[EDIT: In June 2018, I realised that death and injury were faked on 9/11 which resulted in the removal of a few women from this page including the Jersey widows and April Gallop who are obviously disinformation agents (pushing suspicion of government while also pushing that their loved one died or was affected). I have some doubts about Barbara Honegger, Indira Singh and Sibel Edmonds, however, I'm not sure about them so I'll leave them for the time being.]
On the 16th anniversary of (what I now know to be) the crime of the massively staged event that was 9/11, which led to crimes of far greater magnitude, it is interesting to look at the significant contribution made by women on this subject. While in most aspects of 9/11 men dominate, the field where women have taken the lead is in discussion of the complex psychology involved in recognising the event. Although I became acquainted with the psychology awhile ago, I’m a slow learner in comprehending its significance. For the last few months I have honed my skills, proudly developing and polishing unassailable arguments, which, on occasion have drawn admiration from fellow 9/11 communicators. However, the unbelievers, when presented with these beautifully-formed specimens, nimbly step around them, pull red herrings and other logical fallacies out of thin air and metaphorically wave them away dismissively.
For far too long I have simply responded by scratching my head in puzzlement, marvelling at these people’s inability to simply have a straightforward, logical discussion and kept on doggedly with polishing my jewelled arguments. This has brought no success. What I have failed to take on board is that when people do not believe in the possibility of something they will not believe evidence for it, however compelling and well-presented. If someone stark naked took to the sky flapping their arms like wings, even if I could detect no device on their body, I still would not believe they had the power of flight because I know people cannot fly. Similarly, people will not believe the evidence showing 9/11 was an inside job because they "know" the US government is simply not capable of committing such a crime … or they very much want to believe that because the alternative is too disturbing. While the psychology is often considered secondary, I have put it first because it really is so fundamental.
Although there is some overlap, I believe it makes it easier to structure contributions as follows:
On the 16th anniversary of (what I now know to be) the crime of the massively staged event that was 9/11, which led to crimes of far greater magnitude, it is interesting to look at the significant contribution made by women on this subject. While in most aspects of 9/11 men dominate, the field where women have taken the lead is in discussion of the complex psychology involved in recognising the event. Although I became acquainted with the psychology awhile ago, I’m a slow learner in comprehending its significance. For the last few months I have honed my skills, proudly developing and polishing unassailable arguments, which, on occasion have drawn admiration from fellow 9/11 communicators. However, the unbelievers, when presented with these beautifully-formed specimens, nimbly step around them, pull red herrings and other logical fallacies out of thin air and metaphorically wave them away dismissively.
For far too long I have simply responded by scratching my head in puzzlement, marvelling at these people’s inability to simply have a straightforward, logical discussion and kept on doggedly with polishing my jewelled arguments. This has brought no success. What I have failed to take on board is that when people do not believe in the possibility of something they will not believe evidence for it, however compelling and well-presented. If someone stark naked took to the sky flapping their arms like wings, even if I could detect no device on their body, I still would not believe they had the power of flight because I know people cannot fly. Similarly, people will not believe the evidence showing 9/11 was an inside job because they "know" the US government is simply not capable of committing such a crime … or they very much want to believe that because the alternative is too disturbing. While the psychology is often considered secondary, I have put it first because it really is so fundamental.
Although there is some overlap, I believe it makes it easier to structure contributions as follows:
- The psychology involved in recognising State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs) – Behavioural neuroscientist, Laurie Manwell and psychotherapist, Frances Shure
- The 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Commission Report – Medical librarian, Elizabeth Woodworth
- Congress – Former Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate for the Greens party 2008, Cynthia McKinney
- The collapses of the World Trade Centre buildings – Metallurgical engineer, Kathy McGrade and scientist (evolutionary theorist), Lynn Margulis
The psychology involved in recognising State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs)
Laurie Manwell has a PhD in Psychology (Behavioural Neuroscience) and has had research published in cellular, molecular, and comparative biology, psychopharmacology, cognitive psychology, social/personality psychology, and political psychology.
At the Toronto Hearings, a mock court hearing, where evidence was presented by researchers showing the official story of 9/11 is false, Laurie Manwell gave a presentation, entitled, In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11. The term, State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs), was coined by Professor Emeritus of Public Administration and Policy, Professor Lance deHaven-Smith that refers to:
“actions which are taken in direct violation of sworn oaths of office by officials in order to circumvent, exploit, undermine or subvert laws, the constitutional order, or the public awareness essential to popular control of government. SCADs are dangerous to democracy because they are not isolated events, but a pattern of actions – or in some cases, inactions – which facilitate a progression to closing down an open and free society.”
Manwell's presentation is based on an international collaboration including two Australian academics, Dr Kym Thorne and the late Dr Alexander Kouzmin.
In her presentation (also published in the book, The 9/11 Toronto Report), Manwell covers five areas related to social psychology:
At the Toronto Hearings, a mock court hearing, where evidence was presented by researchers showing the official story of 9/11 is false, Laurie Manwell gave a presentation, entitled, In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11. The term, State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs), was coined by Professor Emeritus of Public Administration and Policy, Professor Lance deHaven-Smith that refers to:
“actions which are taken in direct violation of sworn oaths of office by officials in order to circumvent, exploit, undermine or subvert laws, the constitutional order, or the public awareness essential to popular control of government. SCADs are dangerous to democracy because they are not isolated events, but a pattern of actions – or in some cases, inactions – which facilitate a progression to closing down an open and free society.”
Manwell's presentation is based on an international collaboration including two Australian academics, Dr Kym Thorne and the late Dr Alexander Kouzmin.
In her presentation (also published in the book, The 9/11 Toronto Report), Manwell covers five areas related to social psychology:
- The direct/indirect approach to presenting evidence contradicting people’s beliefs. She explains how directly challenging people’s entrenched beliefs will tend to be counterproductive. However, if we are first presented with the results of experiments showing how our beliefs can be manipulated and how we tend to react illogically when we are shown evidence that contradicts our beliefs, we are better able to accept information that contradicts our beliefs.
- She next discusses the requirement for political tolerance in a democracy and how experiments show that when an aggressive act is committed, it is the perception of the perpetrator’s political association as either democratic or authoritarian that tends to determine our feelings as to whether the act is legitimate or not.
- The third area is the psychological constructs that can interfere with people’s examination of evidence of State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs) such as cognitive dissonance, threatened self-esteem and perceived threats to oneself or one’s world views.
- In the fourth area she addresses the problems inherent in challenging people’s assumptions about government, dissent, and public discourse, specifically in discussing evidence of SCADs such as 9/11.
- Finally, she discusses the implications of research in psychology for social truth and justice movements and reform initiatives using the events of 9/11 as the primary example.
Frances Shure, is a retired psychotherapist. In her practice she focused on "depth psychology," which involves both the psychodynamic and transpersonal aspects of psychological healing. Shure co-founded Colorado 9/11 Truth in 2004 and is a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel as well as the Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth. She has brought her expertise to the study of 9/11 by authoring the groundbreaking series, "Why Do Good People Become Silent—Or Worse—About 9/11?" published by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
In the Psychologists Speak Out video, part of the series made by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, Shure talks about cognitive dissonance, the feeling of insecurity produced when information is presented that contradicts our world view.
For example:
“[We were told over and over by government and media] that 19 Muslims attacked us. On the other hand, we have what scientists, researchers, architects and engineers are now beginning to tell us – which is – that there is evidence that shows that the official story cannot be true. So now we’ve lost our sense of security, we’re starting to feel vulnerable.”
In response to that our psychological defences kick in, most predominantly, denial, which is the most primitive defence. We go into overload and our mind shuts down. What we need to do is be willing to look at the evidence sincerely and decide what is reality. Some initial reactions to contradictory evidence are quoted, including:
“I don’t want to know the truth or I become too negative and psychologically go downhill.”
What is behind all of these responses is fear but, the psychologists say, healing comes through facing the truth and allowing the feelings to come in and explore them.
In the Psychologists Speak Out video, part of the series made by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, Shure talks about cognitive dissonance, the feeling of insecurity produced when information is presented that contradicts our world view.
For example:
“[We were told over and over by government and media] that 19 Muslims attacked us. On the other hand, we have what scientists, researchers, architects and engineers are now beginning to tell us – which is – that there is evidence that shows that the official story cannot be true. So now we’ve lost our sense of security, we’re starting to feel vulnerable.”
In response to that our psychological defences kick in, most predominantly, denial, which is the most primitive defence. We go into overload and our mind shuts down. What we need to do is be willing to look at the evidence sincerely and decide what is reality. Some initial reactions to contradictory evidence are quoted, including:
“I don’t want to know the truth or I become too negative and psychologically go downhill.”
What is behind all of these responses is fear but, the psychologists say, healing comes through facing the truth and allowing the feelings to come in and explore them.
The 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Commission Report
During her employment in the British Columbia Ministry of Health Library, Elizabeth Woodworth delivered "best evidence" literature to the public health officers of the British Columbia government for 25 years. Woodworth is a member of Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth and is the co-author of Unprecedented Climate Mobilization: A Handbook for Citizens and Their Governments (2016).
Prompted by her knowledge of methodologies used in the field of medical research, Woodworth initiated establishment of a group of 22 members, the Consensus 9/11 Panel which is using ongoingly, a simplified form of a standard scientific reviewing process, the Delphi Method, to examine the events of 9/11 as described in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Woodworth says of the method and the panel:
"The strength and credibility of the Delphi method is based on the fact that respondents are blind to one another through several rounds of review, during which feedback is continually refined until consensus is reached." The Consensus 9/11 panel conducted "three survey rounds with 22 respondents, and reached an average consensus of 94% on 13 points of evidence that directly contradict the fundamental claims of the official account of September 11th." [More points are added as time goes on.]
Interview with Elizabeth Woodworth about the Consensus 9/11 Panel
The survey points, backed by 81 literature references, are discussed in the pages at the 10 links below.
A. General Consensus Points - Osama Bin Laden, insider trading
B. Twin Towers (WTC-1, WTC-2) - cause of destruction, explosions, thermite, molten steel, seismic evidence, physical and testimonial evidence, infernos
C. Collapse of WTC-7 - fire, free fall acceleration, simulation, validity of NIST's analysis, fraudulent claims by NIST, foreknowledge, omission of evidence
D. The Pentagon - prevention, Flight 77 pilot, foreknowledge
E. 9/11 Flights - hijacking, Flight 93 crash, responsibility for changes to transponders, black box anomalies
F. US Military Exercises On and Before 9/11 - military preparedness, delay of response to attacks
G. Political and Military Commands on 9/11 - contradictory claims, various questions about senior personnel's activities on the morning of 9/11
H. Hijackers on 9/11 - Mohamed Atta's mysterious trip, alleged failure to detect Atta's presence in US, devoutness
I. Phone Calls on 9/11 - alleged calls of Todd Beamer and Barbara Olson, discrepancies in accounts of cell phone calls
V. Official Video Exhibits Regarding 9/11 - authenticity of security videos
Prompted by her knowledge of methodologies used in the field of medical research, Woodworth initiated establishment of a group of 22 members, the Consensus 9/11 Panel which is using ongoingly, a simplified form of a standard scientific reviewing process, the Delphi Method, to examine the events of 9/11 as described in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Woodworth says of the method and the panel:
"The strength and credibility of the Delphi method is based on the fact that respondents are blind to one another through several rounds of review, during which feedback is continually refined until consensus is reached." The Consensus 9/11 panel conducted "three survey rounds with 22 respondents, and reached an average consensus of 94% on 13 points of evidence that directly contradict the fundamental claims of the official account of September 11th." [More points are added as time goes on.]
Interview with Elizabeth Woodworth about the Consensus 9/11 Panel
The survey points, backed by 81 literature references, are discussed in the pages at the 10 links below.
A. General Consensus Points - Osama Bin Laden, insider trading
B. Twin Towers (WTC-1, WTC-2) - cause of destruction, explosions, thermite, molten steel, seismic evidence, physical and testimonial evidence, infernos
C. Collapse of WTC-7 - fire, free fall acceleration, simulation, validity of NIST's analysis, fraudulent claims by NIST, foreknowledge, omission of evidence
D. The Pentagon - prevention, Flight 77 pilot, foreknowledge
E. 9/11 Flights - hijacking, Flight 93 crash, responsibility for changes to transponders, black box anomalies
F. US Military Exercises On and Before 9/11 - military preparedness, delay of response to attacks
G. Political and Military Commands on 9/11 - contradictory claims, various questions about senior personnel's activities on the morning of 9/11
H. Hijackers on 9/11 - Mohamed Atta's mysterious trip, alleged failure to detect Atta's presence in US, devoutness
I. Phone Calls on 9/11 - alleged calls of Todd Beamer and Barbara Olson, discrepancies in accounts of cell phone calls
V. Official Video Exhibits Regarding 9/11 - authenticity of security videos
Congress
Cynthia McKinney is a former Democratic congresswoman and was presidential candidate for the Greens party, 2008. As a member of the Democratic Party, McKinney served six terms in the United States House of Representatives. She was the first black woman elected to represent Georgia in the House. McKinney has spent seven days in an Israeli prison for delivering humanitarian assistance to Gaza, traveled to Libya to witness US bombing of that country and visited Syria to learn the truth about US war plans.
Of 535 members of Congress, Cynthia McKinney was the first to break the consensus of silence and point to the obvious - that the Bush administration had received advance warnings of an attack, and that this called for a full investigation, without limits on what line of questioning is acceptable. After saying so in March 2002, she was vilified without mercy in the press, until it became clear that many more people were believing her and supporting her than the pundits and spin managers imagined. See http://www.911truth.org/osamas/mckinney.html
After receiving no reply from her written question, McKinney asks the question in Congress, “Did the four war games happening on the morning of 9/11 impair the military’s ability to respond to the attacks?” The answer given by General Richard Myers, was:
“The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe … I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn’t have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day, that was an FAA responsibility. But there were two CPXs [Command Post Exercises]; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn’t have anything to do with the other three and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska.”
If it did not impair ability to respond, one can only wonder how things would have occurred differently if it had impaired ability to respond.
McKinney also asked the more overarching, pertinent (especially to US taxpayers), never-replied-to, question: “How did a multi-trillion dollar military and intelligence complex fail four times on one day?” McKinney is featured in the film about 9/11, The Elephant in the Room, by British filmmaker, Dean Puckett.
Of 535 members of Congress, Cynthia McKinney was the first to break the consensus of silence and point to the obvious - that the Bush administration had received advance warnings of an attack, and that this called for a full investigation, without limits on what line of questioning is acceptable. After saying so in March 2002, she was vilified without mercy in the press, until it became clear that many more people were believing her and supporting her than the pundits and spin managers imagined. See http://www.911truth.org/osamas/mckinney.html
After receiving no reply from her written question, McKinney asks the question in Congress, “Did the four war games happening on the morning of 9/11 impair the military’s ability to respond to the attacks?” The answer given by General Richard Myers, was:
“The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe … I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn’t have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day, that was an FAA responsibility. But there were two CPXs [Command Post Exercises]; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn’t have anything to do with the other three and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska.”
If it did not impair ability to respond, one can only wonder how things would have occurred differently if it had impaired ability to respond.
McKinney also asked the more overarching, pertinent (especially to US taxpayers), never-replied-to, question: “How did a multi-trillion dollar military and intelligence complex fail four times on one day?” McKinney is featured in the film about 9/11, The Elephant in the Room, by British filmmaker, Dean Puckett.
The collapses of the World Trade Centre buildings
Metallurgical engineer, Kathy McGrade, graduated from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in 1979 with a bachelor in metallurgical engineering degree. She spent the next 30 years with three startup companies, then founded her own company, Failsafe Testing, which she still runs today. Among her achievements in the field is the use of a non-destructive testing technique, acoustic emission, to evaluate the structural integrity of fire service aerial ladders.
McGrade urges people to use their own powers of logic and reasoning to evaluate the cause of collapse of the buildings at the World Trade Centre on 9/11 rather than simply relying on expert opinion which – she explains with her own personal example – is not reliable. She says the element the lay person can comprehend easily is the symmetry of the collapses. “It cannot happen that when you have asymmetric damage, you will get a perfectly symmetrical collapse.” She also talks about how the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the cause of the iron microspheres found in the dust can only be incendiaries or similar.
Kathy McGrade speaking as an expert in the film, 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
McGrade urges people to use their own powers of logic and reasoning to evaluate the cause of collapse of the buildings at the World Trade Centre on 9/11 rather than simply relying on expert opinion which – she explains with her own personal example – is not reliable. She says the element the lay person can comprehend easily is the symmetry of the collapses. “It cannot happen that when you have asymmetric damage, you will get a perfectly symmetrical collapse.” She also talks about how the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the cause of the iron microspheres found in the dust can only be incendiaries or similar.
Kathy McGrade speaking as an expert in the film, 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Lynn Margulis was an American evolutionary theorist and biologist, science author, educator, and popularizer, and was the primary modern proponent for the significance of symbiosis in evolution. She received a number of important scientific awards including the National Medal of Science in 1999.
The government agency, NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology), produced reports on their investigations of the collapses of the three buildings, WTC-1, WTC-2 and the lesser-known WTC-7 at the World Trade Centre on 9/11. On the subject of NIST’s investigation into the collapse of WTC-7, Margulis stated that the exclusion of study of the most likely hypothesis of controlled demolition was completely unscientific as its resemblance to other controlled demolitions was so obvious.
Lynn Margulis talks to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth about how science works and the fraudulence displayed by NIST in their investigation of the collapse of WTC-7.
Lynn Margulis writes about her 3-day discussion with David Ray Griffin, the most prolific scholar on 9/11.
The government agency, NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology), produced reports on their investigations of the collapses of the three buildings, WTC-1, WTC-2 and the lesser-known WTC-7 at the World Trade Centre on 9/11. On the subject of NIST’s investigation into the collapse of WTC-7, Margulis stated that the exclusion of study of the most likely hypothesis of controlled demolition was completely unscientific as its resemblance to other controlled demolitions was so obvious.
Lynn Margulis talks to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth about how science works and the fraudulence displayed by NIST in their investigation of the collapse of WTC-7.
Lynn Margulis writes about her 3-day discussion with David Ray Griffin, the most prolific scholar on 9/11.
Barbara Honegger is a leading researcher, author and public speaker on the 9/11 Pentagon attack and the anthrax attacks that occurred shortly afterwards. She has served in high-level positions in the U.S. Federal Government, including White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President. Her pioneering book October Surprise, on the deep story behind the Iran side of the Iran/Contra scandal, now confirmed by formerly classified documents, led to a full-subpoena-power U.S. Congressional investigation.
From 2000 to 2011, Honegger served as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the premier science, technology and national security affairs graduate research university of the U.S. Department of Defense. She is one of 50 founding current and former high-level government, military and intelligence officials to call for a new 9/11 investigation at Patriots Question 9/11, and one of 20 charter members of Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth.
Among 9/11 researchers there are those who favour the "planes" hypothesis and those who favour the "no-planes" hypothesis, each group disparaging the other. While, superficially, it may seem outlandish in the extreme, I think the evidence points to "no-planes" although I accept there is contradictory evidence, sometimes compelling, suggesting there were planes. It is impossible to avoid contradictory evidence either way so, if you wish to choose one side over the other, you must make a choice on which evidence you find the most compelling. If an independent investigation eventuates it will, hopefully, reveal the mysteries of the jewel in the 9/11 conspiracy, planes into buildings. I am not entirely sure what Honegger thinks about the other three planes but in regard to the Pentagon she does not believe there was one. I remember that soon after I watched her three-hour presentation I was standing in my kitchen and was struck powerfully by the thought, "OMG! It was a bombing exercise using planes as cover." And regardless of whether or not there were planes, the evidence shows it was that.
As an insider herself, Honegger has been able to interview many more other insiders than most other researchers. At her presentation at the Toronto Hearings (also published in the book, The 9/11 Toronto Report), she makes some compelling points including those below. Go also here for textual comprehensive coverage of these points and a number more.
From 2000 to 2011, Honegger served as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the premier science, technology and national security affairs graduate research university of the U.S. Department of Defense. She is one of 50 founding current and former high-level government, military and intelligence officials to call for a new 9/11 investigation at Patriots Question 9/11, and one of 20 charter members of Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth.
Among 9/11 researchers there are those who favour the "planes" hypothesis and those who favour the "no-planes" hypothesis, each group disparaging the other. While, superficially, it may seem outlandish in the extreme, I think the evidence points to "no-planes" although I accept there is contradictory evidence, sometimes compelling, suggesting there were planes. It is impossible to avoid contradictory evidence either way so, if you wish to choose one side over the other, you must make a choice on which evidence you find the most compelling. If an independent investigation eventuates it will, hopefully, reveal the mysteries of the jewel in the 9/11 conspiracy, planes into buildings. I am not entirely sure what Honegger thinks about the other three planes but in regard to the Pentagon she does not believe there was one. I remember that soon after I watched her three-hour presentation I was standing in my kitchen and was struck powerfully by the thought, "OMG! It was a bombing exercise using planes as cover." And regardless of whether or not there were planes, the evidence shows it was that.
As an insider herself, Honegger has been able to interview many more other insiders than most other researchers. At her presentation at the Toronto Hearings (also published in the book, The 9/11 Toronto Report), she makes some compelling points including those below. Go also here for textual comprehensive coverage of these points and a number more.
- One has to consider why the FBI code name for 9/11 was PENTTBOM (Pentagon Twin Towers Bombing). The FBI lied to the Jersey Girls about why that code name was used, explaining that these kinds of operations all ended in BOM, however, the code name for the anthrax crime occurring just after 9/11 was AMERITHRAX. The Oklahoma bombing code name was OKBOM.
- Bomb-sniffing dogs were sighted at the Pentagon metro stop at 7.30 on the morning of 9/11.
- April Gallop, army analyst, who was injured at the Pentagon and was close to the alleged impact hole made by Flight 77, claimed she saw no bodies or luggage and that she smelt cordite and did not smell jet fuel. Many other military personnel inside the Pentagon said that they thought a bomb went off.
- Shaped charge explosives expert, Michael Meyer, concluded that the near perfectly-round, clean-edged opening not only could not have been made by a plane or plane parts, but has the exact signature of having been created by shaped charge explosives. "It is physically impossible for the C Ring wall to have failed in a neat, clean circle like that [due to kinetic impact] from a plane or plane parts," he stated emphatically. A mechanical engineer who spent many years in aerospace, structural design and the design and use of shaped charges, Meyer published his analysis in A Boeing 757 Did Not Hit the Pentagon.
The Whistleblowers
Indira Singh is a former IT risk analyst for PTMorgan Chase
Shortly after 9/11 and while working as an IT risk analyst for PTMorgan Chase, Singh started looking at the enterprise architecture software produced by Ptech, recommended to her as a software house whose clients included some of the most respectable and sensitive organizations in the United States government. It seemed very promising but she found as she started to research it that its chief investor, Sheikh Yassin al-Qadi, was on a US terror list and certain other people involved had worrying backgrounds. However, when she alerted her superiors to this extraordinary information she was met with a shut-up-and-do-what-you’re-told attitude.
The Journey of a Wall Street Whistleblower
Shortly after 9/11 and while working as an IT risk analyst for PTMorgan Chase, Singh started looking at the enterprise architecture software produced by Ptech, recommended to her as a software house whose clients included some of the most respectable and sensitive organizations in the United States government. It seemed very promising but she found as she started to research it that its chief investor, Sheikh Yassin al-Qadi, was on a US terror list and certain other people involved had worrying backgrounds. However, when she alerted her superiors to this extraordinary information she was met with a shut-up-and-do-what-you’re-told attitude.
The Journey of a Wall Street Whistleblower
Sibel Edmonds is a former translator who worked as a contractor for the FBI and is founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). She gained public attention following her firing from her position as a language specialist at the FBI's Washington Field Office in March 2002. Edmonds had accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving Turkish nationals, alleged serious security breaches and cover-ups and that intelligence had been deliberately suppressed, endangering national security. Her later claims gained her awards and fame as a whistleblower.
In her letter to Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Edmonds states:
“I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations.”
In her letter to Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Edmonds states:
“I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations.”
Petra Liverani
My own contribution are 10-point Occam's Razor exercises on three aspects of 9/11: I also write about the propaganda campaign targeted at truthers.
My own contribution are 10-point Occam's Razor exercises on three aspects of 9/11: I also write about the propaganda campaign targeted at truthers.