Response to 9/11 Commission staff member Miles Kara

Dear Mr. Kara,

Thank you for your “Open Letter to the 9-11 Working Group of Bloomington.” As a member of that group, I’m glad to see you express interest in our work and I appreciate your invitation to further discuss the 9/11 Commission report in a public forum. It’s unfortunate that you’re not willing to engage in Q&A, however, as the questions are many and, to this day, the answers are very few. It is also unfortunate that you are not willing to debate the facts, because we would be happy to have you come to Bloomington for a public debate. But a dialogue of any sort is a welcome start.

For six years now, I’ve been focused on the work of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the ongoing independent investigation into what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC). The WTC reports finally generated by NIST have been shown to be dismally weak, highly inconsistent, and completely false. Frankly the NIST reports are a shameful excuse for science. Add to this the independent discovery of explosive residues in the WTC dust, which NIST did not test for or even consider, and we must suspect that a cover-up has been intended with regard the events of 9/11.

Although I have not had as much time to evaluate the 9/11 Commission report, my understanding is that it too is mostly, if not entirely, false. This is evident from the very start, where the report states its primary aim to “provide the fullest possible accounting of the events surrounding 9/11.” It is now widely known that many of the most important events of 9/11 were never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report at all, let alone presented in the fullest possible accounting. These complete omissions include the destruction of WTC building 7, the testimony of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony concerning the Vice President and the approach of Flight 77, the connections between al Qaeda and the Pakistani ISI, and many other examples. A number of the omissions and distortions in your report have been detailed by Dr. David Ray Griffin in an easy to reference book.

Considering these facts, our group’s excitement about your offer to collaborate with us is tempered by the suspicion that you might continue to engage in the same “exacting investigative work” that the Commission report attributes to you. For my own part, this suspicion is aggravated by your stated appreciation for Joel Hirschhorn, who you claim is “value added.” My experience with Hirschhorn, someone I’ve met and presented with, is that he does not strive for a “paradigm shift” by any means. In fact, he appears to promote a futile pandering to the status quo that would result in the 9/11 Truth movement becoming as useless as a concrete parachute. Worse yet, Hirschhorn was involved with misrepresenting an honest group of investigators and promoting a poorly considered draft bill for Congress that called for investigation of WTC theories that literally no one supports.

Therefore I’m not encouraged by your suggestion that we subscribe to a new three-part plan of action, which in fact is not new. There have been countless attempts at engaging corporate media sources in reporting the basic facts about 9/11, and most of those attempts have failed. There have also been a number of 9/11 lawsuits filed, and to date, all of those have been rejected before the evidence could be discovered or presented. Finally, there have been many attempts to reach Congress with the facts. The 9/11 Working Group has met with the staff of our own congressman, and also with our former congressman, 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton. Unlike you, Mr. Hamilton was not opposed to a new investigation, and he gave us a long list of excuses for why your 9/11 Commission investigation report was not sufficient.

We can no longer afford to ask our politicians and media to cure our corrupt system. It is the corporate media itself, and the corporate-funded politicians that maintain the corrupt system, and that are the problem. We must rebuild our media and our government, and the truth about 9/11 has the power to do just that. In doing so we will need to be aware, as you wrote, of “the frauds, opportunists, and paper millers who serve primarily as a major distraction.”

This brings me to John Farmer and his new book, which I agree does not intend to state that the 9/11 Commission report is completely false. To the contrary, although I have not read the book I understand from others that its approach is much the same as that of the Commission’s report. I learned this through attorney John Ekonomou, who wrote to Farmer a few weeks ago and later copied me on his message. Ekonomou purchased the Farmer book and was appalled at how quickly he realized that it was a “flat-out misrepresentation” of the facts.

But getting back to the struggle for truth, and your offer to help, we should see if there is common ground as you mentioned. You say that an event occurred on 9/11, and you call it a terrorist attack. Having met many of the Americans around the country who are alarmed by the lack of truth about 9/11, I can tell you that this appraisal is shared by almost all of them. We know it was a terrorist attack. What we don’t know is: Who were the terrorists?

You can help us continue building an honest answer to that question. As you’re no doubt aware from our website, our group has received a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses from government agencies. Some of those responses are enlightening, while others are not particularly useful due to the ongoing lack of transparency surrounding the events of 9/11, and the extreme redaction that is involved. But among the documents we received, we have noticed many facts that do not support your Commission’s report, and we’ve noticed a number of surprising things that should have been in your report but were not.

Starting out in a small way, let’s talk about “We have some planes.” Can you tell us where this phrase originated from, in terms of records made by air traffic controllers or others involved in the events of 9/11, and how you attributed it to the alleged hijackers? It is the title of one of the chapters of the 9/11 Commission report, and I believe you have taken credit for that analysis to some degree.

With a small step such as this, I think we might be able to begin working together for the benefit of all.


Kevin R. Ryan

Good write-up.

8:24 a.m. September 11, 2001: Boston Air Traffic Controllers Hear Flight 11 Hijacker Say, ‘We Have Some Planes,’ but Uncertain of Origin of Transmission

Because the talkback button on Flight 11 has been activated, Boston Center air traffic controllers can hear a hijacker on board say to the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you’ll be OK. We are returning to the airport.” [Boston Globe, 11/23/2001; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 19] Air traffic controller Pete Zalewski recognizes this as a foreign, Middle Eastern-sounding voice, but does not make out the specific words “we have some planes.” He responds, “Who’s trying to call me?” Seconds later, in the next transmission, the hijacker continues: “Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.” [New York Times, 10/16/2001; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; MSNBC, 9/9/2006] Bill Peacock, the FAA director of air traffic services, later claims, “We didn’t know where the transmission came from, what was said and who said it.” David Canoles, the FAA’s manager of air traffic evaluations and investigations, adds: “The broadcast wasn’t attributed to a flight. Nobody gave a flight number.” [Washington Times, 9/11/2002] Similarly, an early FAA report will state that both these transmissions came from “an unknown origin.” [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/17/2001] Zalewski asks for an assistant to help listen to the transmissions coming from the plane, and puts its frequency on speakers so others at Boston Center can hear. Because Zalewski didn’t understand the initial hijacker communication from Flight 11, the manager of Boston Center instructs the center’s quality assurance specialist to “pull the tape” of the transmission, listen to it carefully, and then report back. They do this, and by about 9:03 a.m. a Boston manager will report having deciphered what was said in the first hijacker transmission (see 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; MSNBC, 9/9/2006] Fellow Boston controller Don Jeffroy also hears the tape of the hijacker transmissions, though he doesn’t state at what time. He says: “I heard exactly what Pete [Zalewski] heard. And we had to actually listen to it a couple of times just to make sure that we were hearing what we heard.” [MSNBC, 9/11/2002] At some point, Ben Sliney, the national operations manager at the FAA’s Herndon Command Center, gets word of the “We have some planes” message, and later says the phrase haunts him all morning. American Airlines Executive Vice President for Operations Gerard Arpey is also informed of the “strange transmissions from Flight 11” at some point prior to when it crashes at 8:46 a.m. [USA Today, 8/13/2002] Boston Center will receive a third transmission from Flight 11 about ten minutes later (see (8:34 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to...

...establish the origin of the above noted radio transmission...OR...any other radio transmission that have been "associated with" Arabic hijackers onboard the various airliners. ANY attachment of ANY of the radio transmissions to ANY specific absolute and total speculation.

The only way that such transmissions can be confirmed as coming from a specific aircraft is IF the specific aircraft has a CVR...Cockpit Voice Recorder...that is in good operating condition and has enough "memory" prior to the CVR overiding its earlier recordings...and of course, that it has been recovered and is authentic to the original aircraft invloved.

I seem to remember that it may have been a total memory time of 30 minutes in a loop and then the previous recordings are overwritten by the new recordings as time elapsed. The thinking is that should an aircraft crash, most likely its only the last 30 minutes of communications that are pertinent....I think?

I do believe that Aidan Monaghan and/or John Bursill may have a better understanding of this overwriting of the CVR.

Its important to note that the FAA's radio transmissions and inter-sector and inter-facility communications are also recorded...EXCEPT...and conveniently so...a few sector positions with the FAA HQ and/or Pentagon/Military facilities. HMMM?

And I will give you all another tidbit of information that comes from my 11 years as an ATC at ZBW...the Boston ARTCC [Air Route Traffic Control Center]...

In all those 11 years...I only heard a pilot make a mistake and talk to ATC when they intended to talk to their passengers about two or three times.

This is not very often at all...and for so many "convenient scenario establishing mistaken communications" to take place on 9/11/2001 from THREE airliners has NEVER passed my personal "sniff test". Its just TOOOOOO...coincidental.

Not that this happened...but it could have...ANY airbourne platform operating in the Northeast part of the USofA on 9/11 could have made those radio transmissions...and remained totally undetected as the originator of those radio transmissions...and then OTHERS, like the Pentagon Press Corps and the "corporate media", would later "connect some prepositioned dots" which would eventually create THE "storyline" that the HI PERPS wanted established in the first place.

This storyline is fully in place as I write.

Well, I'm unconnecting those dots...BIG TIME.

The above noted "dot connecting" is just like the fact that nobody, anywhere, at any time, in any facility has EVER positively re-radar identified ANY target as being AA77 once AA77 was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio.

The only thing that has happened regarding the loss of positive radar contact and never establishing it again for AA77, is that the compliant corporate press...and 9/11 Truthers who either want to tell "their story", or, who are sloppy in their Pentagon research and are buying into the alleged proof or "evidence" AT the Pentagon establishes that it WAS debris from AA77 which had crashed into it. NYET!

9/11 Truthers should state the "alleged flight AA77" or AA77?.

If this is not done, then, just as P4T has carried the water for the HI PERPS with their promotion of the FOIA'd and now established as being FAKED "animation" about the flight of AA77, so to does the 9/11TM carry the water for the HI PERPS each and every time that they write or speak of the unknown primarty radar target that eventually approached the Pentagon as being AA77.

There is no proof of this....a B757...maybe...but serial numbers of parts from the original AAL flight...AA77?...not to be presented as of yet.

Back to the radio transmissions...

Its important to remember that on 9/11/2001, the military was given an ALTRV [ALTitude REserVation] over significant portions over portions of the northeastern airspace and that we have solid information that some E4Bs were aloft all during "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario" [my term]. Mark Gaffney's book: The 9/11 Mystery Plane" does some fair work at upgrading our understandings of all the aviation activity going on over and around WDC on 9/11 when there sould have been none!

[An ALTRV is a huge geographical playground in the sky in which military airvehicles can operate WITHOUT DETECTION by the FAA's ATC secrecy...AND...secretly compartmentalized within each "War Game"...]

What this means is that there EASILY could have been an airbourne "communications and command center" aloft in the northeast on 9/11...and they could have had a transcript...or set of tape recordings to play at a certain time. This command center would have all the FAA's radar data and would have been able to watch everything that was going on regarding all the flights. And rather "matter of factly"...all the operators of the secretive and compartmentalized components of the War Games...would just be doing their daily jobs with absolutely NO IDEA that what they were doing was helping "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario" to actually happen. The military personnel would just be doing their daily jobs during War Games...nothing different at all...UNTIL...after the crashes???

In conclusion...go with the UNKOWNS...both as the identity of the UNKNOWN source of the radio transmissions, AND, that ALL reports about the primary radar target that eventually "morphed into" AA77 was UNIDENTIFED and its true identity was UNKNOWN...until the mockingbird media got their hands on it.

In the end, this primary target "could be" AA77...but its up to the US Governement to positively PROVE that this is the case. For now, they have not been able to do so.

Hope this helps in this thread...

love, peace and progress...

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

From Miles' letter...

"Finally let me see that I am disappointed to see the number of shallow articles on the web (I’ve had a Google alert “9-11 Commission” since August 2004) that state that Dean John Farmer’s new book The Ground Truth says that the 9-11 Commission report, itself, is false. I am confident that The 9-11 Working Group of Bloomington knows that what Farmer said was that the Commission’s report was accurate and what was not accurate was the Government’s reconstruction of events in the aftermath."

So the 9/11 Commission accurately told a bullshit story given to them by the Government that made an "agreement not to tell the truth about what happened" (that's actually the interesting allegation from John Farmer)?"

This is acceptable why?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Psychological view of Mr Kara

Until recently, I would view what Mr Kara wrote as someone on the payroll. It surprised me talking to some who refused to look at any argument the truth movement has - an engineer with many years experience.

After talking with someone who honestly believes that the commission would reach the exact same conclusions, I believe that Mr Kara could be a sincere person.

This is actually a great possibility. It means that with the right approach, these types of people can find out the truth. I would love to hear others experiences on reasoning with those too stubborn to look at basic facts like Building 7, or near free fall collapse times... Or molten metal, or Active nano-thermite.

As an aspiring truther, I know that the problem isn't necessary the ignorant, but the solution is me, in my communication skills. That's awesome because I can change that. I'm curious to see if Kevin Ryan can succeed in getting Mr Kara to enter a respectful debate, to discuss the facts.

How many believe that for the movement to succeed, we need to get the majority of Americans to honestly look at the facts regarding the wtc collapse? I guess that 20% of people care and are easy to persuade to look at the facts. 40% are stubborn and talk like Mr Kara. 40% don't care at all.

Can anyone point me to writings about 9/11 truth influence for Mr Kara types? I need to master this skill.

A great article that you may want to read:

"The Truth is Not Enough: How to Overcome Emotional Barriers to 9/11 Truth"

I have plenty of experiences

I have plenty of experiences with extremely stubborn people. Extremely stubborn people are vulnerable to facts not open to any sort of interpretation.

* Anthrax attacks: they never know or remember who did them. Ask them, then tell them and ask them why they didn't know. (Google video: "anthrax war", it keeps getting removed)
* Danny Jowenko being shown WTC 7 and the phone call follow-up (by Jeff, a "no-planer", but the conversation isn't about NPT, it's about Jowenko and his opinion on WTC 7)
* Jon Gold's "set up to fail" Youtube clip of Thomas Kean
* David Chandler's confrontation with NIST: Part I, Part II, Part III
* The muckraker report: The FBI said it had "no evidence" connecting 9/11 to Bin Laden, and on the FBI's most wanted page for Bin Laden, 9/11 is not mentioned.

One friend came around because of Alex Jones. He liked his aggressive style. Different people are attracted to different things. Adapt.
Another, extremely stubborn friend sort of came around when I told him about how NIST conducted tests to ascertain that fire proofing was "widely dislodged" .... shotgun blasts in a box. I will never forget the look of confusion on his face. "They really did that? Are they crazy..? etc..". Don't talk about nano-thermite immediately. Ease into it after hammering in the intentional errors and omissions in the official investigations.

Some more:
Polls show broad skepticism among Americans of official 9/11 narrative (Argumentum ad populum ;-)
There's Never Been a Real 9/11 Investigation
Psychologists Weigh In On 9/11
9/11 proof summaries
Patriots Question 9/11

I like this quote from Kevin's letter...

"We can no longer afford to ask our politicians and media to cure our corrupt system. It is the corporate media itself, and the corporate-funded politicians that maintain the corrupt system, and that are the problem. We must rebuild our media and our government, and the truth about 9/11 has the power to do just that."

My Belief As Well. IN A NUTSHELL

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?


I couldn't agree more


Together in truth


Hold your ground

Kara obviously wants everything "off the record," with no debates or forums to publicly contest Commission findings. That's OK and even understandable. I think you can cut him some slack at the beginning. I'm so glad YOU are the contact person for this dialogue as your letter to him succinctly summarizes many of our concerns. Thank you for that.

Yes, please work to establish "common ground." We know you are sincere. If he is equally sincere it should become immediately apparent. His blatant declaration that no new investigation is necessary or that any new investigation would yield similar conclusions is not encouraging. I know I speak for the movement that we have total confidence in you. Mr. Kara has a lot of anomalies in the official account to explain. As we say in Boston, "I'm wicked curious."

I cant seem to find Kara's

I cant seem to find Kara's open letter on his site: Did he take it down?

very curious

Fun and useful to think about what he said Farmer said, even if we can't see it right now.

As a general matter, can a report be 'accurate' if it includes accurate statements, and deliberately omits others?

found it

It just came off the front page. Can be found at

Why is this Miles cat even

Why is this Miles cat even pretending to be doing anything meaningful or objective? The entire tone in his open letter is condescending and just glosses over reality. I know we're trying to "engage" in a civil discourse but come on if you read his letter it's clear that you'll be pounding sand with this tool. I guess you guys know what you're doing with this guy (and perhaps you can elaborate on the rationale) but I frankly wonder why you're even bothering with him. He's either dumb as a stick if he believes his own bullshit or more likely he's playing some cat and mouse game for who knows what reason. And his rap about why don't you sit at the Pentagon memorial is the saddest of all. It's because the fate of those very people is still unresolved that we're doing this, so quit playing that shame card. Miles, if you're reading, the horrific events of that day were NOT credibly established by your commision, sir, and obfuscators like yourself will eventually be exposed at least and hopefully brought to justice. Do you get some thrill from this game you're playing?

laws took over

From his letter --

"Once AA 11 and UA 175, separately, touched the Towers, the laws of physics and chemistry took over. And those laws explain everything that happened subsequently, including the collapse of buildings one, two, and seven."

You mean the laws of the physics and chemistry of how nanothermite behaves?

It's a strange statement to make, as though he either has no idea what he's talking about but hopes to just wipe everything away by making such a statement. Simple. Clean. Like a television ad.

math equation

what are the mathematical equations for near free fall without explosives? Seriously. I got at trouble at work with my manager for bringing up controlled demolition. He's an engineer with many years experience. What math equations make that remotely possible? The papers referenced on Wikipedia (which states the scientific community supports the government story) claim some sort of pressure wave.

Can someone explain these equations to me, I'd like to be able to understand them and work through them. It must be like the 'Iron Palm' move in Ti Chi where a 90 year old man shatters every bone in your body with the right force. Steel frame buildings must shatter...

Its interesting he says the laws of 'chemistry'.

Aspiring truther - I'm working hard to start a Truth Rock movement. What would the 60's have been without music? Help me make Truth Rock mainstream.

A place to start

is to study the work of Tony Szamboti & Graeme MacQueen and, of course, Bazant. There are a lot of complicated formulas that calculate stress/strain and buckling behavior of columns. I'm not a structural or mechanical engineer so it's difficult for me, as for I imagine many laymen. I have plenty of trouble understanding Bazant's paper, but that's the point. The point is proof by intimidation. You could prove Bazant wrong if you found an error in his calculations. Some of his colleagues have published rebuttals. I think there is plenty of criticism. If you want to get into the nitty gritty of the mathematical formulas for these things, get yourself a Master level structural mechanics book.

However, there are several other, more basic reasons why even if Bazant's work is mathematically correct, it is physically incorrect. The most important reason being that the model he uses requires mass accretion and no mass loss. In other words, the floors that are crushed all add to the mass crushing down, and nothing lands outside the building's footprint. This is contradicted by the FEMA report (and by simple visual observation)

James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Bazant's papers (there are multiple versions of his WTC crush up /crush down paper)

As for WTC 7, there is no debate. Have your manager read my letter to Michael Getler. He can try to answer the question. If he wants to explain it away, have him go into minute detail. How did eight storeys turn COMPLETELY into air? How exactly was this accomplished? Why is NIST's simulation of WTC 7's demise incomplete and why doesn't it match with what we see?

For reference, you may find this online physics book comes in handy. (The author is a distinguished physicist)

Good luck.

Proof of CIA criminal culpability in allowing the 9/11 attacks

Miles Kara blog and posting are prima fascia proof that:

1) The CIA had criminally withheld material information from the USS Cole FBI criminal investigators in a wide ranging criminal conspiracy, information that could have prevented that attacks on 9/11, in what can only be called the crime of the century.

2) The CIA had enlisted FBI Agents and whole units at FBI HQ to take part in this criminal conspiracy to hide critical information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

3) The CIA under took a campaign of lies and obfuscation to hide their criminal conduct when addressing questions from the 9/11 Commission

4) In spite of being lied to by the CIA and FBI HQ, the 9/11 Commission had more than enough information to have been able to put the entire and accurate account of what had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11 and then failed to do so, in what can only be called the cover up of the century. The 9/11 Commission had access to all of the information from the DOJ IG investigation of the FBI prior to the attacks on 9/11. Since it was possible to put the entire account back together of what had taken place prior to these attacks from the information the 9/11 Commission had when this was combined with the DOJ IG information, it is clear that there was no reason that the 9/11 Commission could not have be able to produce the full accounting of what had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place. Since the 9/11 Commission did not product an accurate account of what had taken place that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place but instead produced an account that deliberately obscured and obfuscated what had taken place, it is clear that the 9/11 commission report itself is prima fascia evidence of the crime of intentionally and deliberately lying and misleading the US congress and the Americans people.

I will provide detailed proof of all of this in subsequent posts.


pls let me know what you think about this elizabeth kucinich vid with map

sugarcoated 9/11 truth with map added at the end

here at 911blogger were in a hard core of researchers of a certain set of topics- it might seem repetitive to send a simple message to the public but i believe someone completely new to this needs a hook- a pretty face, a catchline, a videogenic clip

Enough of the Farrakhan already

Nearly every post on blogger is being spammed by Douglas Hilton

Farrakhan as far as I'm concerned is a charismatic leader, his information is culled from many sources including far right racists, personally I don't need charismatic leaders and I'll do my own research, we are our own leaders, this kind of worship is what we, the human race, should be moving away from in our (r)evolution.

Ok Doug you've made your point (too many times IMO) it's getting boring.