We Were Lied To About 9/11 - Episode 11 - Thomas Drake


Thomas Drake is a former senior executive with the National Security Agency, a United States Air Force and Navy veteran, CIA intelligence analyst, computer software expert and whistleblower. While at NSA, he blew the whistle on multi-billion dollar programmatic fraud, waste and abuse; the critical loss and coverup of 9/11 intelligence; government wrongdoing; and a dragnet electronic mass surveillance and data mining program conducted on a vast scale by the NSA (with the approval of the White House) after 9/11. Mr. Drake argued that this program violated and subverted the Constitution as well as individual sovereignty and privacy, while weakening national security and fundamentally eroding our civil liberties. In April 2010 he was charged by the US Department of Justice with a 10 felony count Espionage Act indictment facing 35 years in prison and declared an enemy of the state. All 10 original charges were dropped in July 2011 after Mr. Drake pled to a single misdemeanor count of exceeding the authorized use of a government computer with no fine or prison time. He is the 2011 recipient of the Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize, and with Jesselyn Radack the co-recipient of the 2011 Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence Award and the 2012 Hugh M. Hefner 1st Amendment Award.

He was also a visiting professor of strategic leadership and information strategies at the National Defense University with the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Previous to NSA, he was a principal in a couple of dot coms. He has 12 years of industry experience in change leadership, senior management, organizational leadership and development, quality assurance, software and systems engineering (having analyzed over 150 million lines of code), learning strategies, acquisition and program management, operations and technology life-cycle integration as a contractor and consultant with both government and commercial clients including Fortune 500 and Fortune 50 companies. He was at Booz | Allen | Hamilton as a management, strategy and technology consultant and software quality engineer from 1991-1998.

He served in the military for some 14 years as an active duty US Air Force aircrew member performing cryptologic linguist duties on the RC-135 airborne reconnaissance platform and as a Mission Crew Supervisor on the EC-130H electronic warfare mission during the latter years of the Cold War. He also served in the US Navy as a reserve commissioned all-source intelligence officer assigned to the National Military Joint Intelligence Center at the Pentagon serving on the ELINT, Terrorism, and Middle East/North Africa desks in the 1990s. He also had a short stint as an imagery intelligence analyst at the CIA in the late 80s.

Mr. Drake is the founder and senior leader of Knowpari Systems LLC, a boutique leadership development and executive consulting firm formed in 2008 and focused on business intelligence, IT-corporate governance, risk management, operations analysis, systems thinking, strategic advising and deep learning through people, process and technology – expanding capacity, increasing performance and enhancing social and relational well-being for individuals, teams, and organizations.

His outreach and speaking expertise center on delivering dynamic, interactive and compelling content in the areas of strategic leadership, international relations, contemporary international problems, professional ethics, executive management, business intelligence and decision support systems, resource strategy, complex systems (social and technical), human relations, dynamics of the information and knowledge age, information management, organizational sustainability, executive leadership, 21st Century issues, governance and decision-making, the Constitution and civil liberties as well as whistleblowing.

His particular area of expertise is the strategic and global perspective while placing events, people, trends, and movements in the larger context and finding the meaning and the connections and making sense of them such that one can take the practical action necessary to execute the mission and the business in challenging times, under adverse conditions and with constant uncertainty. He has also focused on a key ‘emergent’ strategically competitive best practice of relationship leadership involving dynamically evolving social ecology and social network systems. This highly innovative approach involves real-time learning and feedback creating the very conditions for both individual and organizational well-being and accomplishment while also achieving sustainable results in the marketplace and for social activism and change.

He now writes, speaks and teaches around the world on whistleblowing, Constitutional rights, civil liberties, secrecy, surveillance and abusive corporate and government power. He has dedicated himself to defending life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Extraordinary and candid interview.

The Government Accountability Project: http://www.whistleblower.org/

Thomas Drake

Is not a CD proponent, yet:

But he does not articulate why. I don't think ignorance of CD evidence lessens the importance of his other actions. Hopefully he will take the time to educate himself, or at least provide his own reasoning in more than 140 chars.

Coming up to speed on 9/11 science: Short list of articles and links: http://911speakout.org/?page_id=6

It's not...

A prerequisite to be a participant in this cause. To believe in CD. Never has been.


I was not suggesting it was. Thanks for interviewing him.

It's notable that people on the fence, or completely uninformed about the science backing the controlled demolition theory, dismiss it as a belief, and rarely if ever discuss specifics, like basic starting points that are not in dispute... dv/dt(wtc7) is g for over 100ft or that the NIST model does not resemble what happened to WTC7... on and on... it's either not discussed or sidelined with strawmen.

It's your show, but it would be good to acknowledge that certain things are not in dispute because they can be easily measured or looked up in NIST's own reports.

Lorie Van Auken brought it up in episode 6. Obviously you realize part of interviewing it to find things that you might not agree with and get the interviewee to elaborate, you do this effectively on other subjects, but so far, not CD.

So far as I know...

I haven't even talked about CD with anyone yet. Lorie said the buildings were one of the first things she questioned, and I said something like "that makes sense since you're a visual person," and then she brought up Bush's actions that morning, which obviously I have more of an interest in so I focused on that.

We were lied to about 9/11

by who?? Both NIST and the 9/11 Commission. I agree with Justin -- we can't turn a blind eye to the scientific facts. Unfortunately, Jon doesn't care about the former.


Too many.

I dont think that's fair.

Some people dont feel confident with some subjects. I dont think not caring is the reason... more sticking to what you know. Of course anyone can take the time to eduicate themselves if they decide to.

Show "Lol. So far the science has" by kdub

Hi kdub

You are right that CD is a theory, that's the point. Theories are how we explain reality. They must be experimentally falsifiable and repeatable to be valid. CD is a falsifiable and repeatable theory, if you can falsify it, you have discovered a new way to demolish skyscrapers.

You seem to think there is an alternate theory for the WTC towers other than CD, maybe you are mistakenly assuming that NIST put one forth. They did not. Their investigation stops at "collapse initiation".

For WTC7, do you see a 100ft g acceleration in their collapse simulation? Does the simulation resemble the video evidence? Is NIST's simulation available for examination?

You are illustrating my original point by not discussing specifics.

Show "Debunking NIST doesn't prove" by kdub

The facts we have on WTC7 are enough

The fact that NIST obviously and blatantly lied in their investigation of WTC7, even to the extent of contradicting the empirical evidence they had presented in their interim reports, is sufficient to call for a thorough investigation of the collapses and NIST's conduct. The examples of outright scientific fraud have been exhaustively documented by Ryan, Griffin, Gage, Szamboti and others. Nothing you have said detracts from this, whether or not CD has been proven to your personal satisfaction.

Your statement that CD "hasn't been proven in a repeatable scenario" is rather strange in the full context, considering that the only way steel-framed, high-rise structures have ever completely collapsed is through well-placed and well-timed explosives. If there were at least one contrary example, then perhaps your statement would have some validity.

From the standpoint of long-established scientific practice, "like effects imply like causes." By default, when you observe a phenomenon that has previously occurred, and bears the distinguishing characteristics of those previous instances, then the working hypothesis points to the same causes. The burden of proof lies squarely on those who would posit a completely unprecedented explanation of cause.

The first burden is to show that the cause of the prior phenomena is inadequate to explain what came later. Such was the case with the early pioneers of quantum mechanics.

Can anyone show that CD would be inadequate to bring down WTC7? If NIST's attempt at an alternative (and unprecedented) explanation is not adequate, we're back to the default hypothesis anyway. And if the only explanation NIST could come up with after six years is this preposterous nonsense about office fires fueled by ordinary office furnishings, with all the lies and fraud required to back it up, then the default hypothesis is strengthened, not lessened. Wagging a finger at those who follow this established principle on the purely speculative grounds that, oh, maybe there could be some other explanation never previously seen is quite odd, to put it courteously.

By any measure of serious analysis, only CD can explain the 2.25 secs of free-fall acceleration, agreeable to long-established scientific criteria. (Sir Isaac still matters.) And by all the ordinary rules of jurisprudence going back centuries, we have more than enough evidence to establish CD as a finding of fact deserving of judicial notice.

Finally, WTC7 is worth emphasizing because more than any other point it has proven to be the smoking gun that has prompted large numbers of people to consider our arguments and join our side. And the reason is simple: there are still enough people left in the world with sufficient brain capacity to recognize an obvious controlled demolition when they see it.


Excellent. I was tempted to answer kdub, but considered his comments to be trolling in place of informed debate. Your very well reasoned, measured and precise reply hit the essential points and reminds us fellow skeptics of the official story that we are on the same page. Thanks.

Thanks AConf

I almost let it pass for the reason you mentioned.

But my posts are generally made with newcomers in mind. Others here are much better than I at addressing more complex issues.

So if kdub's post provided an opportunity to mention some foundational points that might be useful to the honest inquirer, then at least it was worth something. :-)

Thank you JTL!

.... excellent, logical, clear commentary.

well said!

and thank you for saying it.

Reply to Jon Gold

In this interview, you claim that you or no one knew what people in the CIA and FBI HQ knew about the attacks on 9/11 prior to these attacks taking place. But that is not true.

My book, “Prior Knowledge of 9/11”, details exactly what senior people at the CIA and FBI HQs knew about to these attacks prior to these attacks taking place. I have detailed exactly what Richard Blee, Cofer Black, and George Tenet knew, how they got this information and even what George W Bush knew about these attacks prior to these attacks taking place.

I have also documented what the people at FBI HQs including Dina Corsi, Rod Middleton, Tom Wilshire, Michael Maltbie, David Frasca, knew prior to the attacks on 9/11. These were the people who sabotaged the FBI criminal investigations that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

I even included in this book the actual documents that in almost all cases come from the official US government investigations on 9/11, that back up my conclusions. This book was first published in November 2006, so it has been out at least for 9 years, and has been the basis of several other books, including “Disconnecting the Dots”, by Kevin Fenton published in 2011, 5 years after ”Prior Knowledge” was first published, and “the Eleventh Day”, by Anthony Summers and Robby Swan, who had called me on numerous time to find out where I had gotten the information in my book.

I had also interviewed several FBI agents at the FBI who were intimately aware of the events prior to the attacks on 9/11 and these FBI agents backed up my conclusions. Much of the information in this book was given to the FBI shortly after the attacks on 9/11 in several sit down interviews under oath including Colleen Rowley and Joseph Rivers her supervisor, the Joint Inquiry Committee of the House and the Senate on 9/11, in particular to Micheal Jacobson, and Rick Cinqauegrana and to the 9/11 Commission, to 9/11 Commissioners Tim Roemer, Bob Kerrey and Richard bin Venista.


Did I say that?

Edit: I think I know what you're talking about. I said "there's a lot of questions out there as to what they knew, and I unfortunately can't tell you what they knew because I'm just a regular citizen, I don't have subpoena power and so on and so forth…"

Meaning, I can't tell you EVERYTHING that they knew because I'm just a regular citizen, I don't have subpoena power… however, I did qualify the statement with "there's a lot of questions out there as to what they knew."

Prior knowledge?

Not to mention what Sibel Edmonds found out and shared with the Jersey Girls and the investigations, but was ignored, gagged, and unsuccessfully marginalized." Come out of the 9/11 cover up closet. Who blew up the WTC & Pentagon AND anthraxed congress & the press in Sept of 2001? Stop false flag terror, Rethink911.org"; is what I repeatedly ask those in government , law enforcement, and advocacy for peace, justice, and truth. NEVER STOP QUESTIONING!

One thing that stands out here for me...

...is the phrase "These were the people who sabotaged the FBI criminal investigations THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED the attacks on 9/11."

What is that?

I've heard things along the same line before, but I'm confused about this. Surely I can assume that these attacks were going to happen IN ANY CASE, were going to be made a reality, for sure, no matter what. Surely it wasn't going to be prevented by ANYONE who may have gotten alarmed by some info that didn't smell right.
In any case, I get confused about most of this stuff about exactly who knew what and when. I also get confused when thinking about the connections between Al Qaeda and the "real perpetrators" so to speak. If Al Hamzi and Al Midhnar were helped by an FBI-agent (and they both knew they were helped by the FBI), then what about all the other hijackers? Were they cooperating with the FBI or CIA as well? If there were real (Islamic or Islamic looking) hijackers, then what were they thinking? Did they know they were going to be setup as patsies, or did they truly believe they were going to fly these airplanes into those targets? Did they came to a shocking realization that the planes were piloting themselves at one point and that there wasn't anything they could do about it?

And surely most members of Al Qaeda must know that these Twin Towers did not come down as a reult of those plane-impacts? If so, why aren't they talking about it? What is going on here?

Incidently, I also wonder if (and if not, why) anyone in court or anywhere else has ever asked people like Zacharias El Moussaoui or a KSM HOW the hijackers had PLANNED TO EVADE the US airdefences, or if they would just be counting on the US airdefences to be grossly incompetent.

Does anyone here have these same questions about these subjects?

And how does Jon feel about these things?

These are all good questions

Definitive answers won't be coming any time soon. In this interview we have an NSA insider who had his life ruined by the government. Yet he puts forth a confusing explanation for pre 9/11 conduct. He said the government knew a lot and all that information was buried for CYA purposes after the attack. He said there was no insider conspiracy. Instead he says that information wasn't shared, high level officials did not respond to the threat with sufficient urgency and the CIA was trying to turn al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar into informants. These answers are contradictory. If the issue was lack of urgency and attention then investigations would not have been deliberately obstructed. Deliberate obstruction shows that there was a lot of attention but the actual intention was to facilitate the plot. If 9/11 was a failed sting operation then issues like sharing failures and high level inattention go out the window. Are we to believe no details of the 9/11 plot were learned while the CIA monitored al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar? What was the point of the July 10 CIA briefing for NSA Rice about urgent CIA warnings of a possible attack? Meaning at what point would an op to turn the hijackers be called off? The notion of a failed sting op is eerily similar to the OKC bombing where despite all sorts of informant information the bombing went forward. We see with the saga of Jesse Trentadue how the government has obstructed his efforts to get answers about the OKC bombing.

I agree...

That if the NSA didn't share information with the FBI because the CIA was involved with trying to "flip" the hijackers, then so much for not "communicating." Meaning that obviously if the NSA backed off, they knew about the CIA operation. Which leads us to believe they "communicated."

The idea of trying to flip the hijackers is just a theory. Joe Trento says they were protected by the CIA simply "because they were agents of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency."

In my opinion, Thomas Drake, even though he doesn't suspect any criminality on the part of our Government with regards to 9/11, is still an honorable man. I wish I knew what the NSA knew. I wish I knew what information, if any, about 9/11 from the NSA was given to the Bush Administration. It's apparent that the NSA was avoided by the 9/11 Commission for a reason.

So obviously...

...these statements about communication failures are a smokescreen to imply some sort of incompetence on the part of the intelligence agencies. I assume that few people who don't buy into the OCT believe this.

But like I said, What puzzles me is the matter of these hijackers, what did they know about this? Implying that the CIA or FBI was trying to persuade the hijackers to become informants means that they were trying to discover what the plot was so that they could prevent it. I don't think that would be the case because like I said, someone masterminded these attacks and they were going to take place no matter what.
So with that in mind, WHO gave the order to obstruct all of the investigations prior to 9/11?

And why hasn't anyone of AQ talked about the destruction of the Twintowers (not to mention WTC7)?
Do they actually conspire with US intelligence agencies?

Venice FL

Atta's crew was running drugs (in a town that is basically a intel retirement community)

Rudi Dekkers: http://911blogger.com/search/node/rudi%20dekkers

OK, I've watched the second link...

...which is the 1st part of seven in total. So let's say that Atta's crew was running drugs, that would mean that they were controlled by the CIA. Makes sense to me.
What makes less sense to me again, is why isn't anyone at the the top of AQ talking about the impossibility of the destruction of those 3 buildings? Or are they actually that stupid to believe that their two crashed planes could lead to the total destruction of 3 buildings?

And, did they know that the airdefence would be "disabled" for them, allowing them a clear path to their targets? Or were they never behind the stick at all? Considering the all important thing that these two buildings in NYC HAD TO BE HIT in order to form the excuse for their total collapse (along with the fact that it's pretty damn hard to hit those towers going at full speed and getting only one shot at it), my guess is that they were not behind the controls of those aircraft. Too much at stake to leave it to some novice pilots with no experience whatsoever in a real big passengerjet I would think.

Has anyone from AQ ever talked about the US airdefence and how incompetent it was and how they knew they wouldn't be caught or soemthing like that?
Makes me wonder for sure?

How'bout the rest here?


These are all questions that I have pondered, and which make no sense if the official story has *anything* of merit or represents any portion of the reality.

The odds that a bunch of inexperienced rookies with virtually no piloting or paramilitary experience would get *EVERYTHING* more or less correct according to the alleged plan, would have been incredibly long. It would mandate all of them successfully getting though immigration into the US, then having access to privileged or classified information, not being apprehended prior to the event, then all successfully showing up at the designated airports on time in the early morning, all of them getting through security (despite their nationalities and some being on terror watch alerts), all of the alleged hijackers successfully boarding the planes, then all of the flights leaving the gates on time or near punctually, then the rookies successfully subduing both cabin staff and passengers, then successfully taking over control of all the planes, then not being challenged by air defenses (despite the 70-100 annual air force scramble/intercepts of problem aircraft, and the lengthy, indirect flight paths taken), and then most important of all, hitting the buildings at the designated spots, square on.

Here are a few examples of likely and potential snags: Imagine - the slightest error in navigation and control at >450kt could have caused a partial contact...such as one wing, or even wingtip hitting the side or corner of the building.... that would have been a major "OOPS!". The plane, or much of it, would have crashed in the streets of Lower Manhattan, and debris etc. etc. scattered far and wide, lots of public scrutiny etc etc...and the building would not have not sustained enough damage to initiate the type of collapse that could have been explained by "jet fuel and office fires". One or either of the two planes at the WTC could have missed entirely on the first pass - that would have been another big "oops" (!). And one more thing - to quote the Boeing Flight Ops review: "At speed in excess of Vmo/Mmo" (as exhibited by AA11, UA175 and AA77) ... "normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured." Our fabled rookies even got that correct as well...with "flying colors", literally. Then consider the weather on 9/11 - fine and sunny, with a surface wind from the NW at 10kt, and about 20kt at 1000ft altitude, the (approximate) elevation of the impacts... this would have presented an extra factor re. navigation, as both planes would have been subject to cross winds of 20kt... no problem for an experienced pilot, but for someone like Mohamed Atta, incapable of controlling a Cessna adequately in level flight....

We could look at these "probability" scenarios regarding all aspects of the multi-faceted operation that 9/11 was; if it was (solely) an "al Qaeda" effort, as alleged, then too much would have left to chance to muster any credibility - considering that the scale and complexity of the operation. Not just one problem, but multiple compounding errors happening would have been near certain. And of course, the probability of multiple events happening a certain way are the *product* of all those individual statistical probabilities. If the odds of A are 1 in 10; B are 1 in 10, and C are 1 in 10, then the chances that A, B and C all happening are 1 in 1000. The 9/11 probability factor, if the official story is applied, is weighed against "operational success" to the extent of literally trillions to one against.

Oh..and one more thing - there is no historical record of "al Qaeda" attempting anything more sophisticated than OKC type truck bombs.


...So, why aren't we asking the questions that matter? Why isn't Thomas Drake asked the question, if he believes or knows that information wasn't shared and/or held back/covered up, that illegal spyprograms were implemented, that there has been multibillion dollar waste and abuse of taxdollars, WHY HE BELIEVES that there was no insider conspiracy? Because to me, it's a blatant contradiction to rule this possibility out, when he just mentions all of those "funny" things.

Could it be that he still fears for his life when he would really speak his mind on this particular question? One would think that he absolutely does.

Of course the 9/11 plot wasn't supposed to be uncovered until it was completed. Of course these communicationfailures were or must've been deliberate, of course someone was pulling strings to make sure nothing was gonna be discovered and brought out into the open.

The real question is WHO were these people that made those all important critical decisions?
Who ordered the debris from GZ to be shipped off to India and China? Who ordered the investigations to be stonewalled? Who ordered that evidence cannot be looked at? Who ordered that NIST wasn't to look at anything that didn't support the official story on those 3 buildings? Who ordered that deliberate delays were to be "implemented" into the response of the FAA and NORAD? Who gave the order not to share info between the various intelagencies?
And who gave the order not to ask KSM or El Moussaoui about how AQ was gonna circumvent the US airdefence?

This is what it comes down to imo. We need to identify the people first who made all of the decisions allowing 9/11 to take place. After that's been done, the questioning can begin.

What's happening here is not bad, but I don't think it's getting us anywhere really.

Remote control

All of these factors indicate that the planes were under remote control. The demolitions required successful impacts and could not depend on a 1 in a thousand, 1 in a trillion, or even a 1 in 2 chance of succeeding.

Naming of the hijackers occurred after-the-fact and could have been altered since no boarding passes have ever been produced.... or passenger manifests by the airlines. The FBI had a plain white sheet of paper with the names in 2006 at the Moussaui trial, but no documents from the airlines have been produced with Arab names. So-called victims lists did not have Arab names. I guess Atta's bag and Saqami's passport are all we need to see.

EDIT: Exposing the second government or double government should be a priority, imo. While PNAC had their agenda and benefited from this operation, things like the surveillance state and COG seem to be tied to this parallel govt that 9/11 has allowed to strengthen. Snowden told Greenwald that there "were actually two governments in the US, the one that was elected, and the other, secret regime, governing in the dark."


It's not a prerequisite to believe anything regarding 9/11 to be a participant in this cause. Though, acknowledging that something is wrong with what we were told might be helpful.

cd and mass psychology

How much (more) evidence does it take to change one's state of mind, from *belief* in CD on 9/11, to *having the knowledge* that CD was used? There is so much evidence (video, eyewitness testimony, physical characteristics, chemical signatures, etc. etc. of CD - even high ranking officials including G. W. Bush have slipped up in unguarded moments admitting such) - that it may even be too much to keep hidden in the longterm. The powers-that-be may even admit to the near certainty (of CD), but using some limited hangout technique to blame other parties, (real or fictitious) - perhaps more "al Qaeda" militants as of yet unheard of - and thus continue to protect the real perpetrators.

Unfortunately, it seems that the perception of how (the public) views 9/11 has been largely led by what the public wanted to hear, rather than by hard evidence and rigorous scientific analysis. One can bet the farm that those who planned this operation were well-enough versed in mass psychology that they knew the public would go for what best suited the general comfort zone, especially if bolstered by endless repetition in the mainstream media - as we saw then and still see now. The perps also had the knowledge that the public are so easily led by the nose that enough "wiggle room" existed to maintain their version of events, even if some aspects of the operation didn't go according to plan (for an example, the likely delayed demise of WTC7).

Evidence is Overwhelming

for CD. Being a CD denier is like being a no-planer. It demonstrates that someone either hasn't bothered to educate themselves on the subject, or they can't distinguish between factual evidence and a "belief."

CD Denier...

You may as well say "9/11 Denier" or "Holocaust Denier."

What I think is amazing is how this blog led straight down into Controlled Demolition land. No one is bothering to bring up any of the rather "explosive" information that he spoke about. No, he didn't think "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB," but he certainly educated us about a few things, and helped to further the notion that the 9/11 Commission was an absolute farce. But, everything has to be about the buildings in this "movement."


What I think bothers me and my fellow CD theory advocates is that at the point where Thomas says he doesn't find evidence of an inside conspiracy, you passed on a simple follow-up question along the lines of "So you (Thomas) don't find the evidence complied by ae911truth.org convincing? Why not?" Former NSA Technical Director and whistleblower William Binney has signed the 'supporters' petition simply on the grounds of the on-its-face inept science of NIST. Mr. Binney is a late comer to the CD arguments because it was off his personal radar and he had simply not really considered the question.


That's blatently not true, and you know it. Look at the left side of the site... what % of the headlines are about CD? I count 11 out of 40.

The interview is about all kinds of interesting stuff, I wish there was a transcript available. Anyone have the necessary software?


Labeling someone a "denier" does not encourage them to look into subjects that interest you. It's not a productive tatic. And equating people who are uninformed about CD with people who think holograms (or whatever, it's hard to keep up) hit the WTC towers isnt helpful either.

I think there was a trial balloon a while back

I seem to remember something on Comcast news about the mob and explosives in the buildings, for a day or two, and then it went away.


Post and comments, thanks,. Jon

All due respect

To Jon and Tom Drake and all the other users on this site and this post.

I would say that Gladio Plan B would be the most useful addition to the list of things to attempt to get familiar with and include in non-CD discussions of 9/11.

I highly recommend The Lone Gladio, the recent novel by Sibel Edmonds, to understand the concept and find a suggestion about the patsies on the planes.

Then, search YouTube for Gladio Plan B and watch the 6 - part series by Corbett interviewing Edmonds about it.

To me, the testimony and disclosures provided by Sibel about this official, institutionalized program, run out of an office in the Pentagon, are the most important subject regarding 9/11, for discussion outside of CD. They are also important because they tie into current events and can inform our world-view in a way that will significantly help us understand the bigger picture.

Thanks for considering this.