Executive Summary: Factual Matters giving rise to Suspicions of Criminal Acts by Perpetrators other than 19 Middle Eastern Hijackers


The September 11 attacks have generated a vast body of historical research, editorial content, scientific and statistical studies, and public policy statements and analyses that have over time increasingly bifurcated into two opposing camps: On the one side a large, independent research community has mounted a formidable challenge to the official story; and on the other stand those pillars of mainstream opinion who have never really doubted the original assumptions (see the list in Part I, section 5) first presented to the world by the Bush Administration within days of the tragedy. And tragedy compounds upon tragedy; compelling evidence exists that criminal acts attributed to 19 Middle Eastern hijackers may have also involved or even been perpetrated by other persons of interest or suspects either set free or not investigated who have gone free and even live among us—and all this because of the manifest default of our governmental institutions and media in carrying out their moral duty to pursue the truth no matter where it may lead.

No one doubts that the mainstream media have largely ignored the findings of the 9/11 truth movement during this period of the evolution of opinion and research. As in so many other issues of the day, establishment media have been compliant with official pronouncements—or perhaps have feared the profound consequences that might result if they were to devote the investigative resources that would be required to cover our challenges to the official story. While the mass media have remained in dereliction of duty, rich dialogues among the independent 9/11 research community have for several years fermented across the Internet, before a more recent blossoming of books, publications, speaking events, conferences, and films. Professionals and amateurs alike among these independent researchers have debated the ultimate origins of the attacks; the role of national intelligence and defense systems in failing America; the underlying motives for the actions taken by the Bush Administration in response to 9/11; and the many, many unanswered questions still not addressed by official investigations and mainstream media.

Meanwhile, the unchallenged official story that still guides government policy-making and legislation has had profound consequences for America and the world. The 9/11 tragedy has been exploited for political gain even in an election campaign. The unexamined official story about 9/11 is cited as justification for preemptive attacks on foreign countries, an ongoing war, and radical changes in public policy. The US approach to the so-called War on Terror has led to a break with America’s allies and the United Nations, the enactment of statutes that limit civil liberties of citizens, visitors and immigrants alike, the detainment and even torture of foreign nationals without benefit of due process and guarantees assured under the Geneva Convention, the creation of a new cabinet agency and the expenditure of billions of dollars to increase police-like activity across the nation.

The complainants believe that the moral imperative for investigating our challenge to the official story has never been greater. But as with treatments of any complex issue outside of “official channels,” the available sources vary in intent, focus, quality and accuracy and, therefore, in value. Thus in Part II we provide—based upon our best assessment of the highest quality independent research—a condensed summary of possible avenues for investigation. We realize that credible and promising leads may yet prove baseless, while speculations that at first may seem off base can turn out to be true.

An open mind is required as one considers the overwhelming evidence that points to a wider circle of complicity than allowed for in the official story. We believe a subpoena-empowered investigation of these avenues for investigation, in combination, will uncover indictable crimes under both New York and federal laws.


1. AIR DEFENSE ON 9/11: The complex anomalies and demonstrably false statements about US air defense response on September 11, including evidence suggesting that such failures cannot be explained by mere incompetence. This is an enormously complex issue involving conflicting and revised government air defense timelines, classified “coincident” multiple war games and other terror-related exercises that occurred on the morning of September 11, 2001, and therefore requires the longest treatment. While your office may choose not to find grounds for direct jurisdiction in these matters, their importance to a potential criminal investigation will become clear in combination with the other subjects treated below. (See, Appendix A1)

2. CHAIN OF COMMAND: The failure to exercise authority among top officials in the US military chain of command during the actual attacks, so consistent that it suggests an intentional abdication of responsibility and points to the likelihood of criminal facilitation. (See, Appendix A2) [Note: Repeat sentence here deleted, moved up to correct position in Item 1 above.-Ed.]

3. PAKISTANI ISI: The alleged connection of the Pakistani Interservices Intelligence Agency (“ISI”) to financing the 9/11 plot, with its implications leading back to possible American connections in our intelligence agencies and other officials. (See, Appendix A3)

4. INSIDER TRADING: Reports received from stock exchanges all over the world pointing to evidence of massive financial trading based on insider foreknowledge of 9/11 attack details. This complex issue was far from resolved by the dismissal—itself untenable—of “put option” evidence by both the SEC and The 9/11 Commission Report, as this evidence is itself only one part of the allegation. (See, Appendix A4)

5. COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7: The unexplained and little-reported free-fall collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which raises the possibility of an intentional demolition. (See, Appendix A5)

6. ANTHRAX ATTACKS: The as-yet unsolved anthrax attacks of October 2001 and their impact on domestic politics and the 9/11 investigations. (See, Appendix A6)

7. PTECH RAID/INVESTIGATION: The activities of the government contracter Ptech, indicating a possible criminal complex surrounding this US government contractor and a role in the 9/11 crimes. (See, Appendix A7)


The lines of inquiry suggested in Part A above are the tip of a largely unexplored iceberg. We therefore provide online at www.Justicefor911.org an evolving sampling of other relevant bodies of evidence, pointing to:

1. Hijacker Oddities. Contradictions and anomalies in reports about the alleged hijackers, suggesting that their identities, associations with other parties, and actual roles in the crime have not been resolved by official investigations. (See, Appendix B1)

2. Obstruction of investigations prior to 9/11. Consistent and high-level obstruction of a number of US counterterrorism investigations prior to September 11, one or several of which might have uncovered the plot before its execution. (See, Appendix B2)

3. Indicators of foreknowledge. Other indicators of advance preparation for the 9/11 scenario, including the circulation of attack details in advance among circles beyond the purported bin Ladin network. (See, Appendix B3)

4. Obstruction of investigations following 9/11. The destruction of evidence, use of false evidence, and obstruction of investigations after the fact. (See, Basis Part I)

5. Context of war planning prior to 9/11. The context and timing of the attacks, coming amid the Bush Administration’s preparations in advance of September 11 to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. (See, Appendix B5)

6. Letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle. (November 11, 2004) Ryan, an executive at Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”), wrote to Frank Gayle, the head of the NIST team investigating the World Trade Center collapses — which is due to issue a draft of its final report in January. UL certified the steel used in building the World Trade Center, and has since tested steel recovered from the Ground Zero site, and also created a model of part of the towers to test the effects of fire on the steel arrays at the WTC. Ryan’s letter raises the possibility that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not caused solely by the fuel fires weakening the metal structure. Ryan is not the first scientist to raise common-sense objections to this widespread account, which apparently also has its supporters at NIST. Although Ryan wrote on his own behalf — his letter is not a company statement — he does suggest incipient conflicts between UL and NIST with regard to the cause of the collapses. We respectfully call upon the Attorney General to seek advice from UL as well as other independent scientific organizations to resolve whether a steel-beam building can collapse from the relatively foreseeable scenario of a fire fueled by hydrocarbon fuels (including the type that were, apparently, stored in Building 7). If such an independent investigation resolves the issue in favor of the common account attributing the collapses to the effects of fires, the AG should investigate whether other skyscrapers in New York are vulnerable to collapse from fire; and how many others are storing materials that, if exposed to fire, will cause steel beams and structures to fails. (See, Appendix B6)

7. Taxonomy of potential beneficiaries from the 9/11 attacks. We understand that an exploration of which parties may be complicit in a crime—such as 9/11 surely was, on a vast scale—must include due consideration for the question of “cui bono?”: Who are the beneficiaries of given events? Benefits may accrue incidentally, unwanted, or unforeseen by the beneficiaries, and therefore benefit is insufficient in establishing culpability; but an impartial investigation necessarily will include consideration of possible culpability among beneficiary groups. Given the disturbing inconsistencies in the official story, such an investigation must ask, “Who would have had motive to allow or to facilitate the attacks?” “Who has displayed a willingness to exploit the events of 9/11 and their predictable consequences in the political, financial, and psychological realms?” “Are there indications that any of these beneficiaries may have been aware of the attacks in advance, or involved in obstruction of investigations either before or after the attacks?” (See, Appendix B7)


Finally, we can only briefly touch upon historical subjects that are academic to a criminal investigation and prosecution of the 9/11 crimes, but which should surely inform any such venture. We will therefore provide online at www.Justicefor911.org evolving dossiers on the following:

1. Context: History of US policy and covert networks. The US government has a long history of covert operations and covert policies, undertaken outside public purview or control by Constitutional institutions. Moreover, many of these operations and policies are properly described as extragovernmental, i.e., implemented by associations that are only partly based in US government agencies, but which pursue their own agendas that are often at cross-purposes with official policy-makers. One term for this is “parapolitics”—the practice of political influence in secret by self-appointed, unaccountable groups. Both government-approved covert operations and covert parapolitical networks often have countenanced deliberate support for the rise of groups later designated to be “enemies” of the United States. Of the many such examples, especially germane are the decades of US support for radical Islamism in general, as well as specific US government participation in creating the network around Osama bin Ladin and in exploiting that network both as a support in achieving covert policy goals, and as an overt enemy of convenience. (See, Appendix B8)

2. Context: Precedents for facilitated terror and false-flag operations internationally. The many past cases when states (including the US government) and state agents pursuing their own agendas have countenanced attacks on their own nationals, fabricated non-existent attacks, or even planned for real attacks and blamed such attacks on an enemy of convenience (a “false flag”), the motive being to rule by fear, provide the pretext for war, silence dissent, or achieve other political and economic goals. (See, Appendix B9)

(Forward to PART 3: The Petition)