The 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry and 28 Missing Pages

When the report of Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 was released in December 2002, it was met with considerable skepticism. That skepticism grew for a period of time but then was reduced to speculation about what was contained in the 28 pages that had been redacted by the Bush White House. Various U.S. government leaders have since suggested that the missing 28 pages point to Saudi Arabia’s complicity in the 9/11 crimes. However such musings fail to discuss other important issues, like the links between the Saudi regime and the Western deep state, or the fact that, from the start, even the Saudis were calling for the 28 pages to be released. Discussion of the missing 28 pages also omits mention of the highly suspicious nature of the Inquiry’s investigation and its leaders.

GanG2The leaders of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry were Congressman Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham, who headed-up the House and Senate intelligence committees at the time. Due to Goss and Graham’s activities before 9/11 and on that day, as well as their representation of the state of Florida, their leadership of the Inquiry presented a remarkable number of questions.

For example, Goss and Graham were meeting with Pakistani ISI General Mahmud Ahmed just as the first plane struck the World Trade Center. The Ahmed meeting is interesting due to the Pakistani ISI’s history with the CIA in arming the “Afghan Arabs” from which al Qaeda evolved. The ISI had also been intimately linked with the terrorist network previously run by the CIA’s partner—the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). Added to these coincidences was the fact that Goss and Graham had just returned from a trip to Pakistan in which they had specifically discussed Osama bin Laden, who was a topic of discussion at their 9/11 breakfast meeting as well.

It seems to be an unusual coincidence that the leader of the Pakistani ISI would be present as al Qaeda’s historic attack was taking place. Ahmed’s meeting with Goss and Graham is also notable in light of Goss’ history as a veteran CIA operative, a member of a secret assassination squad, and someone who was trained to recruit and run foreign operatives. It is also remarkable that Goss’ home district was the primary base for several of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

In fact, much of the evidence that established the official account about the accused men came from Florida. Twelve of them were said to have opened bank accounts in the state, primarily through one institution—SunTrust Bank. Deposits made to these accounts often came from a country that the Inquiry seemed to be protecting—the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which owned the BCCI infrastructure.

In the years since the Inquiry, Graham has claimed that there is compelling evidence that one or more foreign governments facilitated the terrorists in some way. And although he continues to call for release of the redacted 28 pages, Graham now focuses his comments primarily on the Saudi link, which is named in the subtitle of his book on the subject. Others like Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism lead who is personally close to the UAE royal family, have joined Graham in making these accusations. Yet these men ignore the Saudi connections to other aspects of 9/11 and U.S. leaders, as well as the links to the UAE, Kuwait, and Pakistan’s ISI.

In response to questions about the Inquiry report, Goss was less committed. He said “I can tell you right now that I don’t know exactly how the plot was hatched. I don’t know the where, the when and the why and the who in every instance. That’s after two years of trying. And we will someday have the documents to exploit, we will have the people to interrogate, we will have ways to get more information to put the rest of the pieces of this puzzle on the table. But right now, we don’t have it.”

Therefore it seems that we all agree it would be good to release the missing 28 pages. But it would also be very good for the public to consider the history of the Joint Inquiry and its leaders.

CIA Operative Goss and His Political Benefactor, Graham

Porter Goss joined the CIA in 1961 when he was a student at Yale. It has been reported that Goss was one of the hundreds of CIA officers employed in Operation Mongoose, the covert U.S. project to displace Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Goss later acknowledged that he had recruited and run foreign agents and he said that he would be uncomfortable traveling to Cuba. Over the next decade, Goss worked for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations as a covert operative in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Western Europe.

In his book, Barry and the Boys, Daniel Hopsicker published a photograph that he had received from the wife of CIA operative and drug-trafficker Barry Seal. Hopsicker claimed that the picture was taken at a nightclub in Mexico City in 1963 and that it included members of a team called Operation 40. One of the men was Porter Goss.

Operation 40 was a CIA-sponsored team accused of conducting assassinations. According to a senior member of the Cuban security apparatus, it was funded by an “important group of businessmen headed by George Bush (Snr.) and Jack Crichton, both Texas oilmen.” Frank Sturgis, one of the “plumbers” who broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel in 1972, later admitted to having been part of Operation 40. Other infamous CIA operatives who belonged to the group were Thomas Clines and Ted Shackley.

After leaving the CIA (assuming that is possible) Goss began his political career thanks to a favor granted by the man who would later help him lead the 9/11 Joint Inquiry. Goss was appointed by then-Florida Governor Bob Graham, to fill a Democrat vacancy as commissioner of Lee County. Why Graham appointed Goss, a Republican, for the normally partisan post is unclear. But remember that Goss was not just a Republican he was a CIA assassin who admitted to having recruited and run foreign agents.

Goss went on to represent regions of Florida where the alleged 9/11hijackers trained. He was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1988, as a Republican representative from the 13th district. The 13th district included Venice, the home of Huffman Aviation where several of the alleged hijackers trained. After the district was re-zoned, Goss became the representative from district 14, where he was re-elected four times. In the few years prior to 9/11, the alleged terrorists used Goss’ district, in Charlotte County, as one of their main bases of operations.

The area that Goss represented was also known for a long history of CIA-linked drug running. Three weeks after Mohamed Atta showed up at Huffman Aviation, the flight school’s owner, Wally Hilliard, had his Learjet seized when it was carrying 43 lbs of heroin. Rudi Dekkers, the man Wally Hilliard hired to run Huffman Aviation, was arrested for drug trafficking in 2012.

These links between the alleged hijackers and a drug trafficking flight school are not surprising given the history of the area. Covert drug operations in that area went back at least 60 years. The tiny Venice Airport, where the alleged hijackers trained, originated as the Venice Army Airfield and was the home of the operatives who worked for General Claire Chennault. Civil Air Transport, the successor to Chennault’s Flying Tigers and the world’s largest heroin-trafficking operation at the time, transported the drugs that funded the early covert operations of the CIA and those airmen worked closely with organized crime while doing so.

In American War Machine, Peter Dale Scott described how many covert U.S. operations since World War II have been intimately connected with, even dependent on, illicit drug trafficking. From Mexico to Laos and Vietnam, and more recently in Afghanistan, a  “shadow CIA” has worked with organized crime figures and banking networks like BCCI to use drug money to undermine democracy.

In 1996, Goss became chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In this role, Goss oversaw the inquiry into the drug and gun trafficking that supported the Nicaraguan Contras. That scandal had been exposed a decade earlier but Goss led the cover-up of the CIA’s involvement and the evidence that Vice President Bush had been involved.

In 1999, FBI informant Randy Glass gained some interesting information from Pakistani ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas. As Glass, Abbas, and two others were having dinner in a New York City restaurant surrounded by undercover FBI agents, Abbas pointed to the WTC and said, “Those towers are coming down.” Abbas later made two other references to an attack on the WTC. Glass sent this information to Senator Graham in August 2001. It is not clear whether Graham did anything with it but he certainly isn’t saying anything about it today.

Shortly after 9/11, people were beginning to question what the Bush Administration might have known about a potential al Qaeda hijacking plot. Goss shouted down the accusations. “The only thing that this uproar does is give aid and comfort to the enemy and I don’t think there’s anybody who wants to give aid and comfort to the terrorists,” he said.

The Joint Congressional Inquiry

In the months following 9/11, both Goss and Graham rejected calls for an investigation. The Senate voted for one anyway, however, and that led both Bush and Cheney to attempt to stop it or limit its scope. Apparently the best they could do was to make sure that Goss and Graham were put in charge. That seemed to work as the Inquiry began in February 2002, more than five months after the attacks, and the approach taken was one of uncritical deference to the Bush Administration and the intelligence community.

Goss immediately made it clear that the Inquiry would not be looking for guilt or accountability with regard to 9/11. Saying he was “looking for solutions, not scapegoats,” Goss continued to defend the White House with regard to warnings the president had received about an impending attack, saying it was “a lot of nonsense.”

The FBI did not cooperate but that didn’t seem to bother Goss and Graham. One glaring example of this was that the Bureau would not allow Inquiry staff to interview Abdussattar Shaikh, the FBI informant that two of the alleged hijackers had lived with in San Diego. The FBI also refused to serve a deposition notice and subpoena on Shaikh, despite knowing where he was. Not only that, although the Joint Inquiry agreed to serve written interrogatories on the him, and the FBI had agreed to that plan, Shaikh’s lawyer later said that his client would not respond to the interrogatories. The attorney also warned that, if subpoenaed, Shaikh would be unwilling to testify unless he was granted immunity.

According to the final report from the Joint Inquiry, when interviewed by the FBI Shaikh gave inaccurate information and had an “inconclusive” polygraph examination about his foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Apparently, some FBI agents believed that Shaikh had knowledge not only of the two alleged hijackers with whom he lived, but also of alleged pilot Hani Hanjour.

The Joint Inquiry’s passive response to Shaikh’s lack of cooperation was astonishing. It cannot be reconciled with the approach taken with other persons of interest. This informant clearly had more information and stronger links to the alleged hijackers than almost anyone. Yet the FBI was intent on protecting him and the Joint Inquiry allowed that protection.

The public must wonder why authorities did not simply arrest and torture this man as they did so many others. How can the preferential treatment of Shaikh, someone who obviously knew something about al Qaeda operatives, be reconciled with the treatment of other “persons of interest”? Shaikh was handled as if he was too important to be troubled, whereas people like Abu Zubaydah, who turned out to not have any connection to al Qaeda, were tortured repeatedly.

The Saudi who brought the two alleged hijackers to San Diego to live with Shaikh was Omar Al-Bayoumi. The subject of an FBI investigation three years before 9/11, Al-Bayoumi appeared to be a Saudi intelligence agent. After 9/11, he was allowed to leave the country without being questioned as part of the investigation.

In November 2002, an FBI official sent a letter to Graham and Goss saying, “the Administration would not sanction a staff interview with [Abdussattar Shaikh], nor did the Administration agree to allow the FBI to serve a subpoena or a notice of deposition on [him].” The letter caused Graham to comment, “We were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing the cover-up.”

However, that was not the only important issue on which the Joint Inquiry rolled over. For example, the Inquiry could not convince CIA director (DCI) George Tenet to be interviewed, and it accepted the restriction that operational cables and certain other documents could not be viewed other than at CIA headquarters. Further restrictions included that no copies could be made. Clearly, protecting the CIA’s secrets was more important than the safety of potential victims of terrorism.

As with the CIA, the FBI would not allow the Joint Inquiry to take notes on or make copies of documents deemed sensitive by the Bureau. This restricted the Inquiry’s ability to complete its charter, which was very limited to begin with. Yet the Inquiry did not complain. It has since been revealed that the FBI had an asset in direct contact with Osama bin Laden for the eight years leading up to 9/11. Too bad that didn’t get revealed in 2002 but it’s interesting that Graham is not calling attention to it now.

It was claimed by insiders that Goss and Graham exercised “near total control over the panel, forbidding the inquiry’s staff to speak to other lawmakers.” Other members of the Inquiry complained that the two co-chairmen withheld information and controlled the process. One way in which Graham and Goss controlled the investigation was to ask the FBI to look into panel members who might have leaked information. This resulted in the FBI investigating the Inquiry as the Inquiry was investigating the FBI.

Years later, Graham claimed that the White House had disrupted the Inquiry’s work. He said, “Looking back at it, I think we were clearly set up by Dick Cheney and the White House. They wanted to shut us down. And they wanted to shut down a legitimate Congressional inquiry that might raise questions in part about whether their own people had aggressively pursued al-Qaeda in the days prior to the September 11 attacks. The vice president attempted to manipulate the situation, and he attempted to manipulate us. But if his goal was to get us to back off, he was unsuccessful.” According to Graham, Goss was of the same opinion.

Goss agreed that he and Graham were of like mind, even to the point of saying they were “like Frick and Frack” at the time of the inquiry. But the idea that Goss felt obstructed by the White House does not make sense in view of Goss’ own actions.

For one thing, as a congressman Goss had been, and would continue to be, essentially a Bush Administration cheerleader. Additionally, there was no evidence that Goss was in any way interested in achieving truth or justice with regard to the crimes of 9/11. An example was that the CIA’s Inspector General report on 9/11 originally called for accountability with respect to certain individuals including DCI Tenet. In 2004, DCI Goss changed that wording to call for “accountability boards” to be formed at a later date. Then in 2005, when the revised report came out, Goss removed the accountability boards altogether.

The Inquiry protected not only the CIA and FBI, however. The Inquiry’s report also concealed the possible involvement of the United Arab Emirates. The report noted the FBI claim that “the operational planning for the September 11th attacks took place in overseas locations, most notably Germany, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates.” This is remarkable in that the report went on to make detailed comments in subsequent sections on Malaysia and Germany, but, tellingly, ignored the UAE entirely.

A similar example was the Joint Inquiry’s treatment of the ease with which the alleged hijackers received their travel visas. After noting that special treatment was given to visa applicants from two countries, the report asked why, considering that the “pervasiveness in Saudi Arabia of Wahhabism, a radical, anti-American variant of Islam, was well known before 9/11.” Saudi Arabia was singled out, but the same tough questions were not asked of the second country, the UAE. Neither Richard Armitage (who had helped arm and train the Mujahideen) nor his subordinate, former Sears World Trade executive Grant Green, were examined at all—despite having overseen the Bureau of Consular Affairs which issued the visas.

What Are They Leaving Out?

Bob Graham’s book, Intelligence Matters: ‪The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America’s War on Terror, refers to Saudi Arabia over 100 times. But it mentions the UAE only in reference to one of the hijackers who came from that country.

Is the preferential treatment of the UAE a result of the close relationship that Richard Clarke had with its leaders? More specifically, was Clarke’s relationship merely a result of the fact that the UAE owned BCCI and therefore was able to finance and conduct CIA-like covert operations as part of a private or officially sanctioned network? In other words, was 9/11 a CIA-like operation conducted with the help of countries that the Joint Inquiry failed to criticize—Pakistan and the UAE?

These shortcomings should lead investigators to review where the evidence against the accused terrorists originated. Most of that evidence was delivered by the FBI and the CIA but it often originated in the UAE and in Florida. The UAE was the source of much of the alleged funding of the alleged hijackers. And evidence concerning the travel of the accused was traced back to the UAE, with all but three of the 19 alleged hijackers having traveled through the UAE on their way to the United States.

The facts call into question the apparent goodwill of Bob Graham who was, along with Goss, a “Frick and Frack” lapdog for the cover-up led by the Bush White House and the U.S. intelligence agencies. What were they hiding—the glaring links to Saudi Arabia? That seems like a very convenient limited hangout considering that long-term control of Saudi Arabian oil is an absolute necessity for maintaining the U.S. economy.

A year after release of the Joint Inquiry’s report, an amendment was introduced to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for 2004. That amendment called for release of the redacted 28 pages and it implied that Saudi Arabia was the only missing piece of the 9/11 puzzle. The amendment was killed by a claim that it was not germane to the foreign appropriations bill. But the idea that Saudi Arabia was the only foreign power involved in the 9/11 operation was firmly implanted in the American psyche.

What’s different today? Saudi Arabia certainly does have strong connections to 9/11, and in many more ways than Graham will admit. But discussion of the financing and management of the alleged hijackers is only the tip of the iceberg and, even within that limited context, the work of the Joint Inquiry has diverted attention away from many of the facts. Let’s hope that, twelve years later, Americans have become a little more educated about 9/11 and the cover-up investigations into those crimes.

I don't understand... this says...

"the Inquiry could not convince CIA director (DCI) George Tenet to be interviewed"

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing some things

The Joint Inquiry reported that it had, “attempted to schedule an interview of DCI George Tenet in order to solicit his recollections, understandings and opinions regarding a host of questions relating to policy, resource, organizational, authority, priorities, and other issues that had been developed during the Inquiry. Such an interview was at first delayed and then made conditional on
further discussions with DCI staff. Ultimately, the DCI testified at length in closed and open sessions before the Joint Inquiry and the interview was denied on that basis.”

United States Congressional Serial Set, Serial No. 14750: Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activity Before and After Terrorists Attacks of September 11, 2001 With Errata

Tenet lied extensively in testimony to the Joint Congressional Inquiry and he gave “a string of evasive answers” to the 9/11 Commission.


But they did talk to him. The sentence was a little confusing. Thanks for the clarification.

I support Bob Graham

Smear tactics like this have destroyed the credibility of the 9-11 Truth movement. Don't believe me? Ask Mike Walters, Lloyd England, Ted Olson, Every person who received a call from the flights, and their families, and your next door neighbor.

Will you ever learn?

Bob Graham is trying to help the victims, and Americans like me who seek the truth. Help us or get out of the way.

The logic of your conspiracy theory appears flawed and hurts your own cause.........

from the article...
"The facts call into question the apparent goodwill of Bob Graham who was, along with Goss, a “Frick and Frack” lapdog for the cover-up led by the Bush White House and the U.S. intelligence agencies. What were they hiding—the glaring links to Saudi Arabia? That seems like a very convenient limited hangout considering that long-term control of Saudi Arabian oil is an absolute necessity for maintaining the U.S. economy."

well if "long - term control of Saudi Arabian oil is an absolute necessity" then it was there for the taking on 9/12. Whoever did 9-11 was going to pay dearly. The American people were as mad as a nation, as it had ever been. The American people would have demanded the Saudis be punished. But according to your logic Bush and co.... passed up this opportunity, to instead commit a treasonous disgusting cover up, so they could invade Iraq instead, and try to convince the American people of evidence of links to Iraq. In order to keep the Saudis safe and in control of their oil fields. The truth is - Bush and Co wanted a war, with Iraq - and Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the same thing and they were all willing to use Americans blood and treasure to get it. While American soldiers who volunteered for the armed forces, in order to go after those responsible for 9/11 were sent to their deaths in Iraq, The common enemy of Saudi Arabia and the U.S. The CIA and Bush Administration went to treasonous links to protect Saudi Arabia. This is what happened.

This covering for the Saudi Arabian Intelligence and Gov. officials was done to protect themselves, they were partners, always have been and no closer partner to Saudi Arabia had ever occupied the White House on 9-11 This is the real conspiracy.

you said.."What were they hiding—the glaring links to Saudi Arabia?"

Yes! And Saudi Intelligence and Government Officials who are extremely close to U.S. Political and Intelligence leaders, But Bob Graham has done what I would hope any of us would do. He refused to be silent, and go along with this treasonous act. Graham has insisted since day one, that the American people should know what their investigation found. When you expose the cover up the house of cards fall.

Saudi Intelligence and the CIA have used the Afghan mujahedin (Bin Ladens' Al Qaeda) since the USSR invaded Afghanistan over 30 years ago when they were call "Freedom Fighters" by the U.S. propaganda machine. 9-11 was not an intelligence failure. It was another intelligence success between Saudi Intelligence and CIA, which explains why CIA Head G. Tenet was Presented by President Bush with the "Presidential medal of Freedom Award", after committing perjury during both the joint inquiry and 9-11 commission hearings. And explains why their Saudi partners were protected by the treasonous cover up. This can be proven. We wouldn't even know about the 28 pages if it weren't for Graham calling attention to them since day 1 of the Investigations' report. This is the wost act of treason in American History by far. Exposing the cover up has the potential to destroy the whole house of cards, but needlessly smearing Bob Graham does not help with this potential.

His report was also censured from exposing the amazingly colossal "mistakes" made by the CIA. "mistakes" is political nice talk. The CIA was rewarded, not disciplined. You don't get rewards for mistakes that kill thousands of people. The CIA and the Saudi Intelligence were working together just like they have been working together for years, it's past time to bring to justice those that helped carry out 9-11.

Mahmoud Ahmed, ISI ???

So, what in hell was Bob Graham doing on the morning of 9/11 in the Capitol with one of the alleged funders of the 9/11 operation itself, Mahmoud Ahmed, former Pakistan ISI chief, together with the perennially suspicious Porter Goss - of all people? How often do the intelligence chiefs from non-allied nations conduct meetings with senior US politicians? Or is this part of the story a hoax? Either way, to redeem his credibility in this instance, Graham has a spot of explaining to do.

Evidence of Nothing

Bob Graham was not meeting the head of the ISI as a Senator. He was having breakfast with the head of Pakistani Intelligence as the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee of the Senate. It's not unusual. It's common to do that. Is your theory that they were meeting that day because they wanted to be together as the attacks happened because......???? no one has ever explained what this is supposed to mean. The head of the ISI was in Washington for a week and met with other people as well, but for some reason being with Graham on that morning means Graham helped murder 3000 people. The 9-11 truth movement has been pointing it's finger at Graham as some kind of Bush -Cheny-Bandar-NWO-Illuminatti-whatever co- conspirator mass murderer for years and for years it has not helped your cause or credibility.

Is the 9-11 truth movement going to demand the pages be kept secret because it's "to smart to fall for the elaborate trap" the dastardly Graham is trying to distract them with? What self defeating nonsense

Graham: Accessory or not? We don't know.

Jimd - I think you missed my point. The question I am posing here is: "was Sen. Graham aware that the man with whom he was having that meeting with might have been involved in the funding, or partial funding of the attacks?"

In the event of any new investigation, Graham should be subpoenaed and put on the witness stand and cross examined, as should EVERYONE with even the slightest potential links to the attack. His name may even be cleared as a potential accessory before or after the fact to mass murder - a serious crime - which I am sure would be most satisfactory outcome for most. Until that moment, if it indeed happens, we still do not know.

I agree...

With your sentiment, obviously I have been fighting hard for years for the declassification of the 28 redacted pages... posting the Jersey Girls' petition for their release, fighting for over 17,000 signatures, going on Abby's show and calling for their release, making a movie about them, posting the Q&A from the families recent press conference, etc... and so on. However, I don't like how it's being presented to us by people like Rep. Stephen Lynch as the "full truth" of 9/11. As you know, it's not. I remember when Jeff Shure spoke to Bob Graham and Graham said that the allegations of the ISI were not in the 28 redacted pages.

Anyway, it was the Jersey Girls who "once caught Congressman Porter Goss hiding behind his office door to avoid them."

Him I don't trust.

Anyway, If the 28 redacted pages of the JICI are released, and prove that the Saudi Government was involved in 9/11, then I think Philip Zelikow needs to be arrested and brought in for questioning… During the time of the 9/11 Commission, he refused to approve half of the interview requests for "Saudi Connection" investigators. He blocked investigators from accessing the 28 redacted pages of the JICI. He fired Dana Leseman after she tried to get the pages through a back channel. He took part in a late night editing session with Dieter Snell to delete passages of the 9/11 Report having to do with Saudi support for the hijackers.

Fun facts about Dr. Zelikow

He wrote a detailed outline of the 9/11 Commission Report complete with chapter headings and subheadings--before the investigation even started.

The family members called for his resignation after learning of his conflicts of interest. He had worked with Dr. Condoleezza Rice in the Poppy Bush administration, and co-authored a book with her, and served under Condi on the transition team leading in to the GWB administration. He defied the widows' demand that he resign, even though his conflicts were so serious that he appeared as a witness before his own commission. While on the transition team, he was the architect of the restructuring of the National Security Counsel such that Richard Clarke no longer had cabinet-level access and had to go through Condi to get to the president.

He improperly kept up telephonic contacts with Karl Rove and Condi Rice while the investigation was ongoing.

His background at Harvard was as an expert in "public myth"--the motivating beliefs of a society (that may or may not be true).

After Condi perjured herself before the 9/11 Commission, claiming that the August 6 PDB "was not a warning", Zelikow phoned the CIA authors of that memo to try to get them to endorse Condi's statement. They refused.

He was apparently willing to accept CIA transcripts of torture sessions at face value for information about al Qaeda for the report, though you'd think a credentialed historian would be ashamed to do so.

He tried to minimize the incorporation of Richard Clarke's criticisms of the "intelligence failures" in the report. He insisted on balancing each of Clarke's criticisms of Dr. Rice with a statement from Rice, even though the Commission staffers felt that Rice had poor credibility.

After the report was released, he accepted a plum job as special advisor to the Secretary of State, Condi Rice.

Porter Goss (!)

The following short youtube clip featuring Porter Goss is one I find eternally intriguing:

Porter Goss is being interviewed here about the events of the morning, having previously attended a meeting in the Capitol with Mahmud Ahmed, the (former) Pakistan ISI chief who allegedly authorized several international money transactions which funded the attacks. Senators Bob Graham and John Kyl also attended this meeting.

Therefore, its a given that this Porter Goss interview took place is somewhere in and around the Washington DC, on the morning of 9/11. At 00:27 seconds into the clip, there is a distant, muffled BOOOM, clearly an explosion; it is highly unlikely that the audio was overdubbed - as bystanders are startled by the noise, turning round uttering exclamations. Goss however is completely unruffled and carries on without even a pause, adding - "as you can tell, as we speak, there are still things going on".

A few seconds later, there's the unmistakeable whine of jet engines coming in at low altitude, just like a commercial jet plane in its final approach. Goss the says: ".......I think it might be a good idea if we got out of this ?crowd".... then everyone in the vicinity, including Goss looks upwards into the sky to see where this jet is.

The prior explosion more than likely came from the Pentagon, and I have not heard of any other reports of explosions in the DC area that morning.

This video gives rise to some questions. Can anyone shine some light on the following?

1. Can we ascertain the *exact* time and place of the interview (ie the original footage with timecode)? This would pinpoint the exact time of the explosion - and the delay of the sound (approximately 5 seconds per mile) would determine the distance the interview took place from the Pentagon (assuming that is where the explosion happened).

2. Were there any *other* commercial jets coming into land (at Dulles) around the time of the Pentagon impact? If there were no others on a final approach around the time of the explosion, then it appears that that the sound of the plane in the the clip is the jet plane alleged to be Flight AA77. If that is indeed the case - as suggested by Porter Goss ("we should get out of this crowd"), then what is the cause of the explosion several seconds prior? There have been reports from eyewitnesses that there might have been two events at the Pentagon a few minutes apart.

3. The onlookers appear to be looking almost directly overhead, as if the plane is passing very nearby. If we can determine the location of the interview, we can then also determine if it happened directly under a regularly used flight approach path to Dulles - ie possible *another* jet coming into land (the order to ground all planes wasn't issued until 9-45, some 7 minutes later).


Porter Goss always has raised suspicion. He opposed the creation of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 shortly after the attacks - as did Bob Graham. Ray McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA turned Democratic political activist and a frequent commentator on intelligence issues, believed the final 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry report showed that Goss gave "clear priority to providing political protection for the president" when conducting the inquiry. (ex wikipedia). Then afterwards, Goss also opposed the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission (which turned into a farcical excuse of an "inquiry" hijacked by Philip Zelikow). One wonders why Goss was so opposed to inquiring into 9/11? After all, if this was merely the work of "al Qaeda" militants with no prior warning or knowledge, then nobody (in government/intelligence/law-enforcement/military) would have had anything to hide and the *logically expected* thing to have done would be "the most exhaustive and rigorous inquiry in US history", considering the magnitude of the attack.

His hiring as DCIA and subsequent resignation after only one and a half years - no reasons given - was weird as well.

In the event of a real investigation into 9/11,Goss is yet another who needs to be subpoena'ed and harshly cross examined. He clearly knows a lot more than he's letting on.

before becoming CIA director...

"In the event of a real investigation into 9/11,Goss is yet another who needs to be subpoena'ed and harshly cross examined. He clearly knows a lot more than he's letting on."

He also didn't want to take a job at the CIA, or didn't feel qualified, before becoming CIA director.

His CIA background

Daniel Hopsicker on Goss' history with the CIA's 'Operation 40' during the 1960s:

There is more to this

If you guys want to finalize this mystery once and for all let's get together.

Start by PM'ing me so we can communicate efficiently outside of random comments.

Thank you.

Question #1. Can we ascertain

Question #1. Can we ascertain the *exact* time and place of the interview (ie the original footage with timecode)? This would pinpoint the exact time of the explosion - and the delay of the sound (approximately 5 seconds per mile) would determine the distance the interview took place from the Pentagon (assuming that is where the explosion happened).


Answer: The interview takes place at the Capitol, exact time unknown. There were reports of explosions on the mall and elsewhere.


Question #2. Were there any *other* commercial jets coming into land (at Dulles) around the time of the Pentagon impact? If there were no others on a final approach around the time of the explosion, then it appears that that the sound of the plane in the the clip is the jet plane alleged to be Flight AA77. If that is indeed the case - as suggested by Porter Goss ("we should get out of this crowd"), then what is the cause of the explosion several seconds prior? There have been reports from eyewitnesses that there might have been two events at the Pentagon a few minutes apart.


Answer: Lots of air traffic coming and going in and around DC when the Pentagon was struck.


Question #3. The onlookers appear to be looking almost directly overhead, as if the plane is passing very nearby. If we can determine the location of the interview, we can then also determine if it happened directly under a regularly used flight approach path to Dulles - ie possible *another* jet coming into land (the order to ground all planes wasn't issued until 9-45, some 7 minutes later).


Answer: No planes should be flying close to the Capitol, part of the restricted area P-56. This event is not the high-flier seen in the CNN clip that is not over the P-56 and can be matched to ADDIS77 also known as VENUS77, the E4B that took off from Andrews at 9:45.. There was a low-flier reported by Peter Jennings live at 9:40, over the White House, witnessed by several people, but we have not been able to find any good footage of this one near the Capitol.


More work needs to be done. Anybody want to join the team?

dead link

Here's a working link to the interview.

"When you expose the cover up

the house of cards fall." jimd3100

A very general question here, for the people who fear "limited hangouts".

Consider two persons: Bob Graham and Richard Clarke. Even if one assumes a limited hangout, is it not possible that investigations into their claims will reveal crucial information, or, at the least, information that is worthwhile?

If Graham and Clarke are lying in their respective claims, that should become increasingly obvious (Pinocchio phenomenon) the more their claims are studied and revealed.

An effective way to discern the validity of their assertions, is... to put them out into the open.

EDIT: PS I have upvoted everybody here so far, and will Gladly play both sides of the fence on this issue. It is important to open and investigate claims by Graham and Clarke... And there is certainly a Hell of a lot else going on as well.

Excellent piece Kevin

Great job as usual.

Absolutely so.

I concur 100%. Kevin Ryan deserves a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his supreme efforts for and on behalf of this nation...if there was justice in the world.

Yes. Did you ever notice

that the quality of the work by many of the people at this site, rises in inverse proportion to the amount of attention paid to them by the MSM?

I go off reading elsewhere, even at publications that can claim to have presented important stories about the world and necessary social critique, and I admit to playing the edge, thinking, they will wake up, if only they just see this, or that. It's a frustrating exercise. I return to the scholarship of Kevin Ryan and others here to rest in their self critical rationality and willingness to follow fact and reason wherever they lead. Thank you so much for your work.