Protecting the Patsies: Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of ‘Another Nineteen’

Today the International Center for 9/11 Justice is republishing Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of Kevin Ryan’s landmark 2013 book, Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects.

These chapters describe the roles played by FBI Director Louis Freeh, CIA Director George Tenet, and “Counter-terrorism Czar” Richard Clarke in the failure to stop the alleged 9/11 perpetrators in the years leading up to 9/11 as well as their apparent efforts to protect the hijacker backstory.

As we noted before, the purpose of putting Another Nineteen on IC911.org is to make it more accessible and to bring renewed attention to the increasingly urgent question of who perpetrated the 9/11 crimes. We encourage activists to share the entire book or individual chapters from it. You can find it under “Republished Books” on our website.

Chapters of the book will be published in groups, each with a new introductory note by Kevin Ryan. Without further ado, here is Ryan’s introduction to Chapters 4, 5, and 6.

---

Author’s Note on ‘Another Nineteen’ Chapters 4, 5 and 6

The events of 9/11 can be seen as developing in two parts. The first was the Setup, in which the legend of al Qaeda and the alleged hijackers was built over a period of years. The second part was the Takedown, where the actual events of 9/11, including the hijackings and the destruction of the buildings, were managed. Understanding the overall picture in this way leads to specific questions that can reveal more of the truth about what happened.

For example, there is no doubt that 9/11 was well-planned, and there shouldn’t be any doubt that a big part of the plan was generating the backstory. Someone needed to be blamed. Therefore:

• How did the legend of al Qaeda grow?
• Why were the alleged hijackers not captured well before they committed their crimes? 
• Why was Osama bin Laden not captured?
• Who funded the activities of the alleged hijackers, and who protected them?

Chapters 4, 5 and 6 tell the stories of three men who were responsible for the failure to stop the alleged hijackers and who seemed to be working to ensure that the hijacker backstory was protected. Louis Freeh and George Tenet led the primary intelligence agencies in the United States that were responsible for tracking terrorism in the time leading up to 9/11. As the U.S. “Counterterrorism Czar” and member of the National Security Council, Richard Clarke was also responsible for preventing terrorism.

Freeh, Tenet and Clarke were in the decisive positions of power that could ensure that the alleged hijackers were never stopped and would be helped as needed. Moreover, they were best positioned to delay, limit, and destroy information that could compromise either the plan or the backstory. And these three men had careers that were not affected by whatever party or administration was in power.

Both Freeh and Tenet owed their initial career successes to members of Yale’s Skull and Bones society (George H. W. Bush and David Boren, respectively), and both formed special, secretive relationships with the Saudis. After 9/11, Freeh and Tenet joined as directors of a company that had been flagged for insider trading related to the attacks. Freeh went on to become the personal attorney for Saudi Prince Bandar (aka Bandar Bush).

As a member of the secret Continuity of Government (COG) program, Clarke was closely associated with George H. W. Bush. Clarke was also a key ally and representative of the United Arab Emirates, a country whose possible role in the 9/11 crimes is often overlooked despite its many ties to the known terrorist financing network BCCI, to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and to the financing of the alleged hijackers. Clarke disrupted two opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and was never held accountable. Moreover, he led the incompetent crisis management meeting at the White House Situation Room on 9/11. Yet that day he was able to implement, for the first time, the COG plan that he and others had devised over many years.

As described in their respective chapters, these three suspects ignored, facilitated, and covered up terrorism, helping to leave a trail of misleading evidence that set up the backstory. They then failed to cooperate with the 9/11 investigations, destroyed evidence, and lied to Congress and the 9/11 Commission.

Kevin Ryan, August 2023

We at the International Center for 9/11 Justice are delighted to announce that over the next two months we will be republishing, on our website, Kevin Ryan’s landmark book, Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects, ten years after it was first published.

The purpose of putting the book on IC911.org is to make it more accessible to a wider audience and to bring renewed attention to the increasingly urgent question of who perpetrated the 9/11 crimes.

We encourage activists to share the entire book or individual chapters from it. You can find it under “Republished Books” on our website.

Chapters of the book will be published in groups, each with a new introductory note by Kevin Ryan. This week, we are releasing Chapter 1 (the Introduction), Chapter 2 (on Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld), and Chapter 3 (on Frank Carlucci and Richard Armitage).

---

Author’s Note on Republishing ‘Another Nineteen’

Ten years ago, my book Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects was published. It was an attempt to begin delivering an alternative explanation of who could have been responsible for the 9/11 crimes, and it was an opportunity to answer hand-waving excuses like “too many people would have had to be in on it.” Providing details about nineteen legitimate suspects — men who had the means, motive, and opportunity to manage the crimes — the book posed a question to those clinging to the false official explanations. Could they consider a conspiracy of nineteen powerful white men or only the same number of young, relatively powerless Arabs?

In the first months of research, I gathered dozens of suspects and put them in a matrix to allow a better assessment of their relationships, personal histories, and ability to affect aspects of the crimes. It became clear that a group of them were closely related, all connected to U.S. intelligence agencies or the Pentagon, and all in positions that allowed them to control parts of what happened that day.

The crimes of 9/11 were a successful attack against many U.S. security systems, from terrorism tracking to hijacking prevention to the U.S. chain of command and the North American air defenses to various investigative processes after the event. Similarly, the demolition of the World Trade Center buildings was a function of access, and access was a function of security. Who knew these systems well and could control them?

In writing the book I wasn’t looking to confirm a preconception about the involvement of a certain religion or foreign country. No doubt much of what followed 9/11 could be described as a war on Muslims, and people often wondered who most hated Muslims or profited from their destruction. Interestingly, after publishing the book I noticed that one-third of my suspects could be called right-wing Roman Catholics, like Frank Carlucci and Richard Armitage (Chapter 3). Did that mean that the Vatican was responsible? How about the Hindus and Coptic Christians who helped create the NIST reports? Such questions, like more common claims about Israel, are diversionary until the basics of what happened and who was involved are established.

Finding the truth about 9/11 requires examining who was in position to affect the crimes — specifically and in detail. It requires a focus on access and covert power, the kind of power that can disrupt and control all the systems mentioned above. This book is my attempt to help find that truth and share it with as many people as possible.

Kevin Ryan, August 2023

Join civil engineer Jonathan Cole for the next installment of the Center’s Takeaways series this Saturday from 5:00 to 6:00 PM Eastern.

The topic of discussion will be Cole’s new paper published last month in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. It is a damning critique of a paper co-authored by Jia-Liang Le and Zdeněk Bažant that was published last year in the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Journal of Structural Engineering.

Cole originally submitted his paper to the Journal of Structural Engineering last September, but the editors rejected it just two days later on the basis of alleged “insufficient technical content.”

The Takeaways session will be moderated by longtime 9/11 activist Fran Shure. Cole and Shure will spend the first 30 minutes highlighting takeaways from the paper. The second 30 minutes will be a Q&A in which participants are invited to submit questions. The event will be recorded so that those who are unable to attend can watch it afterwards.

Speaker Bio

Jonathan Cole, PE, has been a registered professional engineer for over 35 years. In 2010, he began conducting real-world experiments in his backyard to either prove or disprove the official explanation of the Twin Towers and Building 7’s destruction. He is well-known for the videos he made documenting these experiments, all of which can be found at his YouTube channel physicsandreason and at 911speakout.org.

Tune in at 5:00 PM EDT on Sat., Aug. 26 >

Read Jonathan Cole’s paper >

Authors Richard Johns and Tony Szamboti battled for more than a decade to have their paper published in the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Their paper was a direct response to and critique of an earlier paper the journal had published on the Twin Towers’ destruction. Nevertheless, the editors — both of whom had major conflicts of interest in relation to the paper being critiqued — rejected Johns and Szamboti’s paper as “out of scope.”

Finally, nearly five years after Johns and Szamboti filed an ethics complaint against the journal’s editors, the ASCE’s Executive Committee last week voted unanimously to dismiss their complaint.

Tune in tomorrow at 7:00 PM EDT for a live group interview with Johns, Szamboti, and four others involved in the complaint, and learn about this epic story of massive corruption in service of the 9/11 cover-up. The interview will be conducted by longtime 9/11 activist Fran Shure.

We will do more reporting on this story in the weeks and months ahead. In the meantime, we invite you to read the statement that Johns, Szamboti, and ten ASCE members submitted to the ASCE Executive Committee prior to the hearing.

Be prepared for your jaw to drop when you see how obviously and egregiously the journal editors violated the ASCE Code of Ethics and how decision-makers at ASCE refused to hold them accountable every step of the way — thus preventing Johns and Szamboti’s paper from finally being published.

Attachments to the Statement

(1) Letter to Editor Ulm
(2) Final Ulm Rejection
(3) Amended Ethics Complaint

We at the International Center for 9/11 Justice are thrilled to announce the imminent release of Peace, War and 9/11, a feature documentary narrated by the late Graeme MacQueen and directed by Ted Walter and Richard Heap.

World Premiere in Hamilton

The film will have its worldwide premiere on Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2023, at 7:00 PM at the Westdale in Hamilton, Ontario — the city where MacQueen lived and taught as a professor for much of his life.

There will be a suggested donation of $10 to $20 at the door. However, if you prefer to pay online and wish to guarantee yourself a seat, you can also donate and reserve your seat online.

The premiere will be followed by a reception at the Nannaa Persian Eatery, next door to the theater.

Online Release and NYC/Oakland Screenings

The film will then be released worldwide on YouTube, Amazon, and Tubi on Friday, Sept. 8, followed by screenings in New York City and Oakland, California.

The NYC screening will be held on Sunday, Sept. 10, at 6:00 PM at Cinema Village in the heart of Greenwich Village. Tickets are $20. Seating is limited, so be sure to buy your tickets as soon as possible.

Earlier on September 10^th — at 2:00 PM Eastern — there will be an online symposium dedicated to MacQueen, presented by the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry. The International Center for 9/11 Justice is proud to co-sponsor this event, and we warmly invite you to attend.

The Oakland screening will take place on Monday, Sept. 11, as part of the 19^th Annual 9/11 Truth Film Festival, presented by the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance.

This year’s festival is dedicated to honoring the legacies of MacQueen and fellow 9/11 scholar David Ray Griffin, who passed away last November.

The festival will begin at 3:00 PM with a recording of a talk MacQueen gave in 2016, called “War on Democracy.” It will end with Peace, War and 9/11, which will start at around 7:00 PM.

A $20 donation is suggested, but no one will be turned away!

Film Synopsis

In a wide-ranging interview filmed six months before his passing, eminent scholar and lifelong peace activist Graeme MacQueen shares his final words on 9/11 and the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Drawing from his depth of knowledge as a professor of peace studies, MacQueen illuminates the concept of war as an all-encompassing parasitic system that depends on triggering events — sometimes natural but often managed or even manufactured — to move from a cold to a hot phase.

Within this framework, MacQueen presents his analysis of the back-to-back 9/11 and anthrax attacks. He argues that both attacks were deceptions perpetrated by the same group of actors for the purpose of launching the global war on terror and breathing new life into the war system — a path we are still on and living the consequences of today.

In the first set of submissions to be published in the Center’s “Debated Topics Forum,” researcher Adam Taylor challenged our stated position regarding the alleged 9/11 hijackings, and IC911 board member Kevin Ryan responded to Taylor’s essay.

The point Taylor challenged reads:

It is exceedingly improbable that all eight pilots on the four airliners would have failed to enter the universal hijack code into their transponders and that all eight pilots would have either given up control of the aircraft or been incapacitated without first performing a violent flight control maneuver to thwart an invasion of the cockpit.

We hope readers will find the exchange informative. We also hope it will be the first of many constructive, evidence-based discussions to come.

We enthusiastically welcome researchers who are confident in their point of view on contentious 9/11 topics to submit to the forum. Together, we can create a space for genuine scholarly debate that produces major advances in our understanding of the 9/11 crimes.

Photo courtesy of formulaone.

Last night the news show Redacted aired an interview with Matt Campbell, who is leading his family’s effort to open a new inquest into the death of his brother Geoff in the North Tower on 9/11.

Redacted, which has two million followers on YouTube, is co-hosted by Clayton Morris, a former Fox News anchor, and his wife, Natali.

In this interview, Clayton expresses his outrage about the family having been denied a new inquest by the UK Attorney General and urges his viewers to support the family’s legal challenge of the AG’s decision.

Please donate to the Campbells’ legal fund today. They must raise $50,000 by August 31st and have $23,000 to go. This could be our best chance ever to achieve a real 9/11 investigation in a court of law!

The International Center for 9/11 Justice is pleased to announce that the Journal of 9/11 Studies has published a new and very significant paper on the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers by civil engineer Jonathan Cole.

Cole’s “discussion paper,” as it is called, is a damning critique of a paper by Jia-Liang Le and Zdeněk Bažant published last year in the American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Structural Engineering.

In their paper, Le and Bažant summarized the influential “crush-down crush-up” theory of the Twin Towers’ destruction, which Bažant developed in a series of papers published in the first ten years after 9/11.

For nearly two decades, Bažant’s “crush-down crush-up” theory has filled a void left by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency that Congress mandated in 2002 to investigate the destruction of the Twin Towers.

NIST’s resulting report, issued in 2005, inexplicably stopped short at “collapse initiation” and did not examine how the structure of the towers behaved after that point. Thus, to this day, the “crush-down crush-up” theory has effectively served as the foundation of the official explanation of the Twin Towers’ destruction.

The “crush-down crush-up” theory claims that the top section of each tower remained intact and crushed the entire lower portion of each building beneath it before reaching the ground and crushing itself up.

Cole’s newly published paper disproves the “crush-down crush-up” theory with remarkable simplicity, showing how it fails to account for and is incompatible with the portion of the core structure that remained standing after the first stage of each tower’s collapse.

Put simply, the fact that a portion of the core structure stood for several seconds after the rest of the building came down proves that the top section did not remain intact until reaching the ground and did not crush the structure beneath it along the way.

Cole originally submitted his discussion paper to the Journal of Structural Engineering last September, but the editors rejected it just two days later on the basis of alleged “insufficient technical content.” (We think it is necessary to point out a potential conflict of interest, which is that the Journal’s editors lead a research center that receives $4 million per year from NIST and works closely with the agency.)

We at the Journal of 9/11 Studies disagree with that assessment, as we made clear in an Editor’s Note for Cole’s paper. We believe his paper provides straightforward observations that fatally undermine Bažant’s deeply flawed theory.

Therefore, we are proactively urging the editors of the Journal of Structural Engineering to reverse their decision and publish Cole’s discussion paper in the journal where it rightly belongs. If they refuse to do so, we will invite Le and Bažant to write a closure (i.e., a response to Cole’s discussion paper) for publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

The family of Geoff Campbell, a British citizen who died in the September 11 attacks, released the following statement on the 6^th of July 2023:

On the 11^th of September 2001, our beloved son and brother, Geoff Campbell, was murdered in the destruction of the World Trade Center’s North Tower.

Geoff was just 31 years old, was recently engaged to be married to the love of his life, and was pursuing a promising career as an IT risk analyst.

Ever since, we have been seeking answers to why Geoff died. Through our rigorous research, we have come across abundant and persuasive evidence indicating that the North Tower was destroyed not by the impact of the airplane but by pre-planted explosives and incendiaries.

Therefore, in August 2021, we submitted a 2,500-page application to then-Attorney General Suella Braverman, seeking her authority, under the Coroners Act 1988, to apply to the High Court for a fresh inquest. Geoff’s original inquest in 2013 had reached the conclusion that the impact of the airplane caused the North Tower’s collapse, and it is this finding that we aim to overturn.

Last week, after nearly two years of waiting, we received the very disappointing news that Solicitor General Michael Tomlinson, acting on behalf of Attorney General Victoria Prentis, refused our request for the Attorney General’s authority to apply to the High Court for a fresh inquest.

We are deeply saddened by this decision and appalled by the unlawful and irrational reasoning given by Solicitor General Tomlinson.

The Solicitor General contends that it was “reasonable” for the coroner to rely on the findings of the FBI and the 9/11 Commission. But reasonableness is not the applicable legal test. Rather, it is sufficiency. The coroner at Geoff’s original inquest heard no evidence whatsoever that is capable of supporting the conclusion that the impact of the airplane caused the North Tower’s collapse. Legally speaking, to state a conclusion for which no evidence was considered is the very epitome of “insufficiency of inquiry.”

The Solicitor General also argues that the expert and eyewitness evidence of pre-planted explosives is “unlikely” to yield a different conclusion. Yet the law on this matter is clear: We are not required to prove that a different conclusion is likely in order to be granted a fresh inquest — only that a different conclusion is possible. The refusal of our application on this ground is in direct contravention of the law.

Furthermore, the Solicitor General irrationally claims that the expert and eyewitness evidence of pre-planted explosives would not “make a meaningful difference to the verdict, or shed further light on how the deceased came about his death.” No reasonable decision-maker would make such an illogical statement. Indeed, the expert and eyewitness evidence he refers to directly contradicts the conclusion of the original inquest. Thus, this new evidence would obviously make a meaningful difference to the verdict and would shed further light on how Geoff came about his death.

The Solicitor General also irrationally asserts that assessing whether the Twin Towers collapsed due to pre-planted explosives is “beyond the scope of an inquest.”

In fact, evaluating expert and eyewitness evidence related to the destruction of the Twin Towers is well within the responsibilities and capabilities of any UK coroner, whose task in every case is to examine in a “full, fair and fearless” inquiry all facts and circumstances that may show what caused any given death. This statement by the Solicitor General is unlawful and irrational because it is not within a “reasonable range of responses” to the fresh evidence we presented.

The Attorney General’s incoherent refusal of our application is a miscarriage of justice and a cruel obstruction of our search for the truth about Geoff’s death. Therefore, we will seek judicial review of the Attorney General’s legally deficient decision before the three-month deadline of September 27, 2023.

We ask for the public to support our legal challenge of the Attorney General’s decision as we endeavor to establish, in a court of law, the truth about how Geoff, along with thousands of other innocent souls, met his death on September 11^th 2001.

Maureen Campbell
Malcolm Campbell
Matt Campbell
Rob Campbell

---

Download the press release and the Attorney General’s letter. Please contact the Center with any inquiries.

Last night the Kim Iversen Show aired an interview with Ted Walter, the executive director of the International Center for 9/11 Justice.

Kim has built a large following over the years through her no-nonsense reporting for the The Hill and, since last year, on her eponymously named news show, which airs on Rumble, YouTube, and other platforms.

Be sure to check out this engaging hour-long conversation as Kim opens her fiercely independent mind — and the minds of her hundreds of thousands of viewers — to the evidence of controlled demolition on 9/11.