Who's Publicly Acknowledged '911Lies'?

• Article New York Times 10/26/03: "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted." http://www.commondreams.org
  
   
• Article Boston Globe 11/13/03: "If this decision stands [to limit access to White House documents], I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the Commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised. . . . This is `The Gong Show'; this isn't protection of national security." http://www.
  
   
• Article Salon 11/21/03: Regarding the 9/11 Commission "It is a national scandal." http://dir.salon.com
  
   
• Resigned from the 9/11 Commission, 12/03, after having served on it for 12 months.  Former Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska was selected to replace him.  The 9/11 Commission Report was issued 7 months later.
  
   
• Interview Democracy Now 3/23/04: "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."   http://www.democracynow.org
  
   
• Bio: http://memory.loc.gov

• Video interview by Davis Fleetwood 7/23/07:
  
  Question:  53% of the Americans in the New York Times / CBS [poll] think the government is lying to them about 9/11.  Why is that question not asked at these debates?
  
  Mike Gravel:  I don't know.  They don't want to ask it.  And I pledge to the people who are concerned about that, that should I become President, we're going to have a new investigation.  
  
  Question:  Do we know the whole truth about 9/11?
  
  Mike Gravel:  Hell, no!    http://www.youtube.com
  
   
• Presidential campaign website: http://www.gravel2008.us/
  
   
• Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel

• Article Salon 9/8/04: "As the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman during the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the run-up to the Iraq war, Sen. Bob Graham tried to expose what he came to believe were national security coverups and manipulations by the Bush administration. But he discovered that it was hard to reveal a coverup playing by the rules. Much of the evidence the Florida Democrat needed to buttress his arguments was being locked away, he found, under the veil of politically motivated classification. ...
  
  Question by Mary Jacoby: You write about the Bush administration's suppression of the joint House-Senate intelligence panel's findings on Saudi Arabian links to 9/11. What exactly was suppressed, and why?
  
  Bob Graham: In general terms it included the details of why we [on the committee] had raised suspicion that the Saudi government and various representatives of Saudi interests had supported some of the hijackers -- and might have supported all of them. My own personal conclusion was that the evidence of official Saudi support for at least two of the terrorists in San Diego was, as one CIA agent said, incontrovertible. ...
  
  The White House played a heavy role throughout not only our investigation but the investigation of the 9/11 commission." http://dir.salon.com
  
   
• Article Boston Globe 9/5/04: "Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Senator Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.
  
  The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers "would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration," the Florida Democrat wrote.
  
  And in Graham's book, "Intelligence Matters," obtained by The Miami Herald yesterday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees." http://www.boston.com
  
   
• Editor's note: Despite the finding of the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 Report (p.415) of "sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers", the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 172) states, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding."  For more information on foreign support of the 9/11 hijackers, see Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Major John Newman, William Bergman, and Michael Meacher.
  
   
• Bio: http://bioguide.congress.gov...

• Senate Hearings on the 9/11 Commission Report 7/31/04: "They [NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission. ... For almost three years now NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history." http://www.911truth
  
   
• Editor's note: On August 1, 2006, Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission said, "We, to this day, don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us.  It was just so far from the truth. ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied." Link  Despite the many public statements by 9/11 Commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded for lying to the 9/11 Commission.
  
   
• Article Star Tribune 7/31/04: "Dayton, a former Minnesota state auditor, called the FAA's and NORAD's failures "the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence that I've ever, under those extreme circumstances, witnessed in the public sector." http://www.911readingroom.org
  
   
• Bio: http://bioguide.congress.gov

Former professional wrestler and actor. The Running Man (1987), Predator (1987).  Author or co-author of I Ain't Got Time to Bleed: Reworking the Body Politic from the Bottom up (2000), Quotations of Chairman Jesse (2000), Do I Stand Alone?: Going to the Mat Against Political Pawns and Media Jackals (2001), Jesse Ventura Tells It Like It Is: America's Most Outspoken Governor Speaks Out About Government (2002), The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War (2004).

• Video interview The Alex Jones Show 9/26/06: "The thing I question on 9/11 was simply the fact; where were our planes?  When all this was going on and planes were being hijacked an hour apart and there were four of them  They cover about a six-hour space.  At no time, to my knowledge, did we have any fighter planes up in the air.  Why? ...
  
  In light of the fact that there was a cover-up that got us into the Viet Nam war and there was, in my opinion, a cover-up of John Kennedy's assassination, I would just say that I don't believe it's beyond reason to not at least consider that the government certainly would do things like that." http://www.infowars.com/articles
  
   
• Interview Black Op Radio 8/20/04: "At first, again, I wanted to believe 9/11, you know. But the problem I have with 9/11 is just a real simple one. I'm trying to figure out -- and of course they're now attempting to answer it somewhat -- how we could have failed so miserably in not having air defense. ...
  
  And the problem I have with 9/11 is that. Where the heck was our defense? Who was sleeping at the wheel? While all of these planes... I mean, I've been to air traffic control when I was Governor, and you've got a dozen people there looking at these dials, watching every plane in their sector. They know where it's going and they know what direction it's supposed to be going
  
  Now, how is it that these planes were able to be hijacked at half hour intervals, turned directly opposite the way they're supposed to be going and no bells went off, no emergency sirens went off, no fighter jets were scrambled? Just what the hell happened in that area of time?! And that's the part that troubles me about 9/11. ...
  
  I mean here's the Pentagon, the head of our military. How was this plane able to circle the city of Baltimore [sic] at least once, picking out a target, and then drive into it, and we didn't have -- nothing up in the air? There wasn't one scrambled fighter jet up there to defend in any way, shape, or form?" http://www.libertypost.org
  
   
• Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura

• Audio interview The Alex Jones Show 1/18/07: "Dr. Ron Paul, Texas Congressman exploring a run for President, appeared on The Alex Jones Show Wednesday and had the following to say about 9/11:
  
  Caller: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
  
  Congressman Paul: Well, that would be nice to have.  Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on." http://www.total911.info
  
   
• Presidential campaign website: http://ronpaul2008.com/
  
   
• Bio: http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

• Video 6/10/07:  "Some time in September, at a date that will be as appropriate as possible, we're going to be holding what will be the first hearing in the Congress on two discrete issues relating to 9/11.  They have to do with financial issues." http://www.youtube.com/
  
   
• Video interview with Justin A. Martell of Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth 4/5/07:
  
  Justin A. Martell: Would you in any way maybe address the 9/11 Truth Movement?
  
  Congressman Kucinich: First of all, you have to understand that all over the country people are concerned about whether or not they've been told the truth about 9/11.  And the way that the administration handled 9/11, taking us into a war against Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11, deepened people's suspicions about the possibility there may have been a cover-up.  Because, why would the government lie about a cause for war?   And so, what I'm saying is that I respect the concerns people have about whether they've been told the truth or not.
  
  Because I want to be President of the United States, I know that unless you address that lack of trust, you're not going to be able to successfully lead a nation.  And I want to be quite specific about this.  It's my intention as Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee to focus in on two areas that I've -- there are a number of areas, probably dozens of areas that haven't been appropriately probed -- but I know of two, that I'm looking at.  I'm not at liberty to discuss exactly what they are, but our committee will hold hearings on two discreet areas that have major implications with respect to the story that Americans have been told about 9/11." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIS6UJ8kRlY
  
   
• Article Times Union 3/26/07: "Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich predicted Sunday that by the time the New Hampshire primary arrives early next year, so many Americans will have tired of the war in Iraq that his peace platform will make him the choice for the Democratic nomination. ...
  
  He also said that as chairman of a House subcommittee on domestic policy, he plans to launch an investigation of "a narrow portion" of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.  He offered few details, but said his subcommittee would be looking at "a few, specific discrepancies in the public record."  The 9/11 Commission that published its final report in 2004 never resolved some conflicting facts, Kucinich said.  He announced his own look at 9/11 in answer to a question from an audience member.  The man complained that the 9/11 Commission was too tied to the Bush administration to offer an unbiased report, and Kucinich agreed." http://timesunion.com
  
   
• Presidential campaign website: www.dennis4president.com/
  
   
• Bio: http://kucinich.house.gov/Biography/

• Article Fox News 8/28/05: Regarding the 9/11 Commission "There's something very sinister going on here that really troubles me," Weldon told FOX News on Thursday, blasting the Sept. 11 commission for not taking the claims more seriously. He said some panel members were trying to smear [Lt. Col. Anthony] Shaffer and Able Danger.  "What's the Sept. 11 commission got to hide?" Weldon asked." http://www.foxnews.com
  
   
• Press conference transcript 9/17/05: Regarding the 9/11 Commission Report  "There's something wrong here, something tragically wrong.  The American people, the families, the country and the Congress need to know the truth, the whole truth, the complete truth. And so far we haven't gotten it. … Somebody's got to connect the dots and answer the questions. If the 9/11 Commission won't do it, then Congress has to do it." http://www.gl
  
   
• Speech on the floor of Congress 10/19/05: "I am not a conspiracy theorist, but there is something desperately wrong, Mr. Speaker. There is something outrageous at work here. This is not a third-rate burglary of a political campaign headquarters. This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people, changed the course of history, led to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and has disrupted our country, our economy and people's lives." http://frwebgate
  
   
• Editor's note: The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that only three of the alleged hijackers were known to U.S. intelligence agencies prior to 9/11; Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, and Khalid al-Mihdar.  There is no mention in the Report that the names and photographs of alleged hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi and alleged ring-leader Mohamed Atta had been identified by the Department of Defense antiterrorist program known as Able Danger more than a year prior to 9/11 and that they were known to be affiliates of al-Qaida. Able Danger also identified Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar.  http://www.foxnews.com.  See also Louis Freeh, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, Cap. Scott J. Phillpott, Major Erik Kleinsmith, and James D. Smith.
  
   
• Bio: http://www.montcogop.org

• Congressional Briefing 7/22/05: "Within days of the attacks, we were told that the perpetrators were from a terrorist network known as al-Qaeda. When reporters and members of the public asked for details, then Secretary of State Colin Powell promised that it would be made all clear to the world in a White Paper.
  
  Nearly 4 years, and 2 wars later, we still have no official statement from the Bush administration on the specifics of who did it, who aided and financed them or what their origins are.
  
  For the families who suffered so much loss this surely feels like adding insult to injury. They deserve to know everything that there is to be known about how their loved ones died. They fought for an investigation that would be non-partisan, independent, and that would get to the bottom of things. But, as work got underway, not only did the Commission run up against obstruction by the administration and non-cooperation from government agencies, many, if not most of the commissioners themselves had conflicts of interest.
  
  And several commissioners spoke out about problems in the process; the lack of investigative rigor and heavy reliance on previous work; the Joint-Commission Report, the drafting of recommendations before the investigative process got rolling, the failure to take testimony under oath or in many cases to even take transcripts. ...
  
  Then last year, we got the final report. An extensive, prosaically impressive report. But as some of us sat down to read it, the errors and omissions immediately jumped out at us.
  
  How was it that it took over an hour after the first transponder went off before planes were scrambled to meet the threat? All of them too late.
  
  What happened to those reports that surfaced within months of September 11th stating that 7 or more of the alleged hijackers had come forward and claimed that they were victims of stolen identities ...? Why did the Commission choose not even to address this?
  
  What about the terrorist Omar Said Sheikh? ... According to Indian intelligence, this man received orders from a Pakistani General to transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta. People all over the world are talking about this story. But not a word about it in the Report.
  
  What about Osama bin Laden and his role in the Mujahadin backed by the CIA in the 1980’s to fight the Soviets? The Commission didn't go there." http://www.911readingroom.org
  
   
• Editor's note: Despite the finding of the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 Report (p.415) of "sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers", the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 172) states, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding."  For more information on Omar Said Sheikh and foreign support of the 9/11 hijackers, see Senator Bob Graham, Major John Newman, William Bergman, and Michael Meacher.
  
   
• Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:    
  "We want truthful answers to question. …  As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
  • An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
  • Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
  • Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
  • The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry." http://www.911truth.org/article

  
  
   

• Bio: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/CynthiaMcKinney

• Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."
  
   
• Bio: http://www.voiceoftheenvironment.org/about/#hamburg

• 9/11 Commission testimony 5/23/03:
  
  Lee Hamilton: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center [PEOC]. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?
  
  Norm Mineta: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --
  
  Lee Hamilton: The flight you're referring to is the --
  
  Norm Mineta: The flight that came into the Pentagon. ...
  http://www.youtube.com
  
  Norm Mineta: I didn't know about the order to shoot down. I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m. And the president was in Florida, and I believe he was on his way to Louisiana at that point when the conversation that went on between the vice president and the president and the staff that the president had with him.
  
  Tim Roemer: So when you arrived at 9:20 [at the Presidential Emergency Operating Center in the White House], how much longer was it before you overheard the conversation between the young man and the vice president saying, "Does the order still stand?"
  
  Norm Mineta: Probably about five or six minutes.
  
  Tim Roemer: So about 9:25 or 9:26. And your inference
  was that the vice president snapped his head around and said, "Yes, the order still stands." Why did you infer that that was a shoot-down? http://www.youtube.com
  
   
• Editor's note: Secretary Mineta's testimony directly contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report on two key points and it is entirely omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.
  
  1. Mr. Mineta testified he arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) in the White House at 9:20 a.m. and observed Vice President Dick Cheney discussing with an aide that the incoming Flight 77 was 50 miles out at 9:25 or 9:26.  The 9/11 Commission Report maintains Vice President Cheney did not arrive at the PEOC until 9:58, over one-half hour later.  Mr. Mineta's testimony is further supported by the fact that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37, which is the correct time it would have taken Flight 77 to arrive at the Pentagon, if it had been about 50 miles out at 9:26.
  
  2. The Commission Report maintains the government did not know the whereabouts of Flight 77 prior to 9:32, when Dulles Tower air controllers "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed".  Mr. Mineta's testimony reveals Vice President Cheney was being informed of the plane's position for several minutes before that, and perhaps considerably longer.
  
  Also of interest, is that the first approximately 15 minutes of Mr. Mineta's testimony before the Commission during which he discusses the points mentioned above, have been edited out of the official 9/11 Commission video archives (Panel 1, Friday, May 23. 2003).  However, his full testimony does appear in the written transcript.
  
   
• Bio: http://www.nndb.com/people/649/000024577/

• Essay An Incomplete Investigation - Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"? Wall Street Journal 11/17/05: "Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. … No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a "new" commission to investigate." http://www.opin
  
   
• Interview Lou Dobbs Tonight CNN 11/30/05: Regarding the Able Danger anti-terrorism data mining program.
  
  Lou Dobbs: Why is there this reaction to what is called by more than half of our congressmen and women, to open up and to allow our elected representatives to know what happened?
  
  Louis Freeh: Well, it's a great question. I mean, the issue here, which was the issue when the 9/11 commission first responded to this, is they obviously missed something. They obviously didn't consider what at least is a very important allegation.
  
  Their response to it, it was historically insignificant. Historically insignificant that an intelligence unit may have identified by name and photo, Mohamed Atta a year before the 9/11 hijackings as a member of al Qaeda in the United States.
  
  Lou Dobbs: Tim Roemer, Slade Gorton, other members of the 9/11 commission have said they just had no hard evidence to deal with here. How do you respond?
  
  Louis Freeh: I disagree with that. I was a prosecutor and an FBI agent for many, many years. I deal in facts. You have two witnesses. You have United States Naval Academy graduate, Captain Phillpott, you have Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, an army intelligence officer. These aren't data loaders, these are intelligence experts who both have said, unequivocally, this unit identified Mohammed Atta by name and possibly photo in mid 2000.
  
  To say that they don't have any documents to prove their case, these aren't informants that we have to verify their credibility. We have testimonial evidence, which, as a prosecutor, that's more potent sometimes than documentary evidence.
  
  Lou Dobbs: You were director of the FBI until June of 2001. Were you ever aware of Able Danger? Was the FBI ever given any reason to sense that there was some military intelligence or military intelligence evidence or suggestion that there would be an attack or some relationship to Mohamed Atta?