The Toronto Hearings were held at Ryerson University of Toronto, Canada, from 8 to 11 September 2011. The aim of the Hearings was to assess the historical truth of 9/11, according to the guidelines set forth at the outset of the Hearings by James Gourley, Director of the International Center for 9/11 Studies. He said the goal was to bring attention to the most substantial evidence accumulated over the past ten years, evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report and the various reports issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) failed to adequately address. This evidence demonstrates that there is a need for a new, independent and international investigation into the events of 9/11. The Hearings were not said to be a new investigation in themselves, but strove to “provide a succinct summary of the strongest evidence that a new investigation is immediately warranted and that the international community cannot abdicate this responsibility any longer.” Gourley clarified that the Hearings would “be analogous to a legal proceeding that is known in the United States as a Grand Jury hearing.”
Gourley also analogized the Hearings to a preliminary hearing or committal procedure under criminal law, where the common thread among all of these proceedings is that a prosecutor presents to an adjudicator his best evidence that the defendant committed the crime in question, often without the defendant or suspect present. Gourley stated that NIST and the 9/11 Commission members had been invited several times to participate in the Hearings, but they declined to do so.
The Hearings were not meant to establish whether there is enough evidence to convict or absolve employees or agents of the United States government, but to assess “whether there is a prima facie case that can be made against” one or more employees or agents. A prima facie case has been made when evidence that — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
During the international Toronto Hearings, the panelists listened to impartial and independent witnesses, who have collected the best evidence that contradicts the official government version of events. Each witness presented opening statements of high level in different fields: engineering, chemistry, economics, history, political science, neuroscience, and each witness answered questions posed by the panel.
The evidence we must utilize in analyzing 9/11 includes not only direct evidence but also circumstantial evidence, i.e. logical evidence. A confession or first-hand witness testimony is an example of direct evidence, while logical evidence is indirect evidence, i.e. indirect testimony or the deduction of an unknown fact. For example, the possession of the weapon used in a crime is circumstantial evidence that can help prove the responsibility of the possessor of the weapon regarding that specific crime. The system of logic evidence was discussed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, circa 450 BC, in the opera “The Organon.”
In this report, I will utilize both direct and circumstantial evidence to analyze and discuss the events of 11 September 2001. I agree with what professor Lance deHaven-Smith presented regarding State Crimes Against Democracy. In his interesting, well-documented analysis, he uses circumstantial evidence, which sometimes can be stronger than direct evidence. This is true when that evidence is founded on the facts “true and first,” according to the definition of Aristotle. If the circumstantial evidence is based on simple opinion or on wrong facts, the deduction is erroneous. But the facts that de Haven-Smith describes in Tables 2 and 3 are precise and true.
I will utilize all the statements of the Hearings witnesses and their scientific expertise, and focus on the relevant aspects of the evidence presented which deserves further investigations by the government prosecutors with subpoena power in the USA. I also recognize that there are many other evidence sources available which also support the case for further investigation in these areas.
The 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity and, as with every crime, requires an intentional human behavior, active or omitting, which is the cause of the events. A finding that there is probable cause to believe that a particular suspect committed a given crime requires probable cause that the suspect intended to provoke the events. For example, the impacts of the airplanes could have arisen from human error. In that case, a crime might not have occurred for lack of a will to do harm.
On the other hand, it is possible that the events are the consequence of intentional human action. In this case, the likely culprits could be those who were responsible for the voluntary impact of the planes with the buildings, or those who placed explosive charges in the World Trade Center buildings before the attack. The United States Justice Department has a duty to establish the cause of the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, and who, if anyone, intended that outcome.
To date, many of the relevant facts of 9/11 have not been publicly examined or constructed by a prosecutor or an independent jury in one of the 50 US states. Instead, the official investigations have been conducted by various agencies of the Bush administration and by two commissions that were appointed by Congress. The 9/11 Commission was directed by Philip Zelikow, who was appointed by the Bush administration as a replacement for its first appointed director, Henry Kissinger, who was unacceptable to the leading organization of victims’ families because of his suspected client relationships with members of the bin Laden family and his unwillingness to disclose his entire client list.
Under the Bush administration, Congress later charged NIST with determining the cause of the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings. Congress charged the 9/11 Commission and Congressional Joint Inquiry to assess the actions of the terrorists and of the secret services. But these bodies – NIST, the 9/11 Commission, and the Joint Congressional Inquiry – gave incomplete and subjective accounts of the 9/11 events, and both of them concluded that no members of the United States government bore responsibility for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks. It is impossible to accept the conclusions of these bodies, which are against the truth.
The NIST Reports
On November 20, 2005, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published its “final report on the cause of collapse of the Twin Towers” and later another report on the cause of the collapse of WTC 7, a 47-story skyscraper that came down into its footprint at about 5:20 PM, in freefall for more than two seconds and near freefall throughout its collapse. It was not impacted by an airplane.
The NIST conclusions were as follows: The airplanes that struck each of the twin towers caused a breach and explosion in a gigantic fireball. The remaining jet fuel flowed onto the lower floors, sustaining the fires. The heat from the fires deformed the structures of the buildings, and both towers collapsed completely, from top to bottom. Very little of recognizable size remained, except some steel and aluminum fragments and the pulverized dust from the concrete floors. The collapses caused more than 90 percent of the casualties on 9/11, amounting to about 3000 people. WTC 7 collapsed in a way that was inconsistent with the common experience of engineers, and required NIST to assert a new theory of thermal expansion to give their explanation the appearance of a scientific justification.
The final NIST report set out by limiting the scope of its inquiry to the fall of the twin towers, maintaining that the impacts of the planes, one against each tower, together with the fires, had caused the fall of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7. All three buildings collapsed completely, although Building 7 was not hit, against any common experience and the lack of any similar past events. According to the common knowledge at the time, never had a steel skyscraper completely collapsed. The Twin Towers report, although giving ample evidence to the impact of the planes, the fires, the loss of human lives, does not analyze the real nature of the collapses. These had features similar to controlled explosions. This diagnosis has been given by the architect Richard Gage and by professional engineer Jon Cole, both of them highly experienced professionals, through convincing tests, scientific proofs and visual testimonies of people absolutely above suspicion, such as firemen and victims.
The authoritative theologian David Ray Griffin, one of the most significant witnesses heard at the Toronto Hearings, described very precisely and in detail why the hypothesis of controlled demolition should be taken into consideration. The buildings fell down straight, nearly in freefall acceleration. The ruins contained spots that were red-hot for months. Various witnesses heard bursts of explosions. Nearly all of the concrete of these big structures was reduced to extremely thin powder. Large amounts of this powder, together with steel beams, were thrown horizontally at least one hundred meters from the buildings. Many beams and columns fell down in sections around ten meters long.
The WTC 7’s 47 floors collapsed late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001. According to NIST, the collapse of the third tower was due to the fires provoked by the collapse of the twin towers.
On the contrary, with regard to such thesis, chemist and independent researcher Kevin Ryan demonstrated that NIST gave contradictory versions of the events, and of the collapse of the third tower. NIST declared in a preliminary report that WTC 7 had been destroyed because of the fires provoked by diesel fuel stored in the building for emergency power, while in the following report declared that the fuel was not the reason for the collapse of WTC 7.
Similarly, Syvaray Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, declared early on that WTC 7 came down because ¼ of the building had been “excavated” from the debris of the Twin Towers. This claim was contradicted from the fact, noted by Ryan, that the spread of the debris in Ground Zero was asymmetric, and the other buildings close to the Twin Towers had nearly no damage. The NIST thesis is also inconsistent because the spread of the debris should have caused an asymmetric collapse, not a symmetric collapse at free fall speed.
Other relevant and appropriate comments of Kevin Ryan towards the NIST report were concerning the “thermal expansion” of the structural steel, which allegedly caused the collapse of the 13th floor, starting a chain reaction of collapses of other floors.
After having declared that WTC 7 fell down because of the fires provoked by the diesel fuel and from the debris, NIST departed from this account and gave as the reason for the collapse, rapid thermal expansion.
According to the NIST reports, the investigations were conducted over three years. The expert Kevin Ryan, on the contrary, said that NIST began its investigation on the WTC in August 2002 and wrote the first report regarding the WTC 7 in June 2004. The first suspicion that arises is that the NIST report 2004, before its publication, was vetted by the Bush administration, because the Bush administration controlled the Department of Commerce, which oversees NIST. That is the first handicap to the impartiality and credibility of the NIST report.
It appears strange that NIST, besides not conducting any scientific experimentation to support its report on WTC 7 as requested by external experts, did not question the eyewitnesses who had seen the collapse and perceived the repeated explosions before the buildings collapse. Several citizens, policemen and firemen were able to describe the circumstances of the three buildings’ destruction.
At the Toronto Hearings, Kevin Ryan noted that when the Twin Towers fell, they appeared to explode, starting from the top down. He said that high-velocity bursts could be seen 30 floors below the collapse front, that debris appeared to shoot away from the building, and the concrete floors turned to dust. This, he said, would not happen if the building was being crushed downward after being softened or weakened from fire.
These are only some of several precise observations made by expert Kevin Ryan that appear clear and convincing to me.
Additional comments regarding the NIST version came from David Chandler, physics instructor and expert witness at the Hearings. When on August 2008 NIST circulated the first version of its report on WTC 7, NIST declared that a 17-floor segment of the building fell down in a time 40% longer than the time calculated for free fall and as such, NIST’s explanation of the event was “consistent with physical principles.”
According to NIST the collapse took place in three distinct phases. During his testimony, Chandler pointed out that many available videos show that for around two and half seconds the acceleration of the building could not be distinguished from free fall.
NIST was obliged to agree on such an empirical fact, stressed by Chandler, and understandable by everybody, that the main portion of the collapse took place in six and half seconds. After the comments by Chandler in November 2008, NIST in its final report on Building 7 surprisingly admitted the fact of free fall. Its earlier failure to do so is proof of, at a minimum, poor skill on the part of NIST investigators.
At this point Chandler noted, “free fall can happen only if the resistance to the movement is zero.” And this can happen only in front of a controlled demolition due to explosive devices. This thesis was presented by Chandler during the Hearings, thus confirming the absolute inadequacy of NIST’s investigations.
As a matter of fact, the final NIST reports do not explain how it is possible that three modern steel hi-rise buildings fell down completely from fire, again absolutely lacking past examples of such type. Never before had a steel skyscraper collapsed totally if not because of controlled demolitions due to explosives devices. The NIST report, although devoting a lot of space to the impact of the planes, to the fires, to the loss of the human lives, does not try to explain the nature of collapse showing so many characteristics of controlled demolition: the explosions, the powder, the perfectly vertical fall, the nearly free fall acceleration. An exception to the silence of NIST can be seen in two lines where NIST presumes to answer the comments made to the draft of the reports. NIST avoids these problems declaring them out of the scope of the investigations, claiming merely that “global collapse was inevitable” after the start of the collapse.
In conclusion, the NIST investigation, because of the clear contradictions and the implicitly admitted mistakes, does not persuasively demonstrate at all that the three towers fell down because of the impacts of the planes and the fires. Other factors, such as bombs and/or incendiary devices, seem to be required to explain the observed facts.
The appearance of controlled demolition not only casts doubt on the official account of how the buildings fell, it raises obvious questions about possible official foreknowledge and complicity (because of the extensive engineering effort and access to secure buildings required). The crucial issue that professor Lance deHaven-Smith identified is the following: “These doubts and questions are compounded by the actions of US governing authorities in the aftermath of 9/11: immediately invading Afghanistan, adopting an official policy of preventive war, and manipulating intelligence to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. These actions are prima facie evidence of a pre-existing agenda to contrive a pretext for waging wars of aggression in the Middle East to gain control of diminishing energy supplies.” This is a perfect use of logical evidence, which is admissible in a judicial system, and I agree with this theory.
The information presented and conclusions reached by expert witnesses at Toronto Hearings Witnesses are more valid and probable than the information and conclusions set forth by NIST. The Toronto Hearings experts are independent and impartial, unlike NIST experts. They gave both the empirical and documentary evidence that three buildings were destroyed by airplane impact and probably by other causes, such as pre-planted explosives.
The attack on the Pentagon and the lack of proper investigation
The NIST, a non-independent agency incapable of reconstructing the dynamics of the building collapses, did not analyze the attack against the Pentagon. Nevertheless there are several anomalies and omissions in the official position on what happened at the Pentagon as expressed in the 9/11 Commission Report.
First of all, it appears impossible that the greatest military power of the entire world remained ineffective for more than an hour, ignoring the presence of rogue airplanes inside its airspace. The 9/11 Commission said that until 9:36 am, one or two minutes before Pentagon was struck, nobody knew that an airplane was directed towards Washington. On the contrary, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission about a conversation between Vice President Cheney and others in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center of the White House about the jetliner heading towards the Pentagon at least ten minutes prior to the crash. This testimony was not discussed in the 9/11 Commission Report. The Commission also failed to consider that for AA77, piloted by Hani Hanjour, to strike the Pentagon at the location it did, would have executed a spiral descent that would have been very difficult for an inexperienced pilot, and Hanjour was consistently described by his flight instructors as a bad pilot.
The omissions of relevant evidence in the NIST investigation and the investigation of the Pentagon, their contradictions and the lack of independence and impartiality, as a body controlled by the Bush administration, requires an impartial, independent scientific investigation group, whose membership could be decided by a state prosecutor or by a jury, executed by an independent group of technical experts. The group’s task would be to determine the real technical cause of the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers and part of the Pentagon, including the reasons for their collapse and dismemberment. The possibility of controlled demolition would have to be explicitly investigated by such a group.
By the rules of common law, according to the most accepted doctrine, where specific scientific competence is needed, a judge and jury cannot rely on just their personal scientific knowledge, which may be inadequate for the analysis required. In this case, expert opinions must be accepted by the judge in order to ascertain the truth and everything must be done according to due process of law. None of the official reports emerged from actual criminal investigations.
Evidence regarding events that occurred before September 11, 2001
Witnesses at the Toronto Hearings presented several facts that, through appropriate investigations and expertise, can become legal evidence presented before a grand jury. Some of these elements prove the criminal responsibility of persons different from the material executors of the attacks, or officials who, as members of governmental institutions, refrained from acting to prevent the terrorist attacks. The Panel will bring its attention to and indicate the evidence that deserves further investigation by state prosecutors.
Research by historians, scientists, and witnesses, inquiries by courageous reporters on the signs ignored by the US government, and on the insider trading that happened just before 9/11, and other reliable information support an account of 9/11 that is quite different from the official version. The truth will allow us to see over the deviations, the inert behavior, and the conspiracy of silence often used to cover up official government complicity.
Insider trading: CIA and FBI involvement
The presentation by experts of the evidence of insider trading executed before 9/11 make it very likely that the CIA and FBI knew in advance the date and place of the attack, and which two airlines would be affected. The evidence of insider trading as fact is founded mainly on the evidence presented by Paul Zarembka and Kevin Ryan. First of all, Zarembka, professor of economics at the State University of New York Buffalo, covered several scientific studies proving the high probability of insider trading before the 9/11 attacks. He stressed that several suspicious financial transactions had been concluded by unknown people shortly before the attacks.
Professor Zarembka addressed evidence of insider trading before September 11, sometimes referred to by the broader phrase informed trading. He also mentioned certain open questions about financial issues surrounding September 11 that otherwise deserve investigations, including large increases in the M1 money supply in the United States reported for July and August 2001, huge financial transactions reported to have taken place at computers at the World Trade Center minutes before the attacks, selling short (as opposed to shorting with options), the disappearance of gold and securities from the World Trade Center, the specific financial firms in the World Trade Center directly hit by planes, the financial investigations sabotaged by the WTC or Pentagon attacks, and the insurance payoffs to the owner of destroyed buildings, particularly Larry Silverstein.
Professor Zarembka stressed that the 9/11 Commission stated that it found no evidence of insider trading before the attacks, and that the SEC lied in response to a FOIA request for supporting documentation by stating that their records had been destroyed. However, on January 14, 2009, several documents, including two SEC memos, were made public. One of these memos identified a specific options trader who recommended shorting American Airlines stock, and an unidentified institutional investor who did actually sell short United Airlines stock. Another of the memos showed that the SEC did not investigate insider trading in stock indexes, indicating that the US government’s investigation was not as thorough as it led the public to believe.
Professor Zarembka also discussed several academic studies that identified several categories of pre-9/11 transactions that were almost certainly examples of informed trading. Two of the studies have been peer-reviewed and published in established journals, and one has been submitted for peer review.
There is strong circumstantial evidence, founded in fact, that insider trading happened prior to and in connection with September 11, 2001. The evidence consists in the same operations, objectively demonstrated, that have been done between September 6 and 10. Some relevant information was hidden by the 9/11 Commission and US government, but we do not know who was responsible for these operations because of the lack of needed investigations, as admitted by the Department of Justice prosecutor Ken Breen in one of the SEC memos. Further circumstantial evidence against Bush and the FBI director is that the FBI and 9/11 Commission, which investigated insider trading, did not adequately address the evidence of it.
There is precise circumstantial evidence that (a) the crime of insider trading was committed with participation of institutional investors, as CIA and FBI, (b) the 9/11 Commission intentionally and fraudulently hid the evidence to provide cover for the institutional and politically responsible parties, (c) the US Justice Department acted against the law and the truth in order to cover high governmental responsibility (d) more important, the US government could have prevented the 9/11 crimes against humanity, but did not want do that, in violation of the duty to prevent the crime.
The scientific and documentary analysis made by Professor Zarembka has been confirmed by the logical considerations of Kevin Ryan. A confirmation comes also from German Central Bank President, Ernst Welteke, who said his bank conducted a study that strongly indicated “terrorism insider trading” associated with 9/11. Professor Zarembka stated that the researchers he cited had found “almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.”
The 9/11 Commission and FBI involuntarily gave us a confirmation of insider trading when they affirmed that the originator of the financial transactions suspected of insider trading is not connected with terrorists and Al Qaeda. To the 9/11 Commission, this fact meant that insider trading did not occur. I agree with the fact that no ties have been found between the people who purchased the shares and Al Qaeda terrorists. Nevertheless, that proves the involvement in insider trading of people outside of terrorism and Al Qaeda, but does not exclude that these people were aware of the 9/11 attacks, as I am convinced. And that they could have helped prevent the attack, but preferred instead to gain illicit money at the cost of thousands of lives. So the insider trading must be attributed to those who, inside governmental institutions, were informed of the 9/11 attacks, starting from the upper levels of the CIA and FBI and from President George W. Bush’s administration. These people likely used some other people for the transactions. The issue of insider trading before the 9/11 attacks deserves further attention by state and federal prosecutors.
CIA involvement in the 9/11 attacks: The testimony of Peter Dale Scott
Professor Peter Dale Scott is an indirect, documentary witness; he presented several pieces of circumstantial evidence about the CIA’s involvement in 9/11-related events. He described “How the CIA Withheld Key Information from the FBI, Thus Allowing 9/11 to Happen.” His research presentation constitutes evidence that confirms and integrates the statements of Richard Clarke, who is a direct witness of some facts regarding actions taken by CIA and FBI figures before 9/11.
Prof. Scott is an important witness, because he brings into sharp relief whether top 9/11 investigators exhibited administrative incompetence or deliberate deception. He concludes that there was “organized mendacity.” This mendacity has been used to protect some important figures, people highly placed in the Bush administration, whose important roles we already know played in the 9/11 tragedy. “These figures include President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, NORAD General Richard Myers, and CIA Director Tenet. They include also President Clinton’s National Security Adviser, Samuel “Sandy” Berger, who prior to testifying on these matters, went to the National Archives and removed, and presumably destroyed, key relevant documents.” Scott cites, among other books, Kevin Fenton’s Disconnecting the Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed to Happen (Walterville, OR: Trine Day, 2011) and John Farmer’s The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11 (New York: NY: Riverhead Trade (Penguin), 2009).
Scott stressed that “the most important truths still remain unknown, in large part because many of the most important documents are still either unreleased or heavily redacted; the efforts at cover-up continue, if anything more aggressively than before.”
Scott’s analysis confirms the relevant statements of Richard Clarke that the withholding of numerous relevant pieces of information from authorities tracking the alleged terrorists, both pre-and post 9/11, were the work of relatively few people. He bases his reconstruction of 9/11 events on earlier important books by James Bamford, Lawrence Wright, Peter Lance, Philip Shenon, and Fenton, that “demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a systematic CIA pattern of withholding important information from the FBI, even when the FBI would normally be entitled to it.” Even more brilliantly, he shows that the withholding of information has been systematically sustained through four successive post-9/11 investigations: those of the Congressional Inquiry chaired by Senators Bob Graham and Richard Shelby (still partly withheld), the 9/11 Commission, the Department of Justice Inspector General, and the CIA Inspector General. There is a formidable confirmation to Richard Clarke’s interview that is relevant because Clarke indicated some CIA involvement in that Tom Wilshire and Richard Blee were likely involved in the 9/11 plot.
Most importantly, Scott shows that the numerous withholdings, both pre- and post-9/11, were the work of relatively few people. The withholding of information from the FBI was principally the work of what he calls the “Alec Station group” – a group within but not identical with the Alec Station Unit, consisting largely of CIA personnel in Virginia, led by Michael Scheuer, though there were a few FBI people there as well. Key figures in this group were CIA officer Tom Wilshire (discussed in the 9/11 Commission Report as “John”), and his immediate superior at Alec Station, Richard Blee.
I agree with Professor Scott that the numerous withholdings, both pre- and post 9/11, were the work of relatively few people, including Tom Wilshire and Richard Blee, which is an important contribution to the historical truth and strong evidence of will on the part of US government officials to cause the 9/11 crime against humanity.
The above facts show a strong willingness on the part of persons at the highest FBI and CIA levels in Washington not to prevent the 9/11 attack, but rather favoring it. An independent investigation is needed with subpoena power to determine the level of involvement and culpability on the part of CIA and FBI personnel, including Blee and Wilshire.
What was the real motive for the 9/11 attack?
I find no flaws in the analysis by David Ray Griffin and Michel Chossudovsky of the motive of the crimes of 9/11. Their analyses clearly point to the conclusion that the 9/11 events pursued a precise end: “justify” the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
According to Chossudovsky, the 9/11 attacks had been used as a war pretext incident in which the over-twenty-year history of the CIA and creating and supporting the terror network now known as Al Qaeda has been shoved to the background. The fact that successive US governments since the Soviet-Afghan war have supported and abetted the Islamic terror network is no longer mentioned for obvious reasons. It might break the consensus regarding al Qaeda as the sworn enemy of America, which is a crucial building block of the entire National Security doctrine.
A courageous Senator Mike Gravel, one of the few US politicians who seems dedicated to revealing the truth about 9/11, gave a very interesting analysis about the motive behind the 9/11 attacks. He deplored President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would “look forward, not back.” Senator Gravel also stated:
The tenth anniversary of 9/11 also reminds us of the horrors that resulted from the government’s official 9/11 story. In addition to the interminable wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and the war on terror, the official line also conveniently set the stage for the Patriot Act that abridged so many of our liberties and civil rights. It also set the stage for a long list of other abuses such as egregious torture of “terror suspects” in the name of the national security. The U.S. Government’s investigation that culminated in the 9/11 Commission Report purported to set the record straight about the perpetrators of terrorism on our soil and the mistakes made by those whose sacred task is to defend our shores. But this 2004 report has since been called in to question by a very long list of credible voices, not only within the United States but throughout the world.
The chairman of the Commission, Governor Thomas Kean, admitted failure: “We think the Commission, in many ways, was set up to fail. Because we had not enough money, we didn’t have enough time, and we (were) appointed by the most partisan people in Washington.”
Sen. Gravel also noted the comments of Commission co-Chair Congressman Lee Hamilton: “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right… The commission was set up to fail… People should keep asking questions about 9/11.” Senator Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal.” John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general, who as general counsel helped lead the inquiry, said “At some level of the government, at some point in time… there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened… I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described… The tapes [released by the military] told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not true. There were interviews made of the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11. Those tapes were destroyed. Tapes of CIA interrogations were also destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened.”
This analysis by Senator Mike Gravel confirms that it is impossible to trust in the investigative bodies under the control of the US government, as it was a mistake to trust the NIST and the same agencies responsible of the deviation from the truth. The media also supported this strategy of disinformation to manipulate public opinion. Thus it is important to search for the historical truth based on trust in the US judiciary system, independent and impartial, in order to prevent the same people responsible for twisting the truth so thoroughly up to this point from repeating other “pre-emptive” wars. We have to charge those responsible for the worldwide “strategy of tension,” which if unchecked could lead to unimaginably greater destruction and death than we have even yet seen.
The possible International Commission on 9/11 events: The International Criminal Court
The Statute of the International Criminal Court is a means to punish the responsible author of these crimes. The public opinion is not available to permit that, under the pretext of the fight against terrorism, somebody commits unpunished crimes against humanities against the civil people. This need is the basis of the ICC.
A) The principles of the International Criminal Court
The Statute, i.e. the primary legislative instrument determining the purpose, structure and functioning of the International Criminal Court, sets out the principles on which the Court’s judicial work is predicated. The principles in question relate to the independence of its judges, cooperation between the Court and party States, the legislative underpinnings of the new function of international justice, and the automatism of judicial action.
The International Criminal Court was set up as, in the words of the Statute, “a permanent institution [that] shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern.” The Court was established at The Hague in the Netherlands, and its bodies consist of the Presidency, the Pre-Trial, Trial and Appeals Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry.
The Court is composed of 18 judges deemed to possess the qualifications that their respective countries require for appointment to the highest judicial offices. The judges of the Court are elected for 9 years by the Assembly of States Parties with a view to realizing equal representation of diverse legal systems, equitable geographical representation and a fair division of sexes. The judges must have established competence in criminal law and procedure or in international humanitarian law and the law of human rights. Similar requirements are expected of the Prosecutor and the Deputy Prosecutor, who must also have specific competence in criminal investigation and the prosecution of criminal cases.
A key feature of the Statute of the Court is its inclusion of the most significant and generally accepted principles of criminal law and procedure. Specifically, the Statute enshrines the principles of: personal criminal responsibility; nullum crimen sine lege; the non-retroactivity of criminal law; ne bis in idem; due process (respect for natural justice); the right of the defendant to confront witnesses; and the right to a fair trial.
B) Crimes coming under the jurisdiction of the Court
The Court may judge only crimes committed after the coming into force of the Statute. The jurisdiction of the Court refers above all to the so-called “core crimes,” viz., genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court may also exercise its jurisdictional powers in relation to the crime of aggression but, as noted above, may not do so until after the adoption of a provision that, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, defines the crime and sets out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.366
The crime of genocide is defined as in the United Nations Convention of 1948. Crimes against humanity refer to several different types of criminal acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilian populations. War crimes are assigned to the jurisdiction of the Court, especially when committed as part of a plan or policy, and the related illegal acts are determined with reference to the Geneva Convention of 1949 and to the rules and appropriate practices allowed in armed conflicts. War crimes also include acts committed in internal armed conflicts (“armed conflicts not of an international character”), with the exception of riots and isolated acts of violence.367
The Court has jurisdiction also in relation to offences against the administration of justice such as giving false testimony before the Court itself, corruptly influencing witnesses, knowingly presenting false evidence, intimidating or retaliating against Court officials, and soliciting or accepting bribes from Court officials.
C) Limitations of the jurisdiction of the Court
One of the fundamental principles enshrined by the Statute is the complementarity368 of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court with respect to party States. On the basis of this principle, party States undertake, above all, to include the crimes as set forth in article 5 of the Statute in their respective national judicial systems. The Court may take action in regard to one of the crimes indicated in the Statute only if the State with primary jurisdiction fails to prosecute or does so in a negligent manner.
Article 20 of the Statute enshrines the fundamental rule of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) for crimes prosecuted by the Court, but allows exceptions to the rule in cases of competing jurisdiction by an inefficient national judicial system.
One of the issues that was most discussed during the Rome conference concerned the jurisdictional reach of the Court — that is to say, how to specify the criteria used to relate crimes that are defined as such in the Statute with the attribution of legal cognizance over the same. Unlike the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, both of which were set up as a result of a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council, the International Criminal Court was established by international treaty to which only the party States are bound. At the same time, the Statute assigns a very specific role to the Security Council for the prosecution of crimes that fall within the remit of the Court and, by the terms of Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, are deemed to constitute a threat to international peace and security.
It was thus intended that the Court would exercise jurisdiction for crimes falling within its remit when the crimes took place in the territory of a State that is party to the Statute or in a State that, on the basis of a special agreement, had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, or else when the author of the crime is a national of one of the party States.
These criteria shall not be deemed binding — and the jurisdiction of the Court shall therefore not be subject to the foregoing limitations — in cases in which the United Nations Security Council submits to the Court Prosecutor one or more acts defined as crimes by article 5 of the Statute and constituting a threat to international peace and security.369
Another constraint on the Court’s jurisdiction consists of the transitional provision introduced by article 124 of the Statute (which provides for the so-called “opt-out” clause). The article enables a State, on becoming party to the Treaty, to declare that for a period of 7 years after the entry into force of the Statute for the State concerned, it will not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to war crimes committed by its nationals or on its territory.
A further jurisdictional limit to the Court derives from the provisions of article 16 of the Statute, which accords the United Nations Security Council the faculty to adopt a resolution requesting a one-year deferral of investigations or prosecution, and the faculty also to renew the request.
The possible Jurisdiction of ICC on the 9/11 facts
In case of inert behavior of the State, which has the duty to punish the culprits, it is possible to access the International Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.
In 9/11, we have: 1) Crimes against humanity committed as part of the widespread attack directed against the USA and civilians of other States; and 2) The case has not been investigated or prosecuted by the USA or any other country that has jurisdiction over it.
The only possibility to have justice is to submit the best evidence concerning the involvement in 9/11 of specific individuals to the ICC Prosecutor and ask him to investigate according the articles 12, 13, 15 and 17 letters a and b of the Statute of ICC, recalling also the following preamble of the Statute of ICC: “recognizing that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and the well being of the world; affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation. Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prosecution of such crimes; recalling that the duty of every State to exercise its criminal Jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.”
- Article 5 paragraph 1 of the Statute specifies that the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression. The second paragraph of the same article declares: “The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”
- See articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Statute.
- See articles 1, 17 and 20 of the Statute.
- See articles 12 and 13 of the Statute.