Posts Tagged ‘9/11’


““[Binney said it] absolutely would have prevented 9/11”, if only the agency hadn’t wilfully ignored it.

A Good American review: fascinating revelations about the NSA’s role in 9/11

The Guardian claims it’s “fascinating” rather than evidence of treason on September 11th. Twats.

hqdefault (1)

On the tenth anniversary of the Attacks of September 11th, 2001, expert witnesses gathered at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada to provide evidence-based research that called into question the official story of 9/11. This was known as The Toronto Hearings on 9/11.

Over a period of four days, these experts in Structural Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, and History gave researched and professional testimony to an international panel of distinguished judges. The panel of judges, in conjunction with the steering committee would go on to publish their final analysis of the evidence provided, which called for a new investigation into the Attacks of September 11th, 2001.

This film is a summary of the strongest evidence given over the four days of hearings. To see the hearings in their entirety please visit or read the final report available on the aforementioned website.

For more info on The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 visit:……

For the full 6 hour DVD visit:…

Support Press For Truth by becoming a PFT Patron at
Shout out goes to some of my first PFT Patrons Martin Hill, Halvor Dingsøyr and Maverick Wilson!

Follow Dan Dicks:
on Facebook ➜
on Instagram ➜
on Twitter ➜!/DanDicksPFT
on Snapchat ➜ DanDicksPFT

Youtube ➜
Press For Truth TV ➜

Support Press For Truth:
Donate ➜…

Rock some PFT Gear ➜…

Want to donate bitcoin? Everything helps!

Press For Truth
#202- 1252 Burrard St.
Vancouver BC, V6V 1Z1



Pseudoscience & the “study” of “conspiracy beliefs” from message board postings
An open letter to Michael J. Wood et al.

Regarding: “What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

I read with some interest your “study” of some message board postings concerning the September 11th attacks. I found your efforts less than compelling. Random samplings of arguments on message boards are a legitimate way to understand the September 11th 2001 attacks? No. But it is a convenient way of lumping large disparate groups of people into simplistic categories in order to smear them.

As someone who has intensely studied the issue for some 13 years and counting, I would have to say that your approach is hamfisted, ignorant, and even juvenile. You and your partners have relied upon your own concepts of “belief” and “theory” and the utterances of message board posters, but lack a firm foundation to compare or contrast any of the information that was analyzed.

In other words, you don’t have an expert knowledge of the US government cover-up of the September 11th event (or even acknowledge it), nor of the many high-level government whistleblowers surrounding this issue. You lack an even rudimentary understanding of the event, and therefore have no basis to judge the competing arguments, at all. Nor do you concede the obvious fact of conspiracies throughout history, actual state crimes, of which there are numerous examples. This would lead to an examination of motive, and that the state gains an incredible amount of power after failing to stop an attack, including the power to wage foreign wars of aggression with impunity.

You know: 1 + 1=2 type stuff.

It is not difficult to engage in a conspiracy. Any two individuals on planet earth can commit a crime together, and voila: there’s a conspiracy. The idea that conspiracy is rare or even non-existent(!), as some mainstream media pundits have argued, is absurd on its face and should discredit the author entirely. As an obvious example, you–as someone purportedly studying government conspiracy–should be well versed in the Iran-Contra fiasco of the 1980s. Colonel Oliver North was convicted, with ten others, to refresh your memory. So, is someone who “believes” in the Iran-Contra conspiracy more or less prone to “belief” in conspiracy, as per your definitions and comprehension?

Clearly we have a problem when you divide the public based upon generalizations that cannot possibly hold true when tested against real historical facts. The knowledge, or ignorance, of these facts is paramount.

So, Mr. Wood, did the Iran-Contra conspiracy happen? Are you a “conspiracist?” Do you engage in “belief” about it?

Next, your “psychological study” has not even a mention of the concept of disinformation. This omission discredits your work. Disinformation is the deliberate seeding of the public debate with false data in order to muddy the waters and make discovery of the true facts of the conspiracy more difficult. It throws off the dogs. Disinformation is rampant and easily achieved as soon as any individual concocts a false narrative and presses “send” or “post.” Apparently this has never occurred to your team, as it received zero scrutiny.

Some number of message board trolls will turn out to be posting disinformation, in my decade-plus experience with them, a situation your study failed to even conceptualize, nevermind correct for. Others post misinformation. This is the problem with relying upon message board flame wars for your data.

Therefore your study is tangential and irrelevant to learning what actually happened. Its approach reinforces the idea that psychological pseudoscience has relevance to the facts of real world crimes and terrorist events. It champions a specious view, one founded upon ignorance and random arguments over misinformation and disinformation, rather than seeking to understand what is actually known and what is unknown, to date, about the criminal attacks you purport to study.

Similarly your “study” commented on other controversial topics without any accompanying examination of something the rest of the world likes to call “evidence.” You and your cohorts feel supremely confident in pronouncing sweeping generalizations about “belief” without providing context as to why someone would hold such a belief (factual evidence). It is for this exact reason that I have labeled your efforts “pseudoscience.” You have divorced some abstract concept called “belief” from the hard evidence that causes such “belief.” Cause and effect are alien to your own theories, at least as presented in your “psychological study.” Your article ends up lightweight pondering and lacks the gravity of facts, or the due diligence required to examine and test those facts.

You have come to this party from ignorance, and you remain there, blissfully unaware of the veracity of any of the data, whatsoever. That’s a pretty harsh criticism, but is warranted.


Mr. Wood, was the September 11th attack not a “conspiracy?”

Joe Giambrone


The 9/11 Blame Game

Ignorant spinmeisters across the corporate spectrum, and on foundation-funded “left” media, have been carefully choosing their headlines today. As Donald Trump Tweets at Jeb Bush and vice-versa, the topic of the actual September 11th attacks needs to be delicately spun to suit the expected narrowly tailored spectrum of so-called “debate.” This is the antithesis of debate, by the way, an apriori excising of all inconvenient facts from the discussion.

We have been living in a Big Lie for 14 years, and many millions of Americans have railed against it. The facts of the September 11th attack operation are largely sealed and kept classified to protect Saudi financiers and treasonous US officials who gave the green light. Beyond acquiescence, the legitimate investigations of terrorists prior to 9/11/01, such as the case of Zacharias Moussaoui, were deliberately halted and thwarted by superiors in the bowels of the intelligence establishment. We have seen a massive cover-up, on par with the Warren Commission, concerning Saudi sponsorship of the hijackers. This cover-up, by two administrations, is the highest treason (“aid and comfort” to the enemy), and should be cause for impeachment and prosecution immediately. That’s reality, as the facts of the attacks show unequivocally.

Senator Bob Graham has, since December of 2002, told the American public of “foreign governments” providing money and logistical support to the hijackers. To erase these revelations from history the Bush regime censored his 28 pages on foreign support to the 9/11 hijackers, and then they sent in their professor of myth-making, Philip Zelikow, to fabricate a facsimile of an investigation.

Zelikow would fire Commission staffer Dana Leseman for simply getting a copy of the 28 pages, in order to pursue the leads. He also refused to investigate the list of Saudis provided by Commission investigators, claiming that there were simply too many. Zelikow’s response was to cut the list down and hobble the investigation, from behind the scenes.

Even Richard Clarke, the highest counter-terrorism official in the United States on 9/11, has said that “fifty” CIA personnel were aware that the San Diego Al Qaeda cell was in the country, for 16 months prior to the attacks. For over a year the CIA did absolutely nothing, except hide the facts from Clarke and from the FBI. This 16 month window was allegedly a time of “hair on fire” urgency concerning an impending terrorist attack. A May 1, 2001 presidential briefing warned the White House in black and white that “‘a group presently in the United States’ was planning a terrorist operation (NY Times).”

A group presently in the United States: the president was informed. The CIA knew who these guys were. The CIA hid their existence from the FBI. The CIA even hid the information from a National Security Council meeting one week prior to the attacks, as per Richard Clarke, who was present at the meeting.

Senator Graham also talked about the shenanigans in Florida, where the government claimed to have no surveillance on the abandoned mansion in Sarasota, only to have to admit to hiding 80,000 pages. Those are 80k pages that were completely ignored by the so-called 9/11 Commission Investigation. That alleged mistake, taken in context, could also be considered “aid and comfort” to named individuals who were directly connected to the hijackers, including the alleged “lead hijacker” Mohamad Atta. The government’s own story claims that these are the people who committed the 9/11 attacks, and yet hides the evidence of who they consorted with and from whom they received money.

Any “aid and comfort” to terrorists attacking the US should be considered Treason, as per the US Constitution, Article 3. The Constitution is very clear about people engaged in “levying war” on the country. An after the fact cover-up is “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Enter Jeb Bush, the brother of the man who did absolutely nothing to fulfill his duties as Commander in Chief of the military at 9:05am, when he was informed that “America is under attack.” George W. Bush sat there for twenty minutes. As the Washington Times reported his press secretary, Ari Fleischer (corrected: 10/20), held up a message on a legal pad to signal President Bush: “Don’t say anything yet.”

Later that day Fleischer would lie to the world and claim “No warnings” were received, a demonstrable falsehood so glaring it should have been cause for his arrest at that moment.

But the next day, 9/12 of 2001, when the world was fixated on the rubble in lower Manhattan, Florida Governor Jeb Bush went to work. He ordered all the files stored at the Venice Florida police department that concerned the local flight schools loaded into a Ryder truck. The flight schools were where Mohamad Atta and company allegedly learned how to fly. The truck full of police records drove to the Sarasota Airport, and up onto a C130 transport plane, and flew out with Jeb aboard. The files were never received by the FBI, and are missing to this day.

Jeb Bush should be considered a person of interest in the mass murder of September 11th. Perhaps that’s why he’s come out shrieking hysterically at Trump this past weekend. Enough evidence is already out in public to indict him and his brother for high treason. Only, the majority of Americans are misled about what we know, what it means, and what we can do about it. The mis-leaders are the media and the self-styled pundits who spin the attacks into some vague obfuscation. Trump is one of the spinmeisters, of course. But the US corporate media are also complicit propagandists. US media has erased this history, which I have merely scratched the surface of, and continues to do so daily. It does not investigate the real crime of 9/11 but seeks to provide enough blustering emotionalism to suffice, so that the public doesn’t get suspicious and supplant the propagandists. Media relies on a lazy, apathetic public that isn’t prodded into acting and investigating for itself. It wants couch potatoes who long to be told what to think, and more importantly what not to think.

So we get the silly blame game. Trump’s xenophobic anti-immigrant Jihad would have stopped 9/11! Jeb’s brother was keeping us safe! What irrelevant blather.

Release the 28 censored pages now. Today.

The people who actually know about the 9/11 attacks, people like Senator Graham, Paul Thompson, who created the Complete 9/11 Timeline, and former Underwriters Laboratories engineer Kevin Ryan, are the ones to listen to. Something’s rotten in Washington, so rotten that the media dare not even hint of it. That something is high treason, an ongoing crime with no statute of limitations. US officials need to be prosecuted for their malfeasance. If prosecutions moved forward, the entire plot would unravel like a house of cards tumbling to the table.

If America has any self-respect remaining at all it will demand justice, the immediate release of the 28 pages on Saudi sponsorship of the attacks, and a new government that actually defends the nation instead of using attacks as a deliberate plan to expand the empire and increase profits.

That “new Pearl Harbor,” and associated strategy, from the Project for a New American Century, is quite real and proceeds to this day. It has a bipartisan consensus, and the goal is control of the world’s resources. If that’s not motive enough, then I’m not sure what else I can tell you.


Joe Giambrone is editor of Political Film Blog, author of Hell of a Deal: A Supernatural Satire and Transfixion, a young adult science fiction thriller.

Bandar-300x188 (1)“Bandar Bush”

Kevin Ryan:
Saudi Ties to 9/11 Mean U.S. Ties to 9/11
  • When two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi, came to the U.S. in January 2000, they immediately met with Omar Al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi spy and an employee of a Saudi aviation company. Al-Bayoumi, who was the target of FBI investigations in the two years before 9/11, became a good friend to the two 9/11 suspects, setting them up in an apartment and paying their rent.
  • Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi then moved in with a long-time FBI asset, Abdussattar Shaikh, who was said to be a teacher of the Saudi language. Shaikh allowed them to live in his home for at least seven months, later saying that he thought they were only Saudi students. In an unlikely coincidence, both Al-Bayoumi and Shaikh also knew Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of Flight 77. Although Shaikh was reported to be a retired professor at San Diego State University, the university had no records of him. He was then said to be a professor at American Commonwealth University but that turned out to be a phony institution. During the 9/11 investigations, the FBI refused to allow Shaikh to be interviewed or deposed. The FBI also tried to prevent the testimony of Shaikh’s FBI handler, which occurred only secretly at a later date. Despite having a very suspicious background, the FBI gave Shaikh $100,000 and closed his contract.
  • Journalist Joseph Trento claimed that an unnamed former CIA officer, who worked in Saudi Arabia, told him that Alhazmi and Almihdhar were Saudi spies protected by U.S. authorities.
  • After being appointed CIA Director in 1997, George Tenet began to cultivate close personal relationships with officials in Saudi Arabia. Tenet grew especially close to Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Bandar and Tenet often met at Bandar’s home near Washington. Tenet did not share information from those meetings with his own CIA officers who were handling Saudi issues at the agency. These facts are among the reasons to suspect that Tenet facilitated the crimes of 9/11.
  • Bernard Kerik, the New York City police commissioner at the time of 9/11, spent three years working in Saudi Arabia in the 1970s. He then spent another three years in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s as the “chief investigator for the royal family.” It was Kerik who first told the public that explosives were not used at the World Trade Center (WTC) in a news conference. It was also his police department that was said to have discovered a passport that fell from one of the burning towers, providing dubious evidence identifying one of the alleged hijackers.
  • After 9/11, former FBI director Louis Freeh, whose agency failed to stop Al Qaeda-attributed terrorism from 1993 to 2001, became the personal attorney for Tenet’s dubious cohort, Prince Bandar. Sometimes called “Bandar Bush” for his close relationship to the Bush family, Bandar was the Saudi intelligence director from 2005 to 2015.
  • The company that designed the security system for the WTC complex, Kroll Associates, had strong connections to Saudi Arabia. For example, Kroll board member Raymond Mabus, now Secretary of the Navy, was the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the 1990s. Control of WTC security speaks to the question of how explosives could have been placed in the three tall buildings that weredemolished on 9/11.
  • All four of the contractors that were involved in implementing Kroll’s security design for the WTC had done significant business in the Saudi kingdom. Stratesec, the company that installed the overall electronic security system at the WTC complex, had also managed security for Dulles airport, where Flight 77 took off, and for United Airlines, which owned two of the three other planes. For many reasons, the company’s managers should be primary suspects in the crimes of 9/11. Stratesec was in partnership with a large Saudi engineering and construction company to develop and conduct business in Saudi Arabia.
  • Another interesting connection between Stratesec and Saudi Arabia was that, in the years leading up to 9/11, Stratesec held its annual shareholders’ meetings in an office that was leased by Saudi Arabia. This was an office in the Watergate Hotel occupied by the Saudi Embassy (run by Prince Bandar).
  • The Bush and Bin Laden-financed Carlyle Groupowned, through BDM International, the Vinnell Corporation, a mercenary operation that had extensive contracts and trained the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Several of Stratesec’s key employees, including its operating manager Barry McDaniel, came from BDM. In 1995, BDM’s Vinnell was one of the first targets of Al Qaeda, in Saudi Arabia.
  • One of the two major contractors hired to manage the cleanup of debris at Ground Zero—Bovis Lend Lease—had previously built the Riyadh Olympic stadium in Saudi Arabia.
  • The other primary cleanup company at Ground Zero—AMEC Construction—had just completed a $258 million refurbishment of Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, which is exactly where Flight 77 was said to impact that building. AMEC had a significant presence in Saudi Arabia for decades, working for the national oil company, Saudi Aramco.
  • In the 1990s, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), run by Dick Cheney’s protégé Duane Andrews, trained the Saudi Navy and instructed Saudi military personnel at its company headquarters in San Diego. SAIC had a greater impact on counterterrorism programs in the United States than any other non-government entity and it profited greatly from 9/11.
  • While SAIC was training the Saudi Navy, the Carlyle/BDM subsidiary Vinnell Corporation was training the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Simultaneously, Booz Allen Hamilton was managing the Saudi Marine Corps and running the Saudi Armed Forces Staff College.
  • Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied all but ten floors of WTC building 7, was taken over by Citigroup in 1998 after Citigroup was taken over by Saudi Prince Alwaleed, in a deal brokered by The Carlyle Group. Donald Rumsfeldand Dick Cheney joined the advisory board for SSB just after Citigroup’s takeover and they only resigned in January 2001 to join the Bush Administration.
  • The Saudi government was sued by thousands of 9/11 victim’s family members due to the suspicion that Saudi Arabia helped to finance Al Qaeda. The Saudis hired the law firm of Bush Administration insider James Baker to defend them in that lawsuit.
  • The 9/11 families’ lawsuit against Saudi royals was thrown out on a technicality related to the ability to sue a foreign government and, later, the Obama Administration backed the Saudis during the appeal.
  • The world’s leading insurance provider, Lloyd’s of London, filed a lawsuit alleging Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Lloyd’s dropped the lawsuit just days later without explanation.
  • After 9/11, it became clear that Saudi officials were supporting terrorism. For example, in the case of a would-be “underwear bomber,” it was revealed that the suspect was working for the CIA and Saudi intelligence.
  • Saudi Prince Bandar has been accused of coordinating an international ring of terrorism in his role as Saudi intelligence chief. From Egypt to Libya, and now in Syria, evidence suggests that Bandar Bush has led a network of terrorists around the globe, with U.S. support.