9/11 Truth and the Way Forward: Starting a Real Criminal Investigation

by | Sep 11, 2013 | Videos | 0 comments

CLICK HERE to continue watching this report on BoilingFrogsPost.com

by James Corbett
September 10, 2013

Preserve the crime scene. Follow the money trail. Establish the motive. Look for those with the means to pull off the crime.

Any criminal investigator will tell you that these are the most basic principles of any investigation. But none of them were followed on 9/11.

In the days and weeks after the attacks, Ground Zero was sealed off by then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani not to preserve the crime scene evidence, but to hasten its destruction. Over 350,000 tons of steel was carted away in the first few months, with most of it being sold to companies like Baosteel of China, which paid 25% under market price for the scrapped steel.

FEMA’s own building performance investigation team was prevented from entering Ground Zero or even taking steel samples from the salvage yards for their own report.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology tasked with writing the definitive report on the collapse of the towers admitted, apparently without irony, that it did not test the WTC steel for evidence of explosives as mandated by federal law because “there was no evidence” of explosives.

NORAD provided four separate and contradictory stories of its response to the events that morning. Some of the 9/11 commissioners believed that members of the Pentagon had lied to Congress in their testimony and the commission convened a secret meeting in the summer of 2004 to debate sending the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, but they did not proceed with this proposal.

The SEC ended its investigation into the insider trading that took place on stocks of companies affected by the attacks because the suspects of its investigation had no known ties to Al Qaeda, and thus were by the terms of the SEC probe, free from suspicion of guilt. The SEC later destroyed all records related to the investigation, the largest such investigation in SEC history, as part of what it called “routine record keeping.”

Famously, not one single person so much as lost their job with regard to the events of 9/11, let alone faced criminal prosecution for their culpability in the attack.

Of course, there was no serious criminal investigation. No attempt to preserve the evidence or establish the means, motive or opportunity. No inclination to follow the money. The 9/11 commission itself concluded that the funding of the attacks were of “little practical significance.” From the very first moments after the attack, the fix was in.

Now, 12 years later, one of the researchers who has painstakingly pieced together the details of the attack in order to identify 19 alternate suspects who should be considered in any serious investigation is Kevin Ryan, a whistleblower at Underwriters Laboratory who lost his position when he refused to go along with the company line on the causes for the collapse of the twin towers.

After 10 years of research into the names and connections behind the 9/11 attack and its subsequent cover up, Kevin Ryan has released a new book synthesizing that research. Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects seeks to propose an alternate 19 suspects to the alleged hijackers that we have been asked to believe perpetrated the attacks that day. The list includes Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the highest ranking administration officials in Washington that day and two people who had been intimately involved with Continuity of Government planning that was actually enacted on the morning of 9/11 and may still be in operation today, Frank Carlucci of the Bush-Bin Laden connected Carlyle Group, Richard Armitage who oversaw the state department which instituted the Visa Express program through which many of the alleged hijackers obtained their visas to enter the country, Louis Freeh and George Tenet, Ralph Eberhart, Michael Canavan and Benedict Sliney who helped oversee the air defense failure that morning, Rudy Giuliani, who put the emergency management office in WTC 7 in the years before the attack and then oversaw the destruction of the Ground Zero crime scene and numerous others, including corporations like SAIC, Kroll, KuwAm, and Stratesec that all had intimate ties to the events of 9/11.

Earlier this week I had the chance to talk to Kevin Ryan about his investigation, including those people who were most responsible for perpetuating the cover-up of 9/11 and blocking the investigation into these legitimate 9/11 suspects.

Another key avenue of any serious 9/11 investigation is to identify those with the means, motive and opportunity to organize the attacks at an institutional level. The prime suspects in this regard would have to be the signatories to the Project for the New American Century.

Established in 1997 by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC was a neocon think tank that from the very outset sought to entangle the US in a war with Iraq. Its long term goal was to secure America’s position of global dominance into the 21st century and, infamously, said that it would be impossible to rally the public around this goal without some “catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

High-level PNAC signatories include many who ended up in the Rumsfeld Pentagon during the Bush Administration who oversaw the Afghan war and the Iraq war that they had been advocating for since at least 1998. The Afghan war which was launched under the pretext of nabbing Osama and disrupting the Al Qaeda network for their part of 9/11 was in fact enacted from war plans that were part of the first major national security directive of the Bush White House – NSPD-9 – which was on President Bush’s desk on September 4, 2001, seven days before 9/11.

FBI whisltelbower and BoilingFrogsPost.com founder Sibel Edmonds joined me on The Corbett Report last week to discuss the high-level PNAC signatories, including Richard Armitage, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, who rank high on the list of 9/11 suspects.

Fundamentally, 9/11 was a crime. It was a particularly horrific crime, one that played itself out like a high-budget Hollywood blockbuster over the course of three terrifying hours on live TV, but a crime nonetheless. And like any other crime, the basic principles of investigation that we identified at the beginning of this report still hold true.

What is self-evident from the foregoing is that a legitimate criminal proceeding is needed in order to establish the guilt or innocence of these legitimate 9/11 suspects and identify all of those, whether in the White House, the military, the intelligence establishment, or private industry, who either aided or allowed these attacks to occur or participated in their coverup. Unfortunately, the national conversation on 9/11 has still not progressed much beyond the knee-jerk labeling of 9/11 truth proponents as “conspiracy theorists” (as opposed, presumably, to those who posit the theory of 19 conspiring hijackers), and the automatic assumption that the exploration of 9/11 is limited solely to an investigation of the building collapses that day. Until we are able to overcome these obstacles and progress beyond the still emotionally-charged invective over 9/11, what hope is there for any criminal investigation into these 9/11 suspects to be started?

Until the 9/11 truth movement as a whole starts to understand that justice for the victims of that day and the victims of all the future wars that have been waged in its name is the bedrock upon which it stands, anniversary after anniversary will continue to pass without the true perpetrators of those attacks facing the consequences of their crimes.


Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member