Massachusetts 2-5-2007

From Paul Deslauriers;

9/11 Truth Community

Re: Kean event on 2/5 in Great Barrington

Thank you to all the participants in the Kean event. This was a team effort and it showed from all those who participated from our Berkshire group and the community hub leaders from Boston, North Hampton and Kean.

Many positives and lessons learned throughout this time of collaboration and community response. Our next Berkshire community hub meeting will include discussing what worked, our lessons, and how to improve. Here are some verbal snapshots.

1. Before Gov. Kean’s talk a group of about 20 meditated in the corridor, sending Light to all in the auditorium including Gov. Kean. When we finished, to my amazement, Gov. Kean actually walked into the center of our circle. He was charming and friendly, many of us in the 9/11 movement shook his hand and asked questions. Much to his credit he made himself accessible. In a way it was very satisfying to speak the truth to him (although his responses were evasive). Many in our circle had a chance to interact as he spent about ten minutes amongst us.

2. The 115 omission posters from our brothers and sisters in Boston made a great statement and captured interest. Our display in the corridor after the talk involved twenty of us holding the posters as some 500 people walked out of the auditorium, it was very effective. Then again at the reception we lined a wall holding them. Many people read some of the omissions and asked questions.

3. The large 6’x9’ sign of the Censored 9/11 Commission Report at the entrance to the school made a bold statement that caught people’s eyes. Thanks Jason and Rich from the Boston group.

4. 200 Press for Truth DVDs and handouts was orchestrated by Fred, produced by Steve. They were strategically distributed when people picked up tickets weeks earlier, thanks to Frank, Ted, and Alan. We also got material to everyone who entered the auditorium thanks to Renzo who got approval to distribute there.

5. I was scheduled to teach the Monument Mountain High School seniors who were to meet with Gov. Kean for questions. I worked with Ethan from the Boston hub to produce a great 30 min. spot that is suitable for high school, college, or community TV station. On the flip side of this effort the night before I was to give the classes I got a call to cancel them. The reason the teacher gave me was that he “would lose the liberties he now enjoys in his class.”

6. During Gov. Kean’s talk when he was discussing “Loose Change” and said, “There was no evidence of controlled demolition” I could not let that lie resonate in the auditorium, something compelled me to confront it. So I stood in front of his podium, made several statements, and walked out. It did change the atmosphere with hissing and booing for Kean afterward. I realize my behavior may have offended people. At the cafeteria I met Gov. Kean at the tail end of the reception line and said to him, “I sincerely want to apologize for being disruptive, it was not you personally but I had to make a statement.” He grabbed my hand and firmly shook it, looked me in the eyes and said, “Every man has the right to express what is truly in his heart.” He seemed to really mean it. His graciousness expanded my heart, so I responded with a loving energy still looking him in the eyes and said, “In my heart of hearts I believe 9/11 was an inside job and the 9/11 Commission Report is a cover up.” His jaw dropped, his hand fell from mine and one of those guys with the wired ear plug said, “He needs to catch a flight” and hurried him away.

Let’s keep moving in the Light of truth.

Paul Deslauriers

You can reach Paul via email;

keep up the pressure

and it's "Massachusetts" with two t's


Good Work

Good work people.

Another perspective .

Thank you Paul, and all who helped put this together. There are people from all walks of life working hard on 9/11 Truth. Obviously everyone has their own way. So please take the following with all due respect:

I was in that circle just before the "show" started at 7pm. My perspective is somewhat different. Here you have one of two bigwigs from the 9/11 commission who were hand-picked to cover up the crime of 9/11, the least of which resulted in 3,000 some odd deaths. I say "the least of which" because the wars that have followed have completely destroyed two entire countries, killed 1,000,000 some odd people, paved the way for the destruction of whatever civil liberties that were left here in the USA, with still more wars to come. So one of histories biggest accomplices to mass murder, Thomas Kean, approaches
a group of 9/11 Truthers, and we are to give him credit? These people are not genuine and sincere, but TACTICAL. He also had two of his thugs right by his side. It took no courage whatsoever for this secret service protected filth to come talk to us. I feel no love whatsoever for Thomas Kean. My tears, love, heart, soul, go to the surviving family members and loved ones in Iraq, Afhganistan, (and all the Iranians who are about to be slaughtered), and of-course all the people who have been coerced into fighting and dying, for wars justified by the false flag attack that was Sept 11 2001, whitewashed by Zelikow and Kean.

Rest assured the decision by Kean to come speak to us had nothing to do with any genuine "reaching out" or sincerity, or meaningfull communication. He simply wants to know who his enemies are. Think about it: If 9/11 Truthers have any real success, Keane and company will be put away for life!

Mike Casner
Cheshire County911truth

Politicians in most cases

Politicians in most cases are pathological liars. I would go so far as to call them high-functioning psychopaths. As you said, they are tactical and they do not exhibit care for others.

Jail for life is too lenient. They're a threat to humanity. Try them and execute the guilty.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

yeah, sure...

Let's execute those who use deception and murder to show to the whole world that deception and murder is wrong. That sure makes a lot of sense.

Personally, I am opposed to the capital punishment but my view of the measure aside - don't you think that it is not for you or me but for the court of law to decide which defendant should get what punishment, if any? And one more thing - life in prison, in my opinion, is far more severe than the execution.

Boris Epstein

hang 'em all

Mass public hanging. Mass murderers need to go.


Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

I'm with you Casner. Paul gives Kean far too much credit.

I don't see anything good about Kean lying to people's faces about 9/11. Kean & Lee Hamilton are both guilty as accessories after-the-fact, and of treason! They are severe criminals!

Also, does Paul really consider the 200 copies of Press for Truth to be the best video to give out to newbies? How about a video more to the point that 9/11 was an inside job? PFT mostly shows the Bush regime lying to cover their failures & incompetence. After 5+ years, we need less mincing of words, and must directly accuse these barbarians of having perpetrated 9/11.

really consider the 200

really consider the 200 copies of Press for Truth to be the best video to give out to newbies?

I think Loose Change is the best video to show people. Even if it says a few things that are hard to defend, it's a compelling and interesting video. People like it, and it gets them thinking. It gives a full narrative of how it could've happened. You could show 9/11 Mysteries, but then it leaves a ton of questions without explanations. For instance, the UBL videos. You need a video that addresses both CD and the WoT.

9/11 PFT

Is not a bad precursor video to give to those not yet aware of the factual reality of 9/11.
Because by now if they are not aware, or have resisted what they have heard due to severe cognitive dissonance then what is needed is a low impact, professionally done video that at least opens their eyes to the basic facts. PFT does this.
Even if people adhere to LIHOP at first that at least opens the door to MIHOP and even if they decide to not step through that door LIHOP IS STILL HIGH TREASON.
Breaking through that insanely thick wall of cognitive dissonance & MSM brainwashing of Bush's 30% base consisting mainly of Delusional Fundamentalist Psychotic nutbags is going to be virtually impossible.

Be exactly the same as trying to talk sense into some Young Earth Creationist lunatic.
Facts do not matter to these people at all, so no amount of hard tangible irrefutable fact is going to make any difference whatsoever.

I am fully convinced that at least 20-25% of the US population are so brainwashed by the fear tactics used by these Neofascist that NOTHING Bush does will make any difference to them.
Bush today could call for the total destruction of the entire middle east, out right Nuclear genocide of 300 Million + innocent people and as long as Israel is left mostly intact then that 20-25% of our population would actually see a silver lining in that mushroom cloud.

Most would see it as a sure sign of the 2nd coming of their little invisible friend, some would see it as eradication of "The Enemy" and they will all back this pack of insane war criminals more than ever.

So we are only looking at a maximum of 75% of the population that have enough sense to be open to factual reality & truth.
I fully believe we have about 50% right now.

What will bring that last 25% on board faster than anything is HUGE protest and I don't mean like the 300-400,000 like we have had several times the past few years, I mean MILLIONS!
I think a good place would be in front of GMA in Times Square during their live broadcast.
Watch them try to ignore 2,3,4+ MILLION people yelling 9/11 was an Inside Job.

There should be easily that many in NYC alone that should be willing to join in the largest protest in human history.
Several million in NYC "should" be easy.

9/11 Press For Truth on Link TV beginning Feb 10

Just a reminder and for those who have missed this previously. 9/11 Press For Truth will be shown a total of 15 times between Feb 10 and Mar 10 on Link TV.

Part 1 of this Link TV special hosted by Peter Coyote features 9/11 Press for Truth, a powerful documentary about a small group of grieving families who waged a tenacious battle against those who sought to bury the truth about 9/11. Six of them for the first time the powerful story of how they took on the greatest powers in Washington — and won! — compelling an investigation, only to subsequently watch the 9/11 Commission fail in answering most of their questions.

The exact schedule and further information is available at:



The odd thing is how many must have participated, Dems, Repubs, appointees, careerists. But they did, no doubt there. It must have started many years back. A decade and more, perhaps.

How would we the people ever clean so much up? Where to start, and who could manage it? The burden, and contradictions too, in the court system would/will be mind-boggling. Overwhelming in fact. Where will we find leadership to deal with this?

It reminds me of how big a job it must have been to re-create Germany after WWII.

Nice work

I'ts great you got to tell him how your 'hearts of hearts' is thinking. They need to know that we know, the lie.

LIHOP / MIHOP is a false distinction...

When you think about it, because we KNOW that our intelligence agencies created the Al Qaeda mujihadeen, and that they used them to create crisees as a pretext for intervention in Bosnia, Serbia and Macedonia. We also know that there were an abundance of warnings that we were "creating a Frankentstein" (from Pakistan's prime minister) that went unheeded.

So really it's not a question of "Let it happen" or "Made it happen", but a question of whether they "made it happen" by direct action, or "made it happen" by creating, fomenting and then facilitating the Islamic radicals.

It really becomes almost a trivial disctinction at some point. The distinction may have make a difference in how you approach the war on terror, but in terms of the culpability for 9/11 the distiction is trivial.

This is a very good point.

This is a very good point. It is also implossible to "let" this happen. Once the decision goes to "let" it happen, plans must then be made to make sure it doesn't fail. jetliners have to hit the buildings in order for subsequent stages of the plan to be possible. Therefore Swmorgan77 is correct, and the distinction between "let" and "made" is erased. However the two groups arguing over this does have the effect of wasting our energy over meaningless drivel, (direct harshness not deliberate).

Mike Casner
Cheshire County911truth

NOT a trivial distinction

I'm tired of people making this claim. The distinction between LIHOP and MIHOP is NOT trivial. Yes, LIHOP is sufficient to constitute high treason, yet it still leaves in place an organization of Muslim extremists plotting on their own to murder thousands on a single morning on U.S. soil, as part of some global jihad. To the many Americans who have been terrorized from that day forward, and thus susceptible to manipulation by the government and its media propagandists--sure, they would feel outrage should they come to believe that elements in the government purposely let the attacks happen; but their perception of the ultimate perpetrators of the attacks would remain unchanged--foreign Muslims--and thus the underlying basis for the whole 'Global War on Terror,' 'clash of civilizations,' yadda yadda yadda would remain essentially in place, ever ready to be exploited by politicians (and the ones who wish to continue exploiting it go well beyond Bush and Cheney). Talk to them all you want about 'blowback' and 'Frankenstein's monsters'--they've heard plenty of those arguments already, and it's not likely to change their sense of dread of the threat that was supposedly manifested on 9/11, and their basic view of the nature of that threat as something which requires continuous military countermeasures.

So please, next time anyone here is about to claim that the LIHOP/MIHOP distinction is insignificant, bear all of this in mind. I like to think that the ultimate purpose of the 9/11 truth movement is to expose the fraud not merely of the official account of the events of that day, but of all that that account has been used to justifiy since--the 'Global War on Terror', attacks on the constitution, etc. How much will we have gained if, after managing to persuade a majority that attacks by foreign Muslims were purposely allowed to occur by elements within the government, who are then accordingly held accountable, the collective response is, 'Now that we've gotten these traitors of the way, we're finally all set to really go after al Qaeda!' In short, MIHOP--almost by definition--calls attention to the strings which pull those who have been designated 'al Qaeda,' while LIHOP doesn't.


The title of this blog refers to "Confronted". Sounds like to me. All that happened was nose rubbing when you folks had a chance for direct confrontation. Am I wrong here?
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

115 Omissions

This is David Ray Griffin's "115 Omissions." Is this what you had on your poster?

I have not checked this list for accuracy/inaccuracy:

D.R.G. says:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at--

Great Report of a solid Activism event.

He has been making a lot of money with his book and tour. You have to give him credit though. He isn't ducking and won't retract his signature either.

He is also the reason that his son Tom Kean, Jr had to run his Republican Party campaign for Senator in New Jersey in the last election as an "Independent Reformer". I am an Independent voter and was insulted by his claim. He should start his reforming with his own family.

It's the rich, spoiled brats who inherited the money, connections and power are destroying our government. I haven't met one yet who has any common sense. They graduate college because of who they are, not because they know anything.

All you have to do is look at our president to prove that theory.