October 8th, 2009
Dear Mr. Kara
Thank you for your “Open Letter to the 9-11 Working Group of Bloomington.” As a member of that group, I’m glad to see you express interest in our work and I appreciate your invitation to further discuss the 9/11 Commission report in a public forum. It’s unfortunate that you’re not willing to engage in Q&A, however, as the questions are many and, to this day, the answers are very few. It is also unfortunate that you are not willing to debate the facts, because we would be happy to have you come to Bloomington for a public debate. But a dialogue of any sort is a welcome start.
For six years now, I’ve been focused on the work of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the ongoing independent investigation into what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC). The WTC reports finally generated by NIST have been shown to be dismally weak, highly inconsistent, and completely false. Frankly the NIST reports are a shameful excuse for science. Add to this the independent discovery of explosive residues in the WTC dust, which NIST did not test for or even consider, and we must suspect that a cover-up has been intended with regard the events of 9/11.
Although I have not had as much time to evaluate the 9/11 Commission report, my understanding is that it too is mostly, if not entirely, false. This is evident from the very start, where the report states its primary aim to “provide the fullest possible accounting of the events surrounding 9/11.” It is now widely known that many of the most important events of 9/11 were never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report at all, let alone presented in the fullest possible accounting. These complete omissions include the destruction of WTC building 7, the testimony of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony concerning the Vice President and the approach of Flight 77, the connections between al Qaeda and the Pakistani ISI, and many other examples. A number of the omissions and distortions in your report have been detailed by Dr. David Ray Griffin in an easy to reference book.
Considering these facts, our group’s excitement about your offer to collaborate with us is tempered by the suspicion that you might continue to engage in the same “exacting investigative work” that the Commission report attributes to you. For my own part, this suspicion is aggravated by your stated appreciation for Joel Hirschhorn, who you claim is “value added.” My experience with Hirschhorn, someone I’ve met and presented with, is that he does not strive for a “paradigm shift” by any means. In fact, he appears to promote a futile pandering to the status quo that would result in the 9/11 Truth movement becoming as useless as a concrete parachute. Worse yet, Hirschhorn was involved with misrepresenting an honest group of investigators and promoting a poorly considered draft bill for Congress that called for investigation of WTC theories that literally no one supports.
Therefore I’m not encouraged by your suggestion that we subscribe to a new three-part plan of action, which in fact is not new. There have been countless attempts at engaging corporate media sources in reporting the basic facts about 9/11, and most of those attempts have failed. There have also been a number of 9/11 lawsuits filed, and to date, all of those have been rejected before the evidence could be discovered or presented. Finally, there have been many attempts to reach Congress with the facts. The 9/11 Working Group has met with the staff of our own congressman, and also with our former congressman, 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton. Unlike you, Mr. Hamilton was not opposed to a new investigation, and he gave us a long list of excuses for why your 9/11 Commission investigation report was not sufficient.
We can no longer afford to ask our politicians and media to cure our corrupt system. It is the corporate media itself, and the corporate-funded politicians that maintain the corrupt system, and that are the problem. We must rebuild our media and our government, and the truth about 9/11 has the power to do just that. In doing so we will need to be aware, as you wrote, of “the frauds, opportunists, and paper millers who serve primarily as a major distraction.”
This brings me to John Farmer and his new book, which I agree does not intend to state that the 9/11 Commission report is completely false. To the contrary, although I have not read the book I understand from others that its approach is much the same as that of the Commission’s report. I learned this through attorney John Ekonomou, who wrote to Farmer a few weeks ago and later copied me on his message. Ekonomou purchased the Farmer book and was appalled at how quickly he realized that it was a “flat-out misrepresentation” of the facts.
But getting back to the struggle for truth, and your offer to help, we should see if there is common ground as you mentioned. You say that an event occurred on 9/11, and you call it a terrorist attack. Having met many of the Americans around the country who are alarmed by the lack of truth about 9/11, I can tell you that this appraisal is shared by almost all of them. We know it was a terrorist attack. What we don’t know is: Who were the terrorists?
You can help us continue building an honest answer to that question. As you’re no doubt aware from our website, our group has received a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses from government agencies. Some of those responses are enlightening, while others are not particularly useful due to the ongoing lack of transparency surrounding the events of 9/11, and the extreme redaction that is involved. But among the documents we received, we have noticed many facts that do not support your Commission’s report, and we’ve noticed a number of surprising things that should have been in your report but were not.
Starting out in a small way, let’s talk about “We have some planes.” Can you tell us where this phrase originated from, in terms of records made by air traffic controllers or others involved in the events of 9/11, and how you attributed it to the alleged hijackers? It is the title of one of the chapters of the 9/11 Commission report, and I believe you have taken credit for that analysis to some degree.
With a small step such as this, I think we might be able to begin working together for the benefit of all.
Kevin R. Ryan