Special thanks to Alan Miller from 'Patriots Question 9/11' for this collection:

May 18, 2009 – More than 40 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and most have called for a new investigation. It is outrageous that most Americans are entirely unaware of their publicly stated concerns -- a direct result of the refusal of national print and broadcast news organizations to cover this extremely important issue. There is no denying the credibility of these individuals or their loyalty to their country as demonstrated by their years of service collecting and analyzing information and planning and carrying out operations critical to the national security of the United States.

These 41 individuals formerly served in the U.S. State Department, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the branches of the U.S. Military. They are listed below by their branch of service.

U.S. State Department

Terrell E. Arnold, MA– Former Deputy Director of Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Planning, U.S. State Department. Mr. Arnold is a leading expert on terrorism and counter-terrorism and the author of several books on the subjects. In an extensive article in July 2007, Mr. Arnold wrote, “Washington leadership keeps the American people fixated on the events of 9/11. They have brought us no closer than we were on September 12, 2001, to resolving how it was executed and by what enemy. They tell us repeatedly that it was the work of al Qaida, but they have yet to show us the proofs. They told us the official version of what happened that day, but their story is laced with contradictions, and the facts visible on the ground at the time belie much of the official account. ... As an alleged post 9/11 defense, the War on
Terrorism is a gigantic fraud.” [1]

When asked in an interview in February 2009, why he doubted the official account of 9/11, Mr. Arnold responded, “The nature of events in New York. The buildings falling down. I'm not satisfied by the notion that planes hitting buildings constructed as these would have caused them to collapse. The last building to fall was not even attacked. … The sheer mechanics of the event. The chances of two buildings of that height and structure merely collapsing in their own footprint are extremely slim.” He also stated, “There is a lot of work in getting sixteen people ready to commit voluntary and simultaneous suicide. The case has not been made. The official story is not persuasive because it does not address the real issues of complexity.” [2] Mr. Arnold’s doubts about the collapse of the WTC towers is shared by William Christison, former Director of Regional and Political Analysis at the CIA, and others as described below.


Angelo Codevilla, PhD– Former U.S. State Department Foreign Service officer specializing in U.S. intelligence operations in Western Europe. Member of President-elect Ronald Reagan's State Department transition team and principal author of the team's report on intelligence. Former Staff Member, U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee dealing with oversight of the intelligence services 1977 - 1985. Former U.S. Navy officer. Currently Vice Chairman of the U.S. Army War College Board of Visitors.

In March 2009, Dr. Codevilla wrote, “Seven years after Osama bin Laden's last verifiable appearance among the living, there is more evidence for Elvis's presence among us than for his. Hence there is reason to ask whether the paradigm of Osama bin Laden as terrorism's deus ex machina and of al Qaeda as the prototype of terrorism may be an artifact of our Best and Brightest's imagination, and whether investment in this paradigm has kept our national security establishment from thinking seriously about our troubles' sources. So let us take a fresh look at the fundamentals.

“Negative evidence alone compels the conclusion that Osama is long since dead. Since October 2001, when Al Jazeera's Tayseer Alouni interviewed him, no reputable person reports having seen him—not even after multiple-blind journeys through intermediaries. The audio and video tapes alleged to be Osama's never convinced impartial observers. The guy just does not look like Osama. Some videos show him with a Semitic aquiline nose, while others show him with a shorter, broader one. Next to that, differences between colors and styles of beard are small stuff.

“Nor does the tapes' Osama sound like Osama. In 2007 Switzerland's Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence, which does computer voice recognition for bank security, compared the voices on 15 undisputed recordings of Osama with the voices on 15 subsequent ones attributed to Osama, to which they added two by native Arab speakers who had trained to imitate him and were reading his writings. All of the purported Osama recordings (with one falling into a gray area) differed clearly from one another as well as from the genuine ones. By contrast, the CIA found all the recordings authentic. It is hard to imagine what methodology might support this conclusion.” [3]


Edward Peck– Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs, U.S. State Department. He later served as Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Peck, a 32-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service, also served as U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq 1977 - 1980.

In October 2004, soon after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, Mr. Peck and over 100 prominent Americans signed a petition urging Congress to immediately reinvestigate 9/11. The signers included former senior CIA officials, Raymond McGovern and Melvin Goodman, mentioned below, and three former State Department veterans not mentioned in this article: Daniel Ellsberg; Fred Burks, a former interpreter for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton; and retired career Foreign Service officer Michael Springmann. The petition stated, in part:

“We want truthful answers to questions such as:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?

4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

5. 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?” [4]

These questions and many others still remain unanswered more than four years after the petition was submitted and more than seven years after the terrible events of 9/11.


National Security Agency

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: A Pentagon eye-witness and a former member of the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency,Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret), is a severe critic of the official account of 9/11. A contributing author to the 2006 book 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, she wrote, “I believe the [9/11] Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research.”

She continued, “It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics.”

Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski was working in the Pentagon on 9/11 in her capacity as Political-Military Affairs officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense when Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon. She wrote:

“There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Secretary of Defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile.’ [5] … [Secretary Rumsfeld also publicly referred to Flight 93, which allegedly crashed into the ground near Shanksville, PA, as the plane that was ‘shot down’ over Pennsylvania. [6] ]

“I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... [A]ll of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

“The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

“The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day.” [7]

Maj. John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency. At a 2005 Congressional briefing he said, “It falls to me this morning to bring to your attention the story of Saeed Sheikh, whose full name is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, and his astonishing rise to power in Al Qaeda, his crucial role in 9/11, which is completely, utterly, missing from the 9/11 Commission report …

“The 9/11 Commission which studied US intelligence and law enforcement community performance in great detail, (maybe not so much great detail, but they did), neglected to cover the community’s performance during the weeks following the attacks to determine who was responsible for them, not a word about that in the Report.

“The Report does discuss the immediate US responses but the immediate investigation is never addressed, and anyone who has closely studied the post-9/11 investigation knows that the first breakthrough came two weeks into the investigation when the money transfers from the United Arab Emirates to the hijackers were uncovered.

“Furthermore, if you have studied that investigation, you know there is no disputing that while investigators may have struggled with the identity of the paymaster, they were clear about one thing, he was Al Qaeda’s finance chief. For this reason alone you have to ask why the 9/11 Commission Report never mentions the finance chief’s role as the 9/11 paymaster.” [8]

Despite the general knowledge since October 2001, even reported in the Wall Street Journal [9], that Omar Saeed Sheikh wired more than $100,000 to Mohamed Atta under instructions from General Mahmud Ahmed, the head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the 9/11 Commission Report states, “The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack. … The origin of the funds remains unknown ….” and “Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding.”

Central Intelligence Agency

Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” [10] said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the 1970’s. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this [Bush] administration will not answer the questions.” McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of the petition to reinvestigate 9/11, mentioned above.


Ray McGovern: During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then-President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award [11] in 2006 in protest of the George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.

In his endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote, “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole ‘war on terror’ was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists,’ my highest possible recommendation.” [12]

Mr. McGovern is not alone in referring to the 9/11 Commission Report as a “joke.” William Christison, former Director of Regional and Political Analysis at the CIA, also called the report “a joke”. Nor is Mr. McGovern alone in referring to it as “a cover-up.” Melvin Goodman, former Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, also called it a “cover-up.” (see below)

William Christison, a 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis describes the 9/11 Commission Report as a “joke” and offers even more outspoken criticism. In a 2006 podcast interview by George Kenney of Electric Politics, Christison said, “We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all.” [13]

Christison is a member of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, an organization that states, “We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001, by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations.” [14]

In his 2007 endorsement of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Christison wrote, “[There’s] a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001, to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.” [15] And in an online essay in late 2006, he wrote, “I have come to believe that significant parts of the [alternative] 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the “official story” put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false. I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.” [16]

Prior to his retirement from the CIA in 1979, Christison served as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis overseeing 200 analysts who collected intelligence and provided analysis on all regions and every country in the world. Prior to that, he served as one of only a handful of National Intelligence Officers (NIO) in the intelligence community. NIO’s are responsible for the intelligence community efforts in a particular subject area of national security and are the principal advisors to the Director of Central Intelligence.


Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former senior CIA official who calls the 9/11 Commission Report a “cover-up” and who signed the petition to reinvestigate 9/11. Goodman served as Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College 1986 - 2004.

In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission Report, Goodman said, “This is an important examination of a 9/11 Commission that was an historic opportunity that was missed and a 9/11 Commission study that is terribly flawed. ...

“I think the 9/11 Commission has taught me that we need to be extremely rigorous and extremely tenacious in pursuing that truth, because there is a corporate mentality in this country that is working against allowing the truth to surface, even in tragedies, such as the 9/11 tragedy. ...

“I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission. … The final report is ultimately a cover-up. I don't know how else to describe it.” [17] Goodman is senior fellow and director of the National Security Program at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.

Robert Baer is another well-known CIA veteran who has questioned the official account of 9/11. A 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East, Baer was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh wrote that Baer “was considered perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East.” [18] After retirement, Baer wrote two best-selling non-fiction books about the CIA; See No Evil and Sleeping with the Devil, the former serving as the basis for the Academy Award-winning movie Syriana, starring George Clooney. Baer was also the writer and on-camera commentator for the Emmy Award-nominated documentary Cult of the Suicide Bomber.

Baer has repeatedly questioned whether al-Qaida could have accomplished 9/11 alone. In a 2002 essay for The Guardian, Baer wrote, “Did bin Laden act alone, through his own al-Qaida network, in launching the attacks? About that I'm far more certain and emphatic: no.” [19]

In 2006, during a radio interview by Thom Hartmann, Baer, after commenting on the financial profits being made from 9/11, was asked: “What about political profit? There are those who suggest that ... someone in that chain of command ... had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's ... failing presidency.” Baer replied: “Absolutely.” Hartmann then asked,So you are personally of the opinion ... that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?” To which Baer replied, “There is that possibility, the evidence points at it.” When Hartmann continued, “And why is it not being investigated?,” Baer replied, “Why isn't the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn't anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been no -- any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder.” [20]

And in February 2008, Baer wrote, “There are enough discrepancies and unanswered questions in the 9/11 Commission Report that under a friendly administration, the 9/11 investigation should be re-opened.” [21]

In his endorsement of the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Baer wrote, “Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation--not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture--we will never know what happened on 9/11.” [22]


Robert David Steele : "I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war,” wrote well-known intelligence analyst Robert David Steele in 2006 in a review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley. Steele is the author of numerous books on the intelligence services and is currently the CEO of OSS.net, a proponent of Open Source Intelligence. Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine Corps. He also served as the second ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and was a member of the adjunct faculty of Marine Corps University. Steele continued, “I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers.” [23]

In a subsequent interview on the Alex Jones Show, Steele said, “The U.S. government did not properly investigate this [9/11] and there are more rocks to be turned over,” and added, “I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that, as far as I'm concerned, means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition.” [24]

On September 14, 2004, a group of 25 military, intelligence service and law enforcement veterans sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation. Their letter was apparently entirely ignored. Among the signers were four CIA veterans; Raymond McGovern and Melvin Goodman (both mentioned above) and David MacMichael and Lynn Larkin.


That is just a sample of the 41. Please click here to see the full article in serveral different languages.


TECHNORATI TAGS:
,, , ,,,,

0 comments