- 9/11 Press For Truth: a documentary about the Jersey Girls
- The 4 "Jersey Girls"
- Mindy Kleinberg, 9/11 victim relative, asks troubling questions at official commission hearing, April Fools' Day 2003
- Ellen Mariani, a 9/11 widow who rejected hush money to sue Bush (in 2003 and 2004, a case that has been withdrawn)
- Mariani's attorney Phil Berg subsequently filed a new RICO lawsuit claiming missiles were fired at the WTC and Pentagon, hoaxes that would be used to dismiss the case if it is ever heard in court
"I want to know why the Secret Service did not whisk [Bush]
away. I want to know why he is the commander-in-chief of the United States
of America, our country was clearly under attack, it was after the second
building was hit. I want to know why he sat there for 25 minutes [reading
to schoolchildren] . . . And I think that I have a lot of problems
with the Pentagon. I don't understand how a plane could hit our Defense
Department, which is the Pentagon, an hour after the first plane hit the
first tower. I don't understand how that is possible. I'm a reasonable
person. But when you look at the fact that we spend a half trillion dollars
on national defense and you're telling me that a plane is able to hit
our Pentagon, our Defense Department, an hour after the first tower is
hit? There are procedures and protocols in place in this nation that are
to be followed when transponders are disconnected, and they
were not followed on September 11th . . . There are 3,000 lives lost
and three million questions remaining."
-- Kristen Breitweiser, widow of 9-11 south tower, 2 WTC victim, on the Phil Donahue show, 8/13/2002
The Donahue show was canceled just before the attack on Iraq
Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush
by Gail Sheehy The New York Observer
August 2003 profile of four 9/11 widows and their search for truth - one of the first mainstream news articles on this important facet of the issue
Bill Moyers interviews the four widows. The first TV appearance of any dissent to the official 9/11 story in the United States (Sept. 2003)
Mindy Kleinberg, 9/11 victim relative, asks troubling questions at official commission hearing, April Fools' Day 2003
The Theory of Luck
With regard to the 9/11 attacks, it has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time and the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value. Because the 9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once: they were lucky over and over again. Allow me to illustrate.
The terrorist's lucky streak began the week before September 11th with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The SEC, in concert with the United States intelligence agencies, has sophisticated software programs that are used in "real-time" to watch both domestic and overseas markets to seek out trends that may indicate a present or future crime. In the week prior to September 11th both the SEC and U.S. intelligence agencies ignored one major stock market indicator, one that could have yielded valuable information with regard to the September 11th attacks.
On the Chicago Board Options Exchange during the week before September 11th, put options were purchased on American and United Airlines, the two airlines involved in the attacks. The investors who placed these orders were gambling that in the short term the stock prices of both Airlines would plummet. Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks.
Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account.
Why these aberrant trades were not discovered prior to 9/11? Who were the individuals who placed these trades? Have they been investigated? Who was responsible for monitoring these activities? Have those individuals been held responsible for their inaction?
Prior to 9/11, our US intelligence agencies should have stopped the 19 terrorists from entering this country for intelligence reasons, alone. However, their failure to do so in 19 instances does not negate the luck involved for the terrorists when it comes to their visa applications and our Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS.
With regard to the INS, the terrorists got lucky 15 individual times, because 15 of the 19 hijackers' visas should have been unquestionably denied.
Most of the 19 hijackers were young, unmarried, and un-employed males. They were, in short, the "classic over-stay candidates". A seasoned former Consular officer stated in National Review magazine, "Single, idle young adults with no specific destination in the United States rarely get visas absent compelling circumstances."
Yet these 19 young single, unemployed, "classic overstay candidates still received their visas." I am holding in my hand the applications of the terrorists who killed my husband. All of these forms are incomplete and incorrect.
Some of the terrorists listed their means of support as simply "student" failing to then list the name and address of any school or institution. Others, when asked about their means of support for their stay in the US wrote "myself" and provided no further documentation. Some of the terrorists listed their destination in the US as simply "hotel" or "California" or "New York". One even listed his destination as "no".
Had the INS or State Department followed the law, at least 15 of the hijackers would have been denied visas and would not have been in the United States on September 11th, 2001.
Help us to understand how something as simple as reviewing forms for completeness could have been missed at least 15 times. How many more lucky terrorists gained unfettered access into this country? With no one being held accountable, how do know this still isn't happening?
Airline and Airport Security
On the morning of September 11th, the terrorists' luck commenced with airline and airport security. When the 19 hijackers went to purchase their tickets (with cash and/or credit cards) and to receive their boarding passes, nine were singled out and questioned through a screening process. Luckily for those nine terrorists, they passed the screening process and were allowed to continue on with their mission.
But, the terrorist's luck didn't end at the ticket counter; it also accompanied them through airport security, as well. Because how else would the hijackers get specifically contraband items such as box-cutters, pepper spray or, according to one FAA executive summary, a gun on those planes?
Finally, sadly for us, years of GAO recommendations to secure cockpit doors were ignored making it all too easy for the hijackers to gain access to the flight controls and carryout their suicide mission.
FAA and NORAD
Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings.
These "protocols" were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason--with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.
Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.
If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian". This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, "fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board."
Lucky for the terrorists none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th.
Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example.
American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost - (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).
Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.
Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.
Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?
Flight's 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC
Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m. one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane was hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?
So the hijackers luck had continued. On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures .Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.
Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives.
Joint Chief Of Staff
The acting Joint Chief of staff on Sept 11th was on the morning of September 11th, he was having a routine meeting . Acting Joint Chief of staff Myers stated that he saw a TV. report about a plane hitting the WTC but thought it was a small plane or something like that. So, he went ahead with his meeting. "Meanwhile the second World Trade Center was hit by another jet. Nobody informed us of that," Myers said. By the time he came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit.
Whose responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of Staff? Have they been held accountable for their error? Surely this represents a breakdown of protocol.
Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Defense, was at his desk doing paperwork when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.
As reported, Secretary Rumsfeld felt the building shake, went outside, saw the damage and started helping the injured onto stretchers. After aiding the victims, the Secretary then went into the 'War Room'.
How is it possible that the National Military Command Center, located in the Pentagon and in contact with law enforcement and air traffic controllers from 8:46 a.m. did not communicate to the Secretary of Defense also at the Pentagon about the other hijacked planes especially the one headed to Washington? How is that Secretary of Defense could have remained at this desk until the crash? Whose responsibility is it to relay emergency situations to him? Is he then supposed to go to the war room?
At 6:15 a.m. on the morning of 9/11, my husband Alan left for work; he drove into New York City, and was at his desk and working at his NASDAQ Security Trading position with Cantor Fitzgerald, in Tower One of the WTC by 7:30 a.m.
In contrast, on the morning of September 11, President Bush was scheduled to listen to elementary school children read.
Before the President walked into the classroom NORAD had sufficient information that the plane that hit the WTC was hijacked. At that time, they also had knowledge that two other commercial airliners, in the air, were also hijacked. It would seem that a national emergency was in progress.
Yet President Bush was allowed to enter a classroom full of young children and listen to the students read.
Why didn't the Secret Service inform him of this national emergency? When is a President supposed to be notified of everything the agencies know? Why was the President permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the Sarasota elementary school? Was this Secret Service protocol?
In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision could cost thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that our government has a whole network of adjuncts and advisors to insure that these top officials are among the first to be informed--not the last. Where were these individuals who did not properly inform these top officials? Where was the breakdown in communication?
Was it luck or No Fault Government
Is it luck that aberrant stock trades were not monitored? Is it luck when 15 visas are awarded based on incomplete forms? Is it luck when Airline Security screenings allow hijackers to board planes with box cutters and pepper spray? Is it luck when Emergency FAA and NORAD protocols are not followed? Is it luck when a national emergency is not reported to top government officials on a timely basis?
To me luck is something that happens once. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck.
If at some point we don't look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs properly then how can we ever expect for terrorists not to get lucky again?
And, that is why I am here with all of you today. Because, we must find the answers as to what happened that day so as to ensure that another September 11th can never happen again.
Ellen Mariani's RICO lawsuit (now defunct)
Open Letter To The President Of The United States from Ellen Mariani (9/11 widow)
This ''open letter'' is coming from my heart. I want you to know that I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and that this is not an attempt to ''bash the Government''.
You Mr. Bush should be held responsible and liable for any and all acts that were committed to aid in any "cover up" of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. As President you have a duty to protect the American people. On September 11th you did not instruct your staff to issue a nationwide emergency warning/alert to advise us of the attack on America. We had to receive the news of the attacks via the news networks.
In the months leading up to the attacks you were repeatedly advised of a possible attack on American soil. During your daily intelligence briefings you were given information that had been uncovered that the very real possibility existed that certain undesirable elements would use commercial aircraft to destroy certain "target" buildings. You never warned the American people of this possible threat. Who were you protecting? When you took no responsibility towards protecting the general public from the possibility of attack, you were certainly not upholding the oath you spoke when you took office. In that oath you pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
On the morning of the attack, you and members of your staff were fully aware of the unfolding events yet you chose to continue on to the Emma E. Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and "photo op". While our nation was under attack you did not appear to blink an eye or shed a tear. You continued on as if everything was "business as usual".
In the days following the attacks all air traffic was grounded and Americans, including myself, were stranded wherever they had been when the flight ban was imposed. I was stranded at Midway Airport in Chicago, unable to continue on to California for my daughter's wedding. Imagine my surprise when I later found out that during this "no fly" period a number of people were flown out of the country on a 747 with Arabic lettering on the fuselage. None of these people were interviewed or questioned by any local, State or Federal agencies. Why were they allowed to leave and who exactly was on that flight. We know for a fact that some of the people on the flight were members of (or related to) the royal family of Saudi Arabia and members of the Bin Laden family. Were these people allowed to leave because of the long-standing relationships that your family has with both families?
It is my belief that you intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen to gather public support for a "war on terrorism". These wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, have not accomplished what you stated were your goals. Why have you not captured Osama Bin Laden? Where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? All that has happened is a bill that is passed before Congress for 87 billion dollars to rebuild what you ordered blown to bits. As an American who lost a loved one in the "war on terror" I do pray and support our troops who were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq by you.
These troops have and will continue to die for your lies. As an American I can make this statement as it appears that associates of your family may stand to prosper from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr. Bush the time has come for you to stop your control over us. Stop blocking the release of certain evidence and documents that were discovered by the 9/11 Investigation Commission if you have nothing to hide proving you did not fail to act and prevent the attacks of 9/11.
Your reason for not releasing this material is that it is a matter of "national security". When in fact I believe that it is your personal credibility/security that you are concerned with. You do not want the public to know the full extent of your responsibility and involvement.
After 9/11 the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act were passed. Both of these allow the government to tap your telephone, search your home, and seize whatever they feel they need to do on a whim. They can do this without a judge's review or a warrant. I feel that this is in direct conflict with our rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following questions:
1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11 committee report personally censored at your request?
2. Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
3. Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?
5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the doomed flights?
6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?
7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of the Hoffman Aviation School and order that flight records and files be removed? These files were then put on a C130 government cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they taken and who ordered it done?
It has been over two years since hundreds of our lost loved ones "remains" have still yet to be identified and their remains placed in a landfill at Fresh Kill. We want our heroes brought back and given a public and proud resting place where we all can pay our respects and honor them. These innocent people never had a chance as they were taken from us on that sad September Day.
In the court of public opinion Mr. Bush, your lies are being uncovered each day. My husband, all of the other victims and their families and our nation as a whole, has been victimized by your failed leadership prior to and after 9/11!
I will prove this in a court of law!
Ellen M. Mariani
New RICO suit filed by Mariani's attorney contained
(excuses to dismiss the suit)
After Ellen Mariani withdrew her lawsuit in 2004, her attorney, Phil Berg, filed a new RICO lawsuit against the Bush administration that contained several blatant erroneous statements that could be used as excuses to dismiss the suit. Perhaps Ellen Mariani should have taken the money and used it to help publicize the best information about 9/11 complicity.
www.911review.com/berg/markup/RodriguezComplaint6.htm lists some of the worst nonsense
Berg filed Rodriguez v. Bush, et al., Civil Action No. 04 cv 4952, in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, on October 22, 2004. This lawsuit is much longer and goes much further than the lawsuit on behalf of Miriani, in alleging that officials "were complicit in the 9-11 attacks, and either planned the attacks, or had foreknowledge of the attacks and permitted them to succeed, in order to exploit a 'New Pearl Harbor' to launch wars against Afghanistan and Iraq."
In this critique of the complaint we point out some of the flaws with this lawsuit, which include:
The complaint goes even further than Stanley Hilton's in its kitchen-sink approach of naming numerous defendants and numerous and wide-ranging allegations of criminality. This approach is diametrically opposed to the one that would appear to have the best chances of success: a narrow focus on the most provable charges against a few individuals.
The complaint fails to apply the smell test to the allegations it lists, and includes thoroughly debunked and patently nonsensical claims among the valid ones. Interestingly, while it fails to cite any 9/11 skeptics' websites or books that provide substantial evidence of insider inolvement, it trumpets the hoax-promoting site LetsRoll911.org.
The complaint is poorly organized and full of syntactic and structural errors, making it difficult to read and summarize. (In our critique, which reproduces the original complaint, we have attempted to clean up the structure in order to help the reader.)
j. The missile that struck the Pentagon was not Flight 77; the hole made in the Pentagon on 9-11 was too small to accommodate an airliner, and no airliner debris appears in any photograph of the wreckage;
[This hoax has been disproved so many times it is getting hard to keep track of them all. There are lots of photos of airplane debris and the "too small hole" is BS. No judge would accept this as credible evidence and it would be great grounds for dismissing the suit. "No Planes" has been the most effective means to discredit issues of complicity inside the Beltway, both for the overwhelming majority who vote against Bush and the high level military and civilian officials who had too much personal experience with plane parts -- or friends who saw the plane and/or plane parts -- to buy this hoax. Pushing "no plane" merely discredits us inside the Beltway and among military officials who saw the damage for themselves, and gives the media an easy avenue to ignore the real evidence. Who would want to accomplish that goal?]
Attorney Berg pushes discredited "pod, flash and missile" claims
110. Finally, there are video images that appear to depict each of the supposed “Flight 11” and “Flight 175” shooting projectiles into the North Tower and the South Tower, respectively, just prior to impact. The North Tower video is from the Naudet Brothers’ “Fireman’s Video” which became the basis of the television documentary “9-11.” Allegedly, those who taped the documentary on home VCR machines, or purchased the VBS videotape, can see the “flash” of the projectile ejecting from the plane just before it hit the North Tower. The later, DVD “collector’s edition” of the documentary allegedly was digitally edited to remove the “flash.”
Evidence wholly independent of video images purporting to show missiles being fired into the WTC towers amply shows (1) that the planes’ impact and jet fuel fires do not sufficiently explain the collapse of the towers; and (2) there is abundant evidence of high explosives at the foundations and controlled demolitions. Even more shocking than the consumer-quality videotape of the Naudet Brothers are the images that can be seen on HYPERLINK "http://www.letsroll911.org" www.letsroll911.org. These images from major news sources show “Flight 175” as it strikes the South Tower on 9-11. When slowed down, the images appear to show (albeit not very distinctly) (a) an apparatus on the underside of “Flight 175,” believed to be a missile pod, not normally found on the Boeing 757; and (b) a bright object projected from the location of the pod preceding (by perhaps 1/3 second) the plane into the South Tower. No major media outlet has reported on these images, as the same are presented on the HYPERLINK "http://www.letsroll.911.org" www.letsroll.911.org website. As the website owner himself admits, many thousands of copies of the “Flight 175” images from CNN and other major media outlets must exist on Americans’ shelves, as the second strike occurred when millions had their TV sets on and, no doubt, many people taped the terrible events as they occurred. Thus, as the HYPERLINK "http://www.letsroll911.org" www.letsroll911.org webmaster, Phil Jayhan, states by way of a challenge, if the images presented on that website are not genuine, refuting them ought to be an easy task.
112. The “letsroll911” video images remain controversial even within the growing community of 9-11 skeptics, and perhaps they are insufficiently clear to establish the “missile and pod” theory beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the number of “hits” on the website and other evidence suggests that many agencies of the U.S. government and the media claiming to have produced the images have repeatedly visited the HYPERLINK "http://www.letsroll911.org" www.letsroll911.org website, and certainly the images are convincing enough at least to demand careful examination. One would think, certainly, that if some activist were attracting huge attention (if only on the internet) by publicizing major media images from 9-11 that had been doctored to add a missile being fired from “Flight 175,” the media would have reacted publicly, or sought a court injunction to disavow and discredit the doctored images. Upon information and belief, none of the media have claimed the images appearing on the website to be anything but genuine. If they do show the firing of a missile, and they are genuine, then clearly the Official Story— although “alive and well” as Enterprise, CNN, Fox News and other captive media propaganda sources — is, in objective fact, a dead letter.
Coverage of Ellen Mariani's legal efforts
Sept 11 widow sues the President
Joseph A. Slobodzian, Philadelphia Inquirer 9/23/03
A New Hampshire woman whose husband died in one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center sued President Bush and other government officials yesterday, contending their negligence of airport security resulted in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
NY Staten Island Advance Newspaper -Sunday, December 21, 2003
One Sept. 11 widow, Ellen Mariani of New Hampshire, has even filed a federal lawsuit in Philadelphia accusing the president of letting the attacks happen to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Families sue U.S., reject 9/11 `bribe' (Toronto Star 12/23)
By Tim Harper
Tuesday 23 December 2003
Families sue U.S., reject 9/11 `bribe', ignore deadline for compensation.
Payouts average $1.8 million.
WASHINGTON—For some, it's blood money, a repugnant payoff they feel they have no choice but to accept.
For a handful of others, the process of claiming compensation is too painful: they find themselves paralyzed by grief and unable to reopen emotional wounds barely healed from the deaths of their loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
But as many as 73 families see the process of U.S. government compensation as an attempt to protect those who should be held accountable for what they believe was mass murder.
They ignored a midnight deadline last night, their last chance to apply for government cash.
And today, they begin a new stage in an arduous odyssey and will sue their government, airlines and state and local authorities.
"This may be uncharted waters, but I was thrown in a pool on Sept. 11, 2001 and had to learn to swim," said Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband Richard in the World Trade Center attack.
"I am doing this for my husband. He was a gentle man, and he was alive, trying to get out of that building that day. The dead. The dying. The smoke. The terror. No one should have suffered like that. I want accountability. I need answers."
The compensation fund has been controversial since President George W. Bush signed it into law 13 days after the attacks. For those who lost family members, it was always about protecting airlines, federal, state and local authorities from billions of dollars of lawsuits.
To receive the federal money, recipients must sign a waiver giving up their right to sue anyone involved in the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history.
A late surge of claims on deadline yesterday meant close to 95 per cent of the 2,976 families who lost loved ones in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania were expected to finally take the money.
To get there, they had to accept a monetary value on the lives of those closest to them, after making a case based on birth and marriage licences, diplomas and degrees, even videos. They will, on average, receive $1.8 million (all figures U.S.) each.
Families of 24 Canadian victims are eligible for compensation and most have applied.
Brian Alexander, a New York lawyer representing a portion of the victims who have launched the lawsuit, said he knew of no Canadians involved.
He said those who have chosen to sue have put no dollar figure on awards and each claim will be individually tailored.
"A widow who is 80 years old is not in the same category as a widow who lost her husband at age 30 and has four kids at home," he said.
Some $1.5 billion had been paid from the government fund by the weekend. Compensation for individual deaths has ranged from $250,000 to $6.9 million. Those physically injured as a result of the attacks have received compensation ranging from $500 to $7.9 million.
"Only in America could there be a program like this," fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg told CNN yesterday.
"You wouldn't find a program paying an average $1.8 million tax-free to eligible families. This is an unprecedented, unique program and exhibits I think the best in the American people."
Yet Gabrielle says it is a bribe by the government so victims can be coerced into washing their hands of the affair.
She is also resentful that the government is determining the worth of loved ones.
"This is about mass murder," she said. "I want to know who was responsible.
"No one has been fired. No one has been demoted. The same people who are guarding us today on an elevated security alert are the same people who were working that day."
Gabrielle said she is looking at a special 9/11 commission headed by former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean to answer the question of responsibility.
Kean has battled the White House, New York and aviation authorities for access to documents. He has a May deadline.
"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean told CBS last week.
He said later he was talking of lower level officials, but Gabrielle and others want to know more about the safety of the buildings and airport security.
Even those who have accepted the money see it only as the lesser of two evils.
Irene Golinski, 53, whose husband died in the Pentagon attack, was still grappling with the decision to put 9/11 behind her or continue with a lawsuit.
"It's almost like it's a payoff to save the airlines and not hold any of those people responsible for what happened," she said.
Feinberg's office detailed some awards. The beneficiary of a 36-year-old project manager earning $231,000 and with one dependent was paid $3.48 million, while the beneficiary of a 26-year-old military officer with no dependents and a $44,000 salary got $1.84 million.
Some 9/11 families reject federal fund and sue
By Martin Kasindorf, USA TODAY
The U.S. government made two promises to the families of those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks: A special Justice Department fund would compensate their financial losses and official investigations would uncover the security failures that enabled al-Qaeda to kill 3,027 people.
Government Executive Magazine posts Marian RICO suit against Bush for 9-11
December 12, 2003 , Raising a Racket
By Chris Strohm and Amelia Gruber
The wife of a victim of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging President Bush and several other high-ranking administration officials failed to prevent the attacks from occurring and are now obstructing justice.
Ellen Mariani filed a lawsuit Nov. 26 under the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suit alleges that President Bush and other officials knowingly and willfully failed to act to prevent the murder of her husband, Louis Neil Mariani, who was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, which crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center.
Mariani's attorney, Philip Berg, said he plans to call former federal employees with firsthand knowledge and expertise of military intelligence to testify in support of the suit. He alleges that the White House, Pentagon, Justice Department, Federal Aviation Administration, CIA and FBI were negligent in preventing the attacks and now are withholding information about the incidents.
Berg said he believes the lawsuit is the first Sept. 11 case filed under the RICO Act, which the government enacted to fight organized crime. The lawsuit is an amended version of a lawsuit Mariani previously filed in court.
Berg added he hopes other Sept. 11 victims and federal employees will support or join the lawsuit. However, he speculated that government workers are afraid to come forward with information. "The word is out: 'Don't divulge information here,' " he said. "We have many people in the government who are afraid to come forth with information. They're afraid for their jobs."
A court hearing is schedule for Jan. 14. Richard Manieri, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, declined to comment on the case. "We're reviewing the compliant and considering our options," he said.
Mariani vs. Bush, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (03-5273), Nov. 26, 2003.
UQ Wire: 9/11 In Never-Neverland
Wednesday, 3 December 2003, 10:59 am
Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
Sign up for the wire at:
Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves.
Widow's Bush Treason Suit Vanishes in Blink of Media Eye
by W. David Kubiak
"The decision 'not to do the story' appears to be multiplying all over the nation." -- Fred Powledge, ACLU
"Whoever said `no news is good news,' was BADLY misinformed." -- Dan Rather
Think you're already amazed, alarmed or appalled enough by the state of US journalism today? Chew on this a while and think again.
Grieving New Hampshire widow who lost her man on 9/11 refuses the government's million dollar hush money payoff, studies the facts of the day for nearly two years, and comes to believe the White House "intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen" to launch a so-called "War on Terrorism" for personal and political gain.
She retains a prominent lawyer, a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, who served with distinction under both Democrats and Republicans and was once a strong candidate for the governor's seat.
The attorney files a 62-page complaint in federal district court (including 40 pages of prima facie evidence) charging that "President Bush and officials including, but not limited to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft and Tenet":
1.) had adequate foreknowledge of 911 yet failed to warn the county or attempt to prevent it;
2.) have since been covering up the truth of that day;
3.) have therefore abetted the murder of plaintiff's husband and violated the Constitution and multiple laws of the United States; and
4.) are thus being sued under the Civil RICO (Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organization) Act for malfeasant conspiracy, obstruction of justice and wrongful death.
The suit text goes on to document the detailed forewarnings from foreign
governments and FBI agents; the unprecedented delinquency of our air defense; the inexplicable half hour dawdle of our Commander in Chief at a primary school after hearing the nation was under deadly attack; the incessant invocation of national security and executive privilege to suppress the facts; and the obstruction of all subsequent efforts to investigate the disaster. It concludes that "compelling evidence will be
presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power, and testimony [that] Defendants failed to act and prevent 9/11 knowing the attacks would lead toâ€| an 'International War on Terror' which would benefit Defendants both financially and politically."
Press releases detailing these explosive allegations are sent out to 3000 journalists in the print and broadcast media, and a press conference to announce the filing is held in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia on November 26th (commemorating the end of the first futile year of the independent National 9/11 Commission).
Imagine the world-churning implications of these charges. Imagine the furor if just one was proved true. Imagine the courage of this bribe- shunning widow and an eminent attorney with his rep on the line. Then imagine a press conference to which nobody came.
(Well, more precisely, imagine a press conference at which only FOX News appears, tapes for 40 minutes, and never airs an inch.)
Now imagine the air time, column inches and talk show hysteria that same night devoted to the legal hassles of Michael, Kobe, and Scott Peterson, and divide that by the attention paid to our little case of mass murder, war profiteering and treason. (OK, this is really a trick question because no number divided by zero yields any answers whatsoever, which evidently in this case is the result preferred.)
When you present documented charges of official treachery behind the greatest national security disaster in modern history and the press doesn't show, doesn't listen, doesn't write - just what in fact is really being communicated? That despite all the deaths, lies, wars, and bizarre official actions that flowed from 9/11 there's actually nothing there to be investigated at all? That addressing desperate victim families' still unanswered cries for truth is not a legitimate journalistic concern? That news will now be what the corporate media say it will be, so drink your infotainment Kool-Aid and kindly shut up?
(While the 9/11 blackout is the most flagrant sign of current media dysfunction, it hardly stands alone. Where, for example, was our free and fearless press when Pentagon powerbroker Richard Perle confessed to a London audience last month that yes indeed, our war on Iraq was illegal as hell? He calmly explained that "in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thingâ€| [it] would have required us to leave
Saddam Hussein alone, and this would have been morally unacceptable." (Guardian/UK, 11/20/03) And what news have we seen of the thousands of Depleted Uranium deaths and birth defects now desolating Afghanis, Iraqis and our own Gulf War troops? And whose looking into the $1.2 trillion the Pentagon admits is "missing" or the half trillion in laundered funds now propping up our banks? And how many times have you seen it reported that unbid Iraq contracts have pushed the worth of VP Cheney's 433,333 Halliburton stock options to $26 million plus? But to return to 9/11, the funny business has just begun. If you thought press performance after JFK's death was a cynical farce, you ain't seen nothing yet.)
A few years back Harold Evans of the London Sunday Times, observed that the challenge facing American newspapers "is not to stay in business -- it is to stay in journalism.'' As corporations' authoritarian, profit-driven consciousness comes to dominate both media and governance, you can expect a lot more serial celebrity scandals and even less news on the way things work or anything that really counts.
There is a clear method and message in this obscurantist madness. All this media consolidation and tightening control is strategically aligned with deregulation, privatization, social program-gutting deficits and free trade regimes. They are all convergent tactics to enforce corporations' full spectrum dominance over democratic humankind. If your progressive or conservative instincts bid you to arise against this coup, standing with our 9/11 widow is a good place to start. Her name is Ellen Mariani, her lawyer is Phillip Berg and their complaint is now online at http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html &http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0311/S00224.htm . Read it and weep, wail, or whack out a dozen letters to the editors around your town, but for god's sake make some noise. When 9/11 bombshells fall silent in the corporate media's forest it's up to us to make them resound.
- End -
- W. David Kubiak is director of Big Medicine, a research and education institute studying the corporate takeover of our country, culture and consciousness. His email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.
Ellen Mariani: 'Bush knew and let it happen'
9/11 widow files suit detailing 'a deadly and evil mixture of the Bush and bin Laden regimes'
By Joyce Lynn
Online Journal Contributing Writer
February 5, 2004—On September 10, 2001, Ellen Mariani and her husband Louis "spent their last day together as husband and wife on this earth."
At about 8 a.m. the next day, September 11, George W. Bush sat down for his daily briefing, which included references to the heightened terrorist risk reported throughout the summer but "contained nothing serious enough to call National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice." The briefing ended about 8:20 a.m.
At 9:05 a.m., Chief of Staff Andrew Card walked up to Bush, who was with a classroom of second graders at Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, and reportedly whispered in his ear: "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack."
For the next 7 to 18 minutes, Bush continued to talk with the children about a goat story as Mariani's husband, who was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.
Mariani's husband was murdered as the commander-in-chief dallied in a second grade classroom reading a story about a pet goat.
This is Ellen Mariani's description of her personal nightmare in the daring suit she filed last month against Bush; his father, George H. W. Bush, and top administration officials, calling them "aiders and abettors and conspirators" who "intentionally and deliberately failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks."
Mariani alleges the defendants "let the attacks happen for one chilling reason: to profit personally or politically from the so-called 'International War on Terror.'"
"The reasons why 9/11 occurred are no longer a national security risk, but a national security disgrace and tragedy," Mariani declares.
Mariani believes Bush "allowed the attacks to take place to compel public anger and outcry to engage our nation and our military men and women in a preventable international war on terror for personal gains and agenda."
Challenging the official version of 9/11, Mariani claims in her 62-page filing that Bush and his father "hold the answers" to why 9/11 occurred.
In the April 2002 article, "Misguided White Guy," this publication pointed out the possibly corrupt financing cycle of policy and profit by G.H.W. Bush and cronies from his tenure in government. Some of these people are high officials in the current administration or executives in Bush's private business ventures.
This publication put forth the argument in the article "Law of Conspiracy; Conspiracy of Silence" in October 2002 that Bush and other top administration officials were guilty of the same conspiracy to commit murder of which they accused John Walker Lindh, the American found with the Taliban in Afghanistan, because they remained silent before, during, and after the events of 9/11. The article argued that if Bush administration officials deliberately withheld information for political or financial gain they could be charged under the law of conspiracy.
A range of theories about what happened on 9/11 has emerged. The Bush administration's story is that a guy with a long grizzled beard living in a cave in Afghanistan surprised the $40 billion a year U.S. intelligence community by hijacking domestic airplanes and crashing them into symbols of U.S. economic dominance and war. Independent journalists, researchers, and activists have put forth evidence to support scenarios that Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen (Mariani's suit) and/or that 9/11 was an inside job—an operation of shadow elements of the U.S. government.
In a personal letter to Bush released with the filing, Mariani writes, "On the morning of the attack, you and members of your staff were fully aware of the unfolding events, yet you chose to continue on to the Emma E. Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and 'photo op.'" (Excerpts of the letter follows this article.)
In addition to Bush, other defendants include George H.W. Bush, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, vice president, and president of the U.S.; Vice President Richard Cheney; Attorney General John Ashcroft; Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; CIA Director George Tenet; Department of Transportation secretary Norman Y. Mineta; chairman of the board of the Council on Foreign Relations Peter G. Peterson; National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and special master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 Kenneth R. Feinberg.
Since Mariani filed a civil action last September 12, she says a 'firestorm" has erupted around Bush's refusal to comply with the commission investigating 9/11. As a result, on November 26, Mariani filed an amended complaint that includes obstruction of justice.
Mariani charges the defendants violated the U.S. Constitution and provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Mariani, who lives in New Hampshire, filed her suit (case no. 03-5273) in the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were signed in Philadelphia, which is in the Eastern District.
Philip Berg, Mariani's lawyer, was a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and candidate for governor of Pennsylvania. He has woven information from independent 9/11 researchers, activists, and his own investigation into a spellbinding tale that alleges decades of Bush family malfeasance. (Philip J. Berg, Esquire, 9/11 For The Truth, 706 Ridge Pike, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-1711, 610-825-3134, PJBLAW@aol.com)
Kyle F. Hence, co-founder of the activist organization 9/11 CitizensWatch, has worked closely with Mariani and other victim families. He said about Mariani's case, "We feel that it is a very important legal action that could, if nothing else, bring more focus on the issues the media continue to largely ignore." (email@example.com)
Edward Hurley of the Sarah McClendon Study Group, which sponsored a press conference with Mariani and Berg at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, last month, said Mariani's suit presented "a richly documented case for criminal negligence if not complicity at the highest reaches of our government."
The Mariani complaint is online at www.911forthetruth.com
Mariani asserts Bush, Cheney, and Rice have engaged in a "pattern of criminal activity and obstruction of justice" in violation of the public trust and laws of the United States to achieve their personal goals and agendas."
Mariani claims that by influencing national security policy as public officials or private citizens the Bush family has profited in arms and oil. She says the pattern dates back to their dealings with Nazi Germany during World War II.
"This historical context will shock Americans who depend on the mainstream media for their political information," Mariani states.
Mariani says the key to the charges is George H. W. Bush and his government involvement as CIA director (1976-1977), vice president (1980-1988), and president (1989-1992), as well as his subsequent business relationships. The latter includes his association with the Carlyle group, an equity fund that deals with weapons manufacturing.
Information about the Bush family history is beginning to surface in the media, including the book, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush by Nixon White House aide Kevin Phillips (January 2004) and Republican John Buchanan's challenge to Bush in the New Hampshire primary which has 9/11 and war profiteering at its core.
According to Mariani's filing, just as Adolph Hitler played "the anti-communist card to win over skeptical German industrialists," the Bush family melds political and business interests. "As history and evidence proves, the Bushes got their start as key Hitler supporters," the suit claims.
Mariani says Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush's father, was Hitler's "propaganda manager" in New York until Franklin D. Roosevelt confiscated his holdings under the Trading With the Enemy Act.
She asserts George H. W. Bush's long government involvement and his business relations with the bin Laden family yield "a deadly and evil mixture of the Bush and bin Laden regimes." She says Bush also conducted *personal business and national security deals" with another alleged terrorist, Saddam Hussein.
Mariani asserts that in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, "Defendants were allies with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein during the former Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and Iran-Iraq war respectively." She says during these times "personal and political deals were made and it is believed upon discovery, these dealings hold the truth" about 9/11.
The complaint says Cheney still holds Halliburton stock options totaling more than $26 million. Halliburton passed the Standard & Poor's Index by nearly 40 percent during the past year because of millions of dollars in Department of Defense contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
She maintains G.H.W. Bush's share in the Carlyle Group's defense-related profits will show similar appreciation since Bush launched the so-called "War on Terror. "
Mariani reserves blistering anger for Kenneth Feinberg, administer of the compensation fund of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act. Mariani calls the fund "a ploy" to silence lawsuits that could expose Bush's failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks.
She said Feinberg allowed the Red Cross to stall donations to victim families to increase the families' financial difficulties. "Many just decided to give up and submit to Feinberg's fund in return for absolving the government of future accountability," Mariani charges.
The deadline for 9/11 families to file claims with the fund has passed. Of the official 2,976 deaths, 2,851 families filed claims, forsaking future litigation against the government, airlines, airports, or security firms.
Mariani asserts if G.W. Bush, the Department of Defense, and NORAD had responded "expeditiously" and according to protocol, her husband and "thousands of other innocent people might still be alive today."
She said as president [sic], G.W. Bush is "solely responsible" for "lapses" in intelligence leading to 9/11. A joint House and Senate Intelligence Committee last July attributed these "lapses" to the CIA and FBI.
Mariani asserts 9/11 has served as "a pretext for a never-ending war against the world, including preemptive strikes against defenseless, but resource rich countries." It also has served as a pretext for "draconian measures of repression" in the U.S., including the Department of Homeland Security and USA PATRIOT Act.
The suit outlines historical roots of war-provoking deception such as Operation Northwoods, which the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed in 1962. It included a plan for the U.S. to shoot down civilian airplanes and blame the act on Fidel Castro as a pretext for launching a war against Cuba. The Kennedy administration nixed the plan.
Other war-propelling hoaxes include the sinking of the Maine; the bombardment of Pearl Harbor, which evidence indicates President Roosevelt knew about, and the Gulf of Tonkin "provocation," which led to escalation of the Vietnam conflict.
Less than a month after the February 27, 1933, Reichstag fire, which the Nazis blamed on the Communists, Hitler became Supreme Commander of Germany setting the stage for the repression and horror that followed.
To substantiate the foreknowledge claim, the suit says on August 6, 2001, one month before the 9/11 attacks, Condoleezza Rice provided a written brief to Bush at his Texas ranch that warned Osama bin Laden might hijack U.S. aircraft.
The suit claims "the single most damning indictment" was the failure of the Department of Defense/NORAD to follow normal military protocol as standard procedure. "It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to intercept commercial airliners to regain contact with the pilot.
"Flights 175, 77, and 93 had the same pattern of delays in notification and in scrambling fighter jets, delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the World Trade Center."
Mariani also charges Peter G. Peterson, chairman of the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, provided Bush and other officials "with critical national security advice contrary to the best interests of the American Public."
Mariani said she hopes "revealing the truth of 9/11" will mean no longer can "so few control so many for self-gain and personal agendas."
Copyright © 2004 Joyce Lynn
Joyce Lynn is a journalist and was a political reporter for eight years in Washington, DC. She is editor of the Political Diary. She can be reached at politicaldiary at hotmail.com.