Scientists for 9/11 Truth is a group of scientific professionals who are calling for new, independent, and scientific investigations of the events of September 11, 2001.
Organizing Committee:
David S. Chandler, BS Physics, Harvey Mudd College, MS Mathematics, California Polytechnic University
Jonathan Cole, P.E., Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering, University of Connecticut
David S. Chandler, BS Physics, Harvey Mudd College, MS Mathematics, California Polytechnic University
Purpose:
Our specific purpose is to collect, study, analyze, report on, and disseminate scientifically factual information and data on the events that took place on September 11, 2001 (9/11), and issues related to these events; to solicit public support for new, independent and scientific investigations of the events of 9/11; and to present, for scientific, educational, and civic purposes, a unified front of professional scientists who stand behind the emerging science of 9/11.
As scientists, we are committed to upholding the scientific method developed painstakingly over the past centuries, sometimes at great cost to personal reputation, circumstance, and freedom, and even to life itself.
Considering the tremendous impact, on decisions to go to war, of the official account of 9/11, and the many thousands of lives snuffed out by these wars and on 9/11 itself and thereafter, it behooves us, as representatives of the scientific tradition, to uphold that tradition with truth and honor by exposing the absurdity of the official story of 9/11 as seen from a scientific perspective.
It is probable that many of you, for reasons of time, political outlook, and personal inclination, or a desire not to question the government, have not yet closely examined the official story of what happened on September 11, 2001. To you and all those who seek a rational world through reason and truth-telling, we offer these pages.
Membership:
Scientists for 9/11 Truth includes both natural scientists and formal scientists (mathematicians, computer scientists, and systems scientists). For individual member statements, see Signatories.
For membership information, click Join Us here or in the main menu. View our Petition by clicking Petition here or in the main menu.
New Hampshire Nonprofit Corporation:
In 2010 Scientists for 9/11 Truth was registered as a nonprofit corporation under the provisions of RSA Chapter 292.
The officers of this corporation are:
Mark Basile, President
Eleanore Smart, Treasurer
John D. Wyndham, Secretary
The by-laws of the corporation established an extended board consisting of not less than five members. The organizing committee and coordinator (the scientific committee) are members of the extended board. Other individuals on the extended board who are members of Scientists may particpate in and vote on scientific issues, but their vote is counted only when it is necessary to achieve a quorum.
In addition to the corporation officers listed above, the following are members of the extended board.
Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11
NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004)(Updated Sep. 11, 2009) – An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and “consciously failed to act,” with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.
Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and hijackerfunding to foreign governmentforewarnings and inactive defenses around the Pentagon. The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
The Statement’s list of signatories includes notables spanning the political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Other signers range from peace activists like Global Exchange’s Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists like Randy Hayes and John Robbins; from populist journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O’Meara.
The Statement also includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times #1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians, and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy.
The Statement was facilitated by 911truth.org, a leading coalition. The organization has also announced a press conference outside of Eliot Spitzer’s Manhattan office (corner of Cedar and Nassau) at 2:00PM on Thursday, Oct. 28th where 9/11 family members and victim group representatives will file a formal complaint demanding the first criminal investigation of 9/11 events by the New York Attorney General.
Page Update 9/9/2009: Following is the actual statement endorsed by these signatories, as referred to in the press release above.
The Statement
We Want Real Answers About 9/11
On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and “consciously failed” to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General.
In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.
We want truthful answers to questions such as:
Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
Why hasn’t a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Why haven’t authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA’s radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?
Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green Party.
As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
Given the importance of the coming election, we feel it is imperative that these questions be addressed publicly, honestly, and rigorously so that Americans may exercise their democratic rights with full awareness.
In closing, we pray and hope for the strength to approach this subject with wisdom and compassion so that we may heal from the wounds inflicted on that terrible day.
Signed,
Signatories
Note: All organizations are mentioned for identification purposes only. Individuals have signed this statement as an act of their own conscience, not to signify organizational endorsement.
Update 9/11/2009: Signatories removed. Posted by Janice Matthews, current Director, 911Truth.org Following recent media-generated controversy over Obama appointee Van Jones’ signature on this Statement, he and two other signatories have requested their names be removed. That has been done.
Virginia Deane Abernethy, Ph.D., anthropologist, author, Population Politics
Ed Asner, actor, activist
Marshall Auerback, international portfolio strategist for David W. Tice & Associates, Inc.
Catherine Austin Fitts, Asst. Secretary of Housing in the first Bush administration
Keidi Obi Awadu, aka The Conscious Rasta, talk show host, LIBRadio
Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for President
James W. Walter Jr., venture investor, philanthropist, founder of Walden Three
Dan Whaley, E-commerce pioneer, founder of GetThere.com, acquired for $750M
Burns H. Weston, J.S.D., Professor of Law Emeritus, Director, Center for Human Rights, U-Iowa
Howard Zinn, professor, historian, author, A People’s History of the United States
Family Members
Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th floor
Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC, 105th floor
Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd floor
Ralph D’Esposito, father of Michael D’Esposito, WTC, 96th floor
Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th floor
Adina D. Eisenberg, sister of Eric Eisenberg, WTC
Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul “Geep” Fisher, Pentagon
Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard Guadagno, Flight 93
Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One, 95th floor
Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor, KBW
Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
Paul & Barbara Kirwin, parents of Glenn Davis Kirwin, Cantor Fitzgerald 105th floor
Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC firefighter
Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in WTC, Tower One
Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W. Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
David Potorti, brother of James Potorti, North Tower, WTC, Marsh & McLennan
Terry Kay Rockefeller, sister of Laura Rockefeller, North Tower, WTC
Grissel Rodriguez-Valentin, wife of Benito Valentin, WTC1, 94th floor
Alissa Rosenberg-Torres, widow of Luis Eduardo Torres, post-9/11 mother, writer
Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2, 84th floor
Paula Shapiro, mother of Eric Eisenberg, WTC2
Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September 2001
Adele Welty, mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY, Squad 288
Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th floor
David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
Nissa Youngren, daughter of Robert G. LeBlanc, flight 175
Late Signatories (starting toward 200 …)
Rita M. Haley, President, National Organization for Women, New York Chapter
Immortal Technique, Harlem-based hip-hop artist with Viper Records, Revolutionary I&II
Bob Kirkconnell, served in the U.S. Air Force 27 years, reaching the rank of Master Sergeant
Dennis Kyne, former Army air medic, 18th Airborne Corps during Gulf War I, musician, author, “Support the Truth”
Paul Landis, author, “Stop Bush Now!”
Eric H. May, former Army military intelligence officer and media essayist
Charles Shaw, Editor, Newtopia Magazine, National Peace Action Coordinator, National Green Party
Peter Erlinder, professor, William Mitchell College of Law, past-President National Lawyers Guild
Daniel Robert Rezac, 2004 Vice-Presidential Write-In Candidate, former Aviator & Armor Officer, Army National Guard, B.S.B.A.
Joel Horwitz, lost beloved cousin in WTC 1
Jessica Murrow, lost husband Stephen Adams, Beverage Manager, Windows on the World, WTC 1
Ellen Mariani, lost husband Neil on Flight 175
Jean Hunt, disabled survivor of Pentagon attack
Ralph & Brigitte Sabbag, lost son Jason in WTC 2
Take action!
Send this information to your congresspeople and journalists, demanding attention
Help New York citizens and 9/11 family members, beginning Thursday, Oct. 28th, by signing an online petition in support of their formal complaint to be filed with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Petition at Justicefor911.Org
We ask signatories of the statement that helped drive Van Jones from office if they stand by it.
Thanks in large part to his association with the 9/11 Truth movement, Van Jones is no longer a member of the Obama White House. Jones resigned last week amid a swirl of controversy — prodded on largely by Fox News’ Glenn Beck — that included the former “green jobs” advisor’s signing of a petition put out by the 9/11 Truth movement urging a further investigation into the World Trade Center attacks. Most controversially, the petition wondered darkly that “unanswered questions … suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war,” before drifting into a list of wild and dubious speculation. (You can read the petition right here.)
Initially, Jones said that he hadn’t fully reviewed the statement before he signed. But that didn’t stop the onslaught of bad publicity that ultimately led to his exit.
The statement was released in October 2004 and has been signed by nearly 200 people, including many relatives of those who lost someone in the attacks. It called for an investigation into 9/11 but also directly questioned the government’s conclusions about the plane crashes.
In the wake of Jones’ departure, Politico’s Ben Smith contacted two other signatories of the statement, Rabbi Michael Lerner and historian Howard Zinn. Smith found that both men felt they had signed a petition of more limited scope than the one that appears at the 9/11 Truth Web site, one that asked only for an investigation into the attacks and not one questioning President Bush’s prior knowledge of 9/11.
Salon contacted nearly 30 of the petition’s signatories to see if they felt, as did Lerner, Zinn and Jones, that the document didn’t reflect their views on 9/11. We asked a simple question: If you had to do it all over again, would you still sign the statement?
Salon has not heard back from two of the statement’s most famous signatories: actor Ed Asner and comedian Janeane Garofalo. (Updated: We have received and added Asner’s response to the list below.) But many did respond and most — though not all — expressed their full-fledged support for the petition. Their responses are below:
Ed Asner (through his company, Quince Productions): Mr. Asner would sign the petition again without the slightest hesitation.
Gray Brechin, historical geographer and visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley’s Department of Geography: Until recently, I thought that I (like Van Jones) live in a country with a First Amendment that permits freedom of speech, thought and petition without fear of reprisal. I had that pleasant illusion despite growing up in the dark shadow of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, of red scares, blacklists and witch hunts, of the John Birch Society (and worse), which the Old Guard of the Republican Party then considered zanies. The ideological descendants of those wackos have since taken over that party. I suspect that you did not grow up at that time.
Since when did Salon permit Glenn Beck and the almost equally loony WSJ editorial page to set the terms of discussion, calling those who want answers to so much that remains unexplained about 9/11 “truthers” and thus giving them equivalence with “birthers,” “deathers” and “tea baggers”? Since when was Van Jones a “czar” rather than an advisor? Since when was he not entitled to his opinions, past or present? Was it when he was born black and inexcusably smart? Jones is the kind of visionary with whom Franklin Roosevelt surrounded himself but of which the Obama administration is almost entirely bereft, and now that administration has shamefully thrown him to the sharks.Advertisement:
Have you contacted the widows and other family members who lost loved ones on that terrible day and asked them if they recant wondering why, for example, New York City and the Pentagon — the fucking Pentagon! — were defenseless on that morning more than a month after the would-be president was informed that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the United States? Have you asked them if they are as disloyal, or as nuts, as Van Jones for signing that petition? Have you an answer for that and other questions on that petition, which were never discussed by the mainstream media when it piled on Jones at Beck’s behest?
Van Jones was not only flayed for once signing a petition but for jokingly calling Republicans “assholes.” Why is that “extreme” speech when Glenn Beck freely advocates violent overthrow of the U.S. government, gives an exegesis of the Communist/Fascist messages that “progressive” John D. Rockefeller Jr. insidiously inserted in the art of Rockefeller Center, and fantasizes killing Michael Moore and the speaker of the House on air to millions? When will the men with butterfly nets take this man away so that he does not hurt others or himself, rather than journalists allow him to take them down into his rat-infested sewer with him?Advertisement:
I keep hoping that, like Joe McCarthy, Mr. Beck (and O’Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, “Savage,” etc.) will go too far, but — with the wreck of public education and its replacement by entertainment — Americans have so lost any moral compass that “too far” no longer exists as long as one is to the right of Dick Cheney.
Paul Hawken, author and co-founder of Smith & Hawken: (Editorial note: Hawken requested to have his name removed from the list of signatories) I don’t regret signing it because I never did sign it, and I am not sure Van did either. What might have happened is that an e-mail was sent around calling for an endorsement for a more thorough investigation into the events leading up to and on the day of 9/11. I have asked for any records showing that I signed anything and the 911truth.org committee says that they are unable to supply any such record. I was completely unaware of the press release or that my name was used until I was contacted during the Beck lynching. I do remember e-mails around that time but they were about the families of the victims feeling that their government (the 9/11 Commission) had let them down.Advertisement:
Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University; distinguished visiting professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara: I would re-sign the 9/11 statement calling for investigation and clarification with respect to the series of questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. To call for an investigation along these lines does not make one “a 9/11 truther” or an endorser of a conspiracy theory. The deliberate blurring of the boundary between questioning the persuasiveness of the official version of 9/11 and the endorsement of an alternative theory of the events that implicates high officials in the Bush presidency seems designed to prevent further inquiry. Citizens in a democratic society deserve to know the truth, and to seek the truth in matters of such fundamental national importance should be treated as an expression of patriotic duty rather than the reverse.
Richard Heinberg, author: No, I don’t regret signing the petition. The petition, as I signed it, was essentially recommending that an independent investigation take place. I felt at the time, and still feel, that with events of such monumental importance as this, the more light that can be shed the better. I do not believe that the official 9/11 Commission Report addressed many of the most important questions about the events. Nevertheless, I have no ongoing association with the 9/11 Truthers.Advertisement:
However, unless one has a transparent investigation (perhaps something in the nature of the Watergate hearings), plus exchanges between scientists, engineers, architects, pilots, etc. — on all sides of the issue, I may not have much confidence in the findings.
The fact that such a statement should be controversial at all has less to do with what it says than with the great taboo that still inhibits rational discussion of the evidence.
First of all, the statement asks for a new inquiry into 9/11. That is hardly an insane demand, considering the many obstacles and limitations that prevented the 9/11 Commission from doing a proper job. That body was deliberately enfeebled by Bush/Cheney: grossly underfunded ($3 million — while, for example, the budget for the study of the Challenger disaster was $50 million, and Whitewater cost over $40 million); granted no subpoena power; forced to rush the process; denied all sorts of vital information; and otherwise slowed down, fouled up, kept in the dark. (I write at length about Bush/Cheney’s varied efforts to prevent, then hobble, the Commission in my book “Cruel and Unusual,” pp. 33ff.)Advertisement:
Witnesses employed by the USG were daunted openly by departmental colleagues who sat in on the hearings, ostentatiously, as “minders.” (“The Commission feels unanimously,” said Chairman Thomas Kean, “that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work with or works with your agency.”) And Bush/Cheney themselves refused to testify except in tandem, with a strict limit on their time, and their testimony given off the record and not under oath.
So how could anyone regard that body’s findings as definitive — even if those findings were not rife with logical and physical impossibilities, as well as glaring omissions? (Such problems have been very thoroughly and soberly discussed by David Ray Griffin, in his three books on the subject, one of them, on the inexplicable collapse of Building 7, just now coming out.) A new investigation is not just a good idea, but, I’d say, a major civic obligation, what with the scale of that horrendous tragedy, and its disastrous national and global consequences.
In calling for a new inquiry, the statement also proposes that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attack. Now, if I had been the one to draft the statement, I would probably have worded that bit less assertively, in order not to draw the sort of propaganda fire that’s been directed at the statement since it first appeared. Having said that, however, I must also note that there should really be no controversy over that suggestion, either; since it’s well established that the Bush White House was pointedly forewarned of some such looming terrorist attack — by, among others, the CIA, Mossad and the intelligence agencies of France and Britain, among others — and yet did absolutely nothing to prevent its happening.Advertisement:
In any case, I find it more than troubling that the mere fact of Van Jones’ having signed that statement ought to be deemed a priori evidence of his “extremist” views. (Although I’m sorry that he felt obliged to back away, I can’t really blame him for it, what with the shit storm that was drenching him.) I think the press should be examining the evidence itself, instead of squaring off against the so-called truthers — a move that only bolsters the taboo against all rational discussion of this all-important issue.
Chuck Turner, Boston City Council: I need to see the final 9/11 piece. I have read that the piece was changed after people signed it. So I can’t really say whether I would do it again until I am clear on what it says.
Douglas Sturm, professor emeritus of religion and political science, Bucknell University: In direct response to your query, I in no way repudiate my action signing the 9/11 statement. It stands as an appeal to investigate closely and carefully a series of questions about that tragic event that have yet to receive fully satisfactory answers.
I have no idea why Van Jones now regrets his signature, nor shall I speculate about his motives in doing so. He is a person of immense talent who has a sterling record of activities serving the public interest. I am saddened that he is no longer in the post he assumed in President Obama’s administration.Advertisement:
Given personal circumstances, I have been unable to be active in the continuing movement to have these questions taken seriously, but I support those who persist in this important endeavor.
Burns H. Weston, professor emeritus, University of Iowa law school: Yes, I would do it all over again. It is my position that too many critical questions have not yet been officially answered, if even investigated, and that, therefore, the jury is still out on the complete truth of 9/11.
The original Two World Trade Center (also known as the South Tower, Tower 2, Building Two, or 2 WTC) was one of the original Twin Towers in the original World Trade Center in New York City, New York. The Tower was completed and opened in 1973 at a height of 415 meters (1,362 ft) to the roof, distinguishable from its twin, the North Tower by its outdoor observation deck and the absence of a television antenna. Both the South Tower and the North Tower had mechanical floors, and the same type of walls. The new 2 World Trade Center (currently on hold) has the same flat roof, with no observation deck, and no mechanical floors.
The address of this building was 2 World Trade Center with the WTC complex having its own ZIP code of 10048. It was destroyed along with the North Tower (1 World Trade Center) in the September 11 attacks. The South Tower was the second tower to be struck (in this case by United Airlines Flight 175), at 9:03 a.m., and the first tower to collapse, at 9:59 a.m. The South Tower stood for 56 minutes after the aircraft impact. Of the 2,977 victims killed in the attacks, 900 were in the South Tower and on the ground. At the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, the southern pool marks the spot where the South Tower stood.
The original One World Trade Center (also known as the North Tower, Tower 1, Building One, or 1 WTC) was one of the Twin Towers of the original World Trade Center in New York City. It was completed in 1972, stood at a height of 417 metres (1,368 ft), and was the tallest building in the world until 1973, when surpassed by the Sears Tower in Chicago. It was distinguishable from its twin, the original Two World Trade Center, also known as the South Tower, by the 110.3-metre (362 ft) telecommunications antenna on its roof. Including the antenna, the building stood at a total height of 1,728 feet (527 m). Other things that made the North Tower distinguishable from its twin was that there was a canopy connected to the North Tower’s west facade on street level and there was two small pedestrian walkways that extended from the west and south promenades of Three and Six World Trade Center to the North Tower’s north and south facades on plaza level, while the South Tower lacked any of those. The building’s address was One World Trade Center, and the WTC complex had its own ZIP code (10048) due to its large size.
The original World Trade Center was destroyed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; One World Trade Center was the first of the famous Twin Towers to be struck by a hijacked aircraft (in this case, American Airlines Flight 11), at 8:46 a.m EDT, and the second tower to collapse (in this case, at 10:28 a.m.). The North Tower stood for 102 minutes after the aircraft impact. Of the 2,977 victims killed in the attacks, around 1600 were in the North Tower or on the ground. The North Tower was replaced by the present-day One World Trade Center tower, which was opened in November 2014 as the lead building of the redeveloped World Trade Center site.[3][4]
The tenant list below was compiled from the original list provided by CoStar Group (a provider of electronic commercial real estate information), and quoted by CNN.[5] It was sourced by using UnBlinking.com.[6] Cantor Fitzgerald’s corporate headquarters were located in One World Trade Center.[7]
Note: Floor numbers in red (93-99) were part of American Airlines Flight 11’s impact area on September 11, 2001, with floors trapped by the impact numbered in dark gray .
Pace University, World Trade Institute of Pace University, Benchmark Hospitality at Pace University (now Downtown Conference Center at Pace University)
SOURCES: CoStar Group, CNN, and Unblinking.The North Pool of the present-day National September 11 Memorial & Museum, marking the spot upon which the original One World Trade Center stood.
The 92nd floor, though intact and below the initial impact, did not have any survivors. Several 911 calls were recorded from employees at Carr Futures, a tenant on that level. The workers reported that the elevators were destroyed and the stairwells impassable. A number of employees in a meeting were trapped in a conference room when its door jammed shut from the crash; the remainder made their way to an unoccupied area on the west side of the floor initially free of smoke and flames. However by the time the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM, fire had spread to that part of the floor, making conditions there unsurvivable. The last 911 call from that floor came from Tom McGinnis at 10:26 AM.[9][10]
This is the current list of tenants who are so far occupying the rebuilt and redesigned One World Trade Center. The tower officially opened in November 2014:
^ “CRUISE LINE OFFICES.” Miami Herald. February 7, 1988. 2J Travel. Retrieved January 15, 2012. “Home Lines, 1 World Trade Center, Suite 3969, New York, NY 10048”.
The Jersey Girls or Jersey Widows refers to four American women who lost their husbands in the September 11 attacks. All four, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg, were residents of New Jersey, and helped lobby the U.S. government to carry out an investigation into the terrorist attacks, resulting in the formation of the 9/11 Commission and the subsequent report released by the Commission.
Survivors and family members of the victims were the most vocal and persistent in the call for the creation of an independent commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks. The leaders of several 9/11 family groups began to work together to lobby political leaders. The Jersey Girls were part of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, whose members were instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission and in pressing the commission to oversee a thorough and credible investigation. According to Matthew Purdy of The New York Times: “The commission grew largely out of pressure from families of victims, including four New Jersey widows who call themselves ‘the Jersey Girls.’ It’s no mistake that the White House put New Jersey’s most popular politician (Tom Kean) in charge.”[1]
Kean became the Commission’s Chairman after Henry Kissinger resigned the position; according to Peter Lance, “The Jersey Girls could take some of the credit for his hasty departure.” Van Auken told Lance:
We were shocked. Kissinger had huge conflicts of interest — major dealings with the Saudis … The day before he resigned, we had a meeting with him in his office in Manhattan. Kristen [Breitweiser] had done impeccable research. She’d looked up all of his companies. So I asked him, ‘Mr. Kissinger, do you have any Saudi clients?’ He mumbled something. And then he asked if someone would pour him some coffee. So then I said, ‘Do you happen to have any clients by the name of bin Laden? He almost fell off the couch.[2]
A few months before the Commission released its report, Kean said that the Jersey Girls “call me all the time. They monitor us, they follow our progress, they’ve provided us with some of the best questions we’ve asked. I doubt very much if we would be in existence without them.”[3]
The eventual appointment of Philip D. Zelikow to the position of Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission was also troubling to the Jersey Girls who demanded his resignation. They cited close personal ties with the Bush family and the National Security Advisor as conflicts of interest. Mindy Kleinberg said, “As executive director, he has pretty much the most important job on the commission. He hires the staff, he sets the direction and focus, he chooses witnesses at the hearings.” Joe Conason wrote that the widows “fear that even with the best of intentions, Zelikow’s connections to the Bush White House will ‘taint the validity’ of the commission’s final report. Their demand that he resign or be fired has been rejected by the commission’s co-chairmen, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean and former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton. ‘We respectfully disagree with them,’ replied Al Felzenberg, the commission’s press spokesman, who said Zelikow was chosen ‘for his scholarly credentials and his knowledge of national security issues.’ He hastened to praise the widows for doing ‘a very positive thing,’ adding that while he understood their concerns, he expected that “they’re not going to be satisfied with everything we do.”[4]
As part of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee they helped form, the Jersey Girls monitored and often criticized the 9/11 Commission after they lobbied successfully for its creation. The Jersey Girls pressured the U.S. government for months to have National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testify in front of the Commission; when she refused to testify under oath in March 2004, “they walked out in silent protest.” The White House, in a “dramatic about-face,” gave in and Rice testified.[5]
When it became clear to them that the Commission had omitted crucial information from its report, the widows called for a new independent panel. “I’m very disturbed, and I want to get some answers,” said Breitweiser. “I want to know what the truth is.” She called the 2004 findings “an utterly hollow report.”[6]
The Jersey Girls have been the target of attacks at various times. In 2004, Frank Rich wrote in the New York Times:
The phenomenon has sufficiently alarmed the White House that earlier in the month its media allies tried to discredit the 9/11 families, particularly the so-called ‘Jersey Girls,’ the four telegenic suburban widows who have forced the administration to reverse its stonewalling of the 9/11 commission at nearly every juncture. Rush Limbaugh labeled Kristen Breitweiser a Democratic operative. Bill O’Reilly sounded the alarm that ‘some 9/11 families have aligned themselves with the far left.’ But this stab at damage control went nowhere.[8]
In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (2006), conservative commentator Ann Coulter created a firestorm of controversy with her remarks about the Jersey Girls. Coulter wrote:
They first came together to complain that the $1.6 million average settlement to be paid to 9/11 victims’ families by the government was not large enough … These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities … These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. … I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much … the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed John Kerry for president … cutting campaign commercials … how do we know their husbands weren’t planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they’d better hurry up and appear in Playboy.[9]
These statements received national attention after an interview on The Today Show, and were widely criticized.[10][11][12] The Jersey Girls themselves also responded critically to Coulter’s remarks. Kristen Breitweiser stated: “I’d like her to meet my daughter and tell her how anyone could enjoy their father’s death … She sounds like a very disturbed, unraveled person.” Lorie Van Auken said she “was stunned by the vitriol”; and “Having my husband burn alive in a building brought me no joy. Watching it unfold on national TV and seeing it repeated endlessly was beyond what I could describe. Telling my children they would never see their father again was not fun. And we had no plans to divorce.”
Nevertheless, Coulter has repeated her criticism of the Jersey Girls.
I feel sorry for all the widows of 9/11 … [but] I do not believe that sanctifies their political message. … They have attacked Bush, they have attacked Condoleezza Rice, they’re cutting campaign commercials for Kerry. But we can’t respond because their husbands died … I think it’s one of the ugliest things the left has done … this idea that you need some sort of personal authenticity in order to make a political point …[13]
The New York Daily News reported that the Jersey Girls “tried to stay above the name-calling fray” by emphasizing that
the nation shouldn’t focus on Coulter’s words but on security problems like porous borders, wasteful Homeland Security funding and intelligence agencies that don’t work together. ‘Our only motivation ever was to make our nation safer,’ they said in a statement. ‘We have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.’[14]
And Senator Hillary Clinton found it “unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I’ve known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country.”[15]
After the 9/11 Commission issued its report, the Jersey Girls pressured the Administration to follow its recommendations. They specifically commended the Commission for not politicizing blame in the report. “The USS Cole was bombed under Clinton’s watch, and 9/11 happened under Bush’s watch,” said Rosemary Dillard. “I don’t blame either administration; I blame the people who were reporting to them.”[16] As the 2004 election neared, the widows criticized Bush for the failure to enact the recommendations of the commission; many interpreted this as an endorsement of Bush’s opponent John Kerry; the New York Times reported, “In a statement clearly meant to influence voters in next week’s election, the group did not explicitly endorse Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, but said Mr. Bush had ‘allowed members of his own party to derail the legislative process.'”[17] There were other 9/11 victims’ families who supported the Bush campaign. For example, Debra Burlingame, whose brother flew in the plane that was crashed into the Pentagon, responded to the widows: “The Jersey Girls criticized President Bush because he wasn’t rounding up Arabs in airport lounges before Sept. 11. These are the same people who are now decrying the use of the Patriot Act.”[18]
The now-defunct group was an offshoot of the Coalition for an Independent 9/11 Commission, which advocated the creation of an independent commission to investigate the failures that made 9/11 possible. The coalition represented a wide array of 9/11 families’ organizations, including Families of September 11, Sept. 11 Advocates (also known as “The Jersey Girls”), and Voices of September 11. Although the call for a commission was initially resisted by the Bush Administration, the coalition eventually prevailed in the creation of the 9/11 Commission.
It is no exaggeration to say that yesterday’s reorganization of the nation’s intelligence structure would not have happened without Fetchet, Ashley and the 10 other self-appointed representatives of Sept. 11 victims’ relatives who formed the Family Steering Committee.
“Would we be here except for those two? I don’t think so,” Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), one of the legislation’s sponsors, said after thanking Fetchet and Ashley. “It was impossible for a member of Congress to face the family members and say they wouldn’t do something.”
“I agree,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the co-sponsor. “They had the moral conviction.”
The family members’ public complaints pressured President Bush to drop his initial opposition to a Sept. 11 commission
However, the Family Steering Committee was unsatisfied with the commission created and its mandate.
They stated:
While we believe that our concerns were acknowledged, we had also hoped that more of our questions and those of the American public would be fully addressed during the public hearings, or at the very least, discussed in the prepared staff statements,” the statement read. “Yet today, many of our collective questions remain unanswered.”[2]
It further created a list of questions they argued was unanswered by the official commission.[3]
On January 11, 2005, the Committee made the following statement:
After three years of work toward making America more secure, the FSC is transitioning in order to address issues such as the release of the still embargoed 9/11 CIA and FAA reports; terrorist financing; immigration reform; the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; and other issues that continue to emerge. Although the FSC as a group will no longer exist, many of us will continue to work individually and through other 9/11 related groups for these causes.[4]
The group ceased operations on January 11, 2005. Some of the research and advocacy of members of the Family Steering Committee is featured in the documentary “9/11: Press for Truth” premiered September 2006.
Filmmakers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy first became interested in making a film about the September 11 attacks when they found Paul Thompson’s Complete 911 Timeline website in spring 2003. After obtaining funding, they met Thompson in September 2004, who agreed to let them adapt his work.
The filmmakers also met Kyle Hence, who had co-founded 9/11 Citizens Watch, an advocacy organization which monitored the activities of the 9/11 Commission on behalf of the public and was in close contact with the 9/11 Family Steering Committee. He agreed to join the production as executive producer (eventually also becoming a co-producer and co-writer), and in the spring of 2005, helped them get interviews with three of the “Jersey Girls” (widows of individuals killed in the attacks).
Production ended in December 2005, with post-production completed in July 2006.
The film premiered theatrically in September 2006 in New York City and the San Francisco Bay area. It received a simultaneous limited DVD release in over fifty cities across America as well as Canada, Great Britain, the Czech Republic, Australia, and Japan.
9/11: Press for Truth follows three of the Jersey Girls, as well as some other family members in their search for answers about the September 11 attacks. Among their questions were:
“Why had the U.S. military defenses failed to stop any of the four hijacked planes?”
“Why was there a lack of immediate response by the president and his secret service detail?”
“Why did the buildings fall?”
“How did U.S. intelligence miss the escape of terrorists from Afghanistan to Pakistan during time of war?”
“Why did the U.S. consider Pakistan an ally in the fight against terrorism when Pakistan’s own intelligence service, ISI, apparently was funding terrorism?”
The film uses archive news footage, interviews, press conferences and newspaper clippings to document the attacks and the establishment and workings of the 9/11 Commission. The film can be roughly divided into three sections:
The first part of the film describes the efforts to pressure the U.S. government into setting up a formal investigation and shows how eventually the decision was made to create the 9/11 Commission. The family members in turn, set up a group called the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, to monitor the Commission and provide it with additional questions. The film shows some of the initial stumbles of the Commission, such as the resignation of Henry Kissinger, the original chairman of the Commission, after receiving criticism for refusing to release the names of all his firm’s clients. It denounces some of the decisions of the Bush Administration, such as only allowing certain members of the Commission to review sensitive White House documents, and president George W. Bush and vice president Dick Cheney agreeing to meet with the Commission, but only together, behind closed doors and not under oath. The segment ends with the Jersey Girls complaining that the eventual report of the 9/11 Commission failed to meet their expectations.
The second part begins by expounding the Jersey Girls’ complaints of what they perceive as unsatisfactory coverage by the U.S. news media. It introduces Paul Thompson, who discusses what he claims is evidence showing the U.S. government was aware of the threat of planes being flown into buildings, and that it ignored numerous warnings from foreign countries. He then describes the August 6, 2001 President’s Daily Brief (entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US“) that gave a general warning about a possible attack.
The final part of the film looks at the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, detailing how Osama Bin Laden, along with top members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, was able to repeatedly escape while being chased by U.S. forces, eventually fleeing to Pakistan. It also elaborates briefly on the Soviet–Afghan War and how the AfghanMuhajadeen, some elements of which later played a role in Al-Qaeda, were funded by the U.S. to fight the Soviets. This is followed by a look at Indian claims that Pakistani intelligence service ISI was involved in funding the 9/11 hijackers, and blames the 9/11 Commission for a lack of attention to this investigational avenue. The film concludes with a final reflection on what it sees as shortcomings in the U.S. news media.
Nowosielski and Duffy later produced the documentary Who is Rich Blee, deducing the identities of several CIA agents inside the Bin Laden Issue Station in the years immediately before 2001. Before publication, the CIA threatened them under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Their documentary was posted with the names redacted. But they claim their webmaster accidentally posted some emails that contained the identities.[12][13]
Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who led the intelligence committee that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in New York and Washington, discussed the significance of the newly released 28-pages of classified document that show a strong link between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia at a National Press Club Newsmaker event at on Aug. 31, 2016.
Some comments from viewers:
An unbelievable cover up has occurred and the fact that it is so huge and truly bizarre few people will have what it takes to absorb the enormity of this crime and subsequent cover up.
Interesting, isn’t it, how now we’re all focused on a mere 28 pages of the 800 page, 9/11 Omission Report… and no longer bother about the fact that the other 772 pages are also full of lies, omissions and outright fairy-tales. Interesting sleight of hand technique they’ve used, by redacting 28 pages, and getting us all to kick up a stink about those 28 pages (and ONLY those 28 pages) it’s almost as if somehow this legitimizes the rest of the report.
Never answered the question about Iraqi families sueing the United states as they were invaded wrongly. Funny how nothing is asked about how buildings can come down at free fall acceleration or about the fact no planes were involved save for the ones that left Boston and landed fifteen minutes later at the airforce base where the passengers were executed and incinerated in the industrial incineration units at the base. Nothing mentioned that control of NORAD was required to pull off the attack. They just skitter right around the real issues by never talking about it. Do your damn job senator.
Saudi involvement another smokescreen. Look no further than Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld
Now, if we can just investigate why building 7 fell in New York City, why the hole in the Pentagon wasn’t big enough for the plane that was claimed to crash into it, why there was NO wreckage for the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, and to answer the many other questions surrounding 9/11. Bob Graham goes far into saying it was an inside job. Now let’s get the whole truth.
The Bush and Clinton families are both closely tied with Saudi Arabia financially. Policies need to be created to target and cut these ties.
Even with the redactions. This clearly shows President Bush had evidence linking Saudi Arabia to 9-11 yet classified it and attacked Afghanistan to cover up the Saudi link. By any standard this is aiding an enemy that attacked America and covering up evidence. Or as its better known an Act of Treason. So why isnt anyone calling it what it is?
What it says? Simple: The US knew they didn’t had to go in Iraq, but they still went. Ask yourselves why, and there’s the answer. It fits the agenda of destabilize the middle east for Israel.
progressiveissuesblog 
