9-11 Commission's Zelikow grilled

[demodewd]

From Thomas Hansen, Ph.D., Charlottesville, Virginia via 9/11 CitizensWatch June 09, 2005:
<...>

Dr. Zelikow gave a lecture at the Miller Center at UVA on September 10, 2004, titled, "The Road to 9/11," and another on October 14, titled, "The Road From 9/11." I attended the second of the two lectures and had an opportunity afterwards to have a conversation with him for several minutes. Among other things, I asked him why the Commission did not report more evidence that would answer the specific conspiracy concerns and questions that have been circulating regarding 9/11. I asked him why the Commission would let these concerns go unanswered and cause unnecessary doubt and dissent in the country.

I pointed out to Dr. Zelikow that one of many reasons this conspiracy talk about 9/11 continues is that there have been no photos released of the Boeing 757 wreckage inside the Pentagon, or outside either, as we normally see after a civilian plane crash. I asked if he has seen photos that show the wreckage of the 757. He said, yes, they have photos, and that he has seen them, and he also said that there are eyewitness reports from a dozen or so rescue workers at the Pentagon who confirm seeing those airplane parts in the wreckage. Well, I asked, can I or some other ordinary person see these photos? He said no. I asked if I could see the rescue worker's statements, and he said no. I told him I had seen photos of the exterior Pentagon wall before it collapsed, and the hole where the plane entered appeared to be only about 20 feet in diameter, with unbroken window frames on either side of it where the wings and engines would have hit. This hole was much too small for a 757 to enter, and no wreckage of the plane is shown on the ground outside. He said those photos might have been "adjusted" in scale by someone to give the wrong impression. I asked if I or anyone else could see the National Transportation Safety Board report about the crash, or even about the 757 being picked up by radar as it approached Washington, and he said no. He said that the air traffic controllers at Dulles saw on their radar that a plane was approaching, without its transponder turned on, but they could not identify it just by radar. It was not one scheduled to come into Dulles, so they assumed it was landing at Reagan National, and when it dropped off their radar at the Pentagon they knew something was wrong. This was 35 minutes after the second World Trade Center Tower had been hit. I told him this explanation defied reason, but he said it is proven in the NTSB Report, which I can't see.

I told Dr. Zelikow that this secrecy of the 9/11 Commission is still fueling conspiracy theories and distrust throughout the country and around the world. Then I asked him why he and the Commission and the staff don't simply release photos and other information to the public so that we can rest assured that the Commission has fully investigated and answered these and other persistent questions. His answer was that the staff, including himself of course as Executive Director, made a conscious decision not to dignify these "outrageous conspiracy theories" by investigating them or reporting on them. In my opinion, this statement by Dr. Zelikow lends credence to Professor Griffin's charge that Zelikow's staff acted as a filter of what would be investigated and reported. Dr. Zelikow then told me he could see my point about the public wanting to know more, and he said he would go back to the Commission staff and re-visit the question of what to release. We're still waiting.

[demodewd]

1. he just said"no"

Well, I asked, can I or some other ordinary person see these photos? He said no. I asked if I could see the rescue worker's statements, and he said no.

[demodewd]

2. adjusted photos??

He said those photos might have been "adjusted" in scale by someone to give the wrong impression.

Yeah sure buddy..all the Pentagon photos showing the entry wound were photoshopped.

[Kevin Fenton]

3. Rescue worker, etc.

"I asked if I could see the rescue worker's statements,"
You can find a second hand rescue worker account from a reliable source here: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html

"I told him I had seen photos of the exterior Pentagon wall before it collapsed, and the hole where the plane entered appeared to be only about 20 feet in diameter, with unbroken window frames on either side of it where the wings and engines would have hit."
The hole was actually 90 feet wide:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

"It (the plane) was not one scheduled to come into Dulles, so they assumed it was landing at Reagan National, and when it dropped off their radar at the Pentagon they knew something was wrong. This was 35 minutes after the second World Trade Center Tower had been hit. I told him this explanation defied reason, but he said it is proven in the NTSB Report, which I can't see."
What? NTSB report? I didn't know there was an NTSB report into AA 77. Is it (or an extract/presentation of it) available? Also, I don't really understand what Zelikow thinks the report proves - why it wasn't intercepted?

[demodewd]

4. where are the photos?

I told him I had seen photos of the exterior Pentagon wall before it collapsed, and the hole where the plane entered appeared to be only about 20 feet in diameter, with unbroken window frames on either side of it where the wings and engines would have hit."
The hole was actually 90 feet wide:

but "He said those photos might have been "adjusted" in scale by someone to give the wrong impression." That's more what I'm driving at. He didn't answer the question but instead insinuated that there have been some tampering. It sounds to me that this guy doesn't even know all the controversial details. And that he is very intent on dismissing controversy brought on by doubters at all expense.


She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several ways. She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell, an unpainted silver color that is unique to American Airline planes, and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white.

This statement could very well be planted. But I'll accept it at face value. She saw parts and interior specific to a 757 or 767. Okay...but that doesn't mean it was Flight 77. It could very well had been a drone substitute. She says see saw charred remains. And yet who else had the clearance to see this? Where are the pics of the plane parts that will definitely identify the type of plane? Why isn't the public privy to these photographs? Why are they hiding them from us? Thats it for now...demodewd

[Kevin Fenton]

11. Zelikow

"And that he is very intent on dismissing controversy brought on by doubters at all expense."
I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the Pentagon strike. There are plenty of other things to cover up in 9/11 even if the Pentagon attack is straight up.

There's nothing specific to AA 77 there, as far as I can see, but it seems very unlikely it wasn't a American Airlines 757. If the Pentagon strike were cleared up and the conspiracy theories proved false, there would be pressure to do the same with the WTC and United 93, which might be a little harder...

[demodewd]

12. if it was 77....

If it was AA 77,there were other things going on besides 77 just crashing into the West Wing. There are too many unexplainables.Like...

1. How did Hani Hanjour,a very inadequate pilot, successfully navigate the plane with the acrobatic 270 in a downward spiral ?
2.Is it possible that 77 was rigged before hand to be overtaken by remote control?
3. Why did the FBI rush to confiscate all possible video proof of what the plane might have been?
4. Why the initial whitish light at the onset of the explosion? Nothing like this happened at the South Tower.
5. Why did the plane explode at the very fore of the building,apparently exploding before little if any of fuselage penetrated?
5. Why aren't there body parts randomly spewed across the yard and freeway when the passengers were allegedly herded to the back of the plane?
6.How do you explain the huge hole into the A-E drive when the fuselage would have had to go through a sheet of flooring three rings deep and very probably disintegrated right at impact or just before impact?
7. Why the lack of fire and smoke damage north of the entry wound?

[ROH]

13. Interesting point

"Why aren't there body parts randomly spewed across the yard and freeway when the passengers were allegedly herded to the back of the plane?"

Regarding Flight 77, Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.

[spooked911]

14. Also, why were pieces of the plane picked up so quickly before

an investigation could be done? What was under that blue tarp the men were carrying?

[Kevin Fenton]

15. Answers

"1. How did Hani Hanjour,a very inadequate pilot, successfully navigate the plane with the acrobatic 270 in a downward spiral?"
A: He couldn't have been flying the plane, he certainly didn't have the skills. However, one of the other hijackers, known as Salem Alhazmi, was using a false passport - the real Salem Alhazmi is alive and well in Riyadh. I think it's likely he was a real pilot. Some of the hijackers used their own names, some didn't, why?

"2.Is it possible that 77 was rigged before hand to be overtaken by remote control?"
A: Possible, but unlikely in my view.

"3. Why did the FBI rush to confiscate all possible video proof of what the plane might have been?"
A: Sounds like basic procedure to me.

"4. Why the initial whitish light at the onset of the explosion? Nothing like this happened at the South Tower."
A. There was no whitish light at the north or south towers I am aware of. Where did you get this from?

"5. Why did the plane explode at the very fore of the building,apparently exploding before little if any of fuselage penetrated?"
A: I don't know when it exploded. Where did you get this from?

"5. Why aren't there body parts randomly spewed across the yard and freeway when the passengers were allegedly herded to the back of the plane?"
A: The road is a long way from the wall, why should the bodies be thrown hundreds of feet backwards? What do you mean by the yard?

"6.How do you explain the huge hole into the A-E drive when the fuselage would have had to go through a sheet of flooring three rings deep and very probably disintegrated right at impact or just before impact?"
A: There was a hole in A-E drive maybe about 12 feet across, hardly huge. What is a "sheet of flooring three rings deep"? I doubt the engine, for example, would have disintegrated right on impact. I guess the hole was made by the shockwave.

"7. Why the lack of fire and smoke damage north of the entry wound?"
A: First time I've heard this. Could you give me a link? Why should there be fire and smoke damage north of the entry wound anyway?

[demodewd]

16. answers to your answers

He couldn't have been flying the plane, he certainly didn't have the skills. However, one of the other hijackers, known as Salem Alhazmi, was using a false passport - the real Salem Alhazmi is alive and well in Riyadh. I think it's likely he was a real pilot. Some of the hijackers used their own names, some didn't, why?

The skills involved in the maneuver were extremely difficult for a large airliner. Your "Salem Alhazmi" is pure speculation.Why did the flight allegedly fly all the way out to Ohio before it was hijacked? Why were the first two flights taken over rather quickly once they reached cruise speed and yet 77 flies all the way to the Ohio-Kentucky border? Why would the "hijackers" assume that they would not be intercepted by being in the air for so long?

Why did the FBI rush to confiscate all possible video proof of what the plane might have been?"
A: Sounds like basic procedure to me.

Is it basic procedure to not allow the public to see the plane actually fly into the building? Why the State secrecy. They obviously have something to hide.If it were truly obvious that it was Flight 77,I can only believe that Bushco would want to show the world. Instead they opt for totalitarian measures in absolutely keeping the videos beyond the sight of the public. Very very suspicious behavior.

There was no whitish light at the north or south towers I am aware of. Where did you get this from?

Exactly. There was no whitish light initiating the explosion at either the North and South Towers but there was at the Pentagon explosion.http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/inv3.html

Why did the plane explode at the very fore of the building,apparently exploding before little if any of fuselage penetrated?"
A: I don't know when it exploded. Where did you get this from?


Notice the location of the inferno...to the very fore of the building and spilling out on the yard. Also notice the fire's coloration and shape. Is this a jet fuel initiated fire? I have some doubts.

The road is a long way from the wall, why should the bodies be thrown hundreds of feet backwards? What do you mean by the yard?

The lawn. Where are the body parts? All the body parts ended up in the building? The explosion rained grafitti like pieces of the plane all over the lawn and freeway. According to Barbara Olsen the passengers and crew were herded to the back of the plane. And yet all the body parts remained in the building?
There was a hole in A-E drive maybe about 12 feet across, hardly huge. What is a "sheet of flooring three rings deep"? I doubt the engine, for example, would have disintegrated right on impact. I guess the hole was made by the shockwave.

The hole spans nearly the entire height of the wall.I think it is certainly not small but rather large. The plane would have disintegrated by the impact and explosion and would have necessarily crunched through the second story floor.A shockwave? Possibly by shaped charges or a bomb implanted in the building and timed to go off at the time of impact. One engine was found in a section of the building away from the "hole". There was no engine found in the A-E Drive. There was no fuselage parts to be found in the A-E Drive.

Why should there be fire and smoke damage north of the entry wound anyway?

Because the thrust of he plane and certainly some of the fuel explosion would have pushed itself in that dirction. I contend that the initial explosion was not a fuel explosion but a bomb or shaped charges that created a buffer zone and prevented the fuel blast from penetrating into that part of the building.

[Kevin Fenton]

17. Answers3

(1) "Your "Salem Alhazmi" is pure speculation."
Yes, but it's good speculation. One pilot might have got lucky, but Al Qaeda is an organisation known for it's good planning. If they didn't have proper pilots, they wouldn't have launched the attack.
"Why did the flight allegedly fly all the way out to Ohio before it was hijacked?"
It was waiting for the first plane, American 11, to crash into the north tower.
"Why would the "hijackers" assume that they would not be intercepted by being in the air for so long?" They would assume they would be intercepted.

(2) "Is it basic procedure to not allow the public to see the plane actually fly into the building?" No, it's basic procedure to seize it though. Just because the government's covering something up, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the Pentagon strike.

(3) "There was no whitish light initiating the explosion at either the North and South Towers but there was at the Pentagon explosion" This is at the same time the steam vault at the heliport exploded isn't it?

(4) "Notice the location of the inferno...to the very fore of the building and spilling out on the yard. Also notice the fire's coloration and shape. Is this a jet fuel initiated fire? I have some doubts." If you're talking about the 4 video frames, it's a pretty obvious fake.

(5) "All the body parts ended up in the building?" Yes, passengers tend to sit in seats and seats are fixed to the more robust, lower part of the fuselage.

(6) "The hole spans nearly the entire height of the wall." The wall is 72 feeet high, the hole is 12 feet high, this is not the entire height by any stretch of anybody's imagination.
"The plane would have disintegrated by the impact and explosion and would have necessarily crunched through the second story floor." What second storey floor? Why would an engine disinterate on impacting reinforced limestone?
"There was no fuselage parts to be found in the A-E Drive." Actually there were. See here: http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

(7) "Because the thrust of he plane and certainly some of the fuel explosion would have pushed itself in that dirction." The plane should probably explode inside the building and the force of the blast would go out through the entry hole. Why do you think the plane should explode outside the building?

[demodewd]

18. you trust the govenment too much

1.Why would 77 wait for the first plane to hit WTC1? What's the motive here? I don't see a valid one. If you were "Al Qaeda" you would turn the planes toward the ultimate destinations as soon as you could to prevent interception and possible take down.Flying all the way out to Ohio makes no sense at all,unless you knew you weren't going to be intercepted.And you would hit the Pentagon in a more opportune spot being so clever and organized. Like in the middle of the building,dive bombing where it would have been very difficult to put the fires out. Al Qaeda would have thought of this...minimal damage would not have been on the agenda.
2. The government has no intention of releasing the video footage. It has no intention of revealing what's on the black boxes.
Just because the government's covering something up, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the Pentagon strike.
As I said before,if everything was legit,they would show it to the world. Anyway your logic could swing my way too..your explanation carries no real validation.

3. The steam vault? I don't know about this but why would it explode prior to the fuel explosion?

4. What makes the video fake? Give a technical explanation. I think the video has been tampered with,frames deleted.Again the government is making a concerted effort to NOT let us see what aircraft crashed there. There is no reasonable democratic explanation for this. This definitely implies cover up.

5.Where are the photographs of the seats,fuselage etc. Oh I forgot,our government has the right to keep these photos away from us poor citizens. They have the right to conceal all this evidence.And there's no dark motive for this?

6. Well if there were fuselage parts in the A-E Drive,they aren't accountable for the hole and thats what I was really driving at.I'm not a missile advocate and do believe that some type of aircraft did crash there.

7.The force of the blast would be essentially random and certainly would be powerful enough to blow down walls and columns leading north into the building...which it did..

[Kevin Fenton]

19. Answers4

1."Why would 77 wait for the first plane to hit WTC1?"
Because the first plane is the banker. The plan is designed to maximise the chances of partial success, not the chances of complete success. In the event it didn't matter that they were only 75% successful. Even 1 hit out of four would be a decent return.
"If you were "Al Qaeda" you would turn the planes toward the ultimate destinations as soon as you could to prevent interception and possible take down."
No, trying to overwhelm the US airforce with 4 unarmed jetliners would not be a good plan. Until United 175 was hijacked (at 8:42) and the first plane crashed (at 8:46) there was no reason to suspect it was anything other than a run-of-the-mill hijack and that they would all get off in Cuba. American 11 essentially got a "free hit".
"Dive bombing where it would have been very difficult to put the fires out."
Dive bombing strikes me as a real complicated manouvre for a jetliner.
"minimal damage would not have been on the agenda."
Why do you think minimal damage was caused to the Pentagon?

(2) "As I said before,if everything was legit,they would show it to the world. Anyway your logic could swing my way too..your explanation carries no real validation."
Everything isn't legit, some of the hijackers aren't who the FBI says, they had help in the US, United 93 was shot down, the WTC was demolished by explosives. If they explained the Pentagon fully, they would come under pressure to explain the rest of it fully, which they can't do.

(3) "The steam vault? I don't know about this but why would it explode prior to the fuel explosion?"
Because the left wing hit it.

(4) "What makes the video fake?"
For example, in the later frames the explosion seems to be coming out of the building's roof, which was undamaged by the explosion. For a fuller account see here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm
It starts about half way down in the section entitled "Explosion at the Pentagon".

(5) "Where are the photographs of the seats, fuselage etc."
The most comprehensive site with photos is here: http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
I think the government has more photos, but isn't releasing them on the grounds that an absence of information breeds speculation and spculation is often wild. Remember Roswell?

(6) Well if there were fuselage parts in the A-E Drive, they aren't accountable for the hole".
It seems hard to imagine that the fuselage parts visible in the photo accounted for the hole, although there may be other fuselae parts out of shot. The amount of debris is consistent with the hole being made by the shockwave.

(7) "The force of the blast would be essentially random and certainly would be powerful enough to blow down walls and columns leading north into the building...which it did.."
I don't really see your point here.

[spooked911]

5. All I can say is that Zelikow is scum, who doesn't know the meaning

of the word "democracy", IMO.

Moreover, there are two possible conclusions:
1) he really does have all the data to disprove the conspiracists and is withholding it to intentionally stoke conspiracies for devious purposes
2) he is a liar

His explanation for withholding the evidence certainly makes NO SENSE at all.

[demodewd]

6. re: scum

I'm surprised that Zelikow
allowed himself to be questioned by a civilian outsider. This occured in October of last year I believe. I'll be surprised if he allows questioning like that ever again.

[spooked911]

7. I can't remember where I read it but Zelikow comapred 9/11 CTs to a virus

that they needed to stamp out.

Oh, I remember now where that was-- it was in a WashPost article almost a year ago talking about the Pentagon CT that no Boeing hit the Pentagon.

Weird that Zelikow is now feeding the virus by withholding evidence.

Assshole.

[stickdog]

8. Zelikow is the foremost gatekeeper of some sacred US myths.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_D._Zelikow

A little CFR book review by Zelikow:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20000301fabook630/robert-b-stinnett/day-of-deceit-the-truth-about-f-d-r-and-pearl-harbor.html

[demodewd]

9. Zelikowtow

I think I'll do a google on Zelikow...maybe I'll come up with something.

[demodewd]

10. 9-11 Report Failures

The 9/11 Commission report fails to mention reports of a Pakistani connection, not even to explain them away, but at least it offers this gem:

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance... Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government - or foreign government official - supplied any funding." (p. 172)

So who financed the attacks is of little significance. Now we know the first rule of the Kean Commission: Don't follow the money!

Does the Washington Post agree?

The Kean Commission "discussed the theories," Zelikow tells the Post. "When we wrote the report, we were also careful not to answer all the theories. It's like playing Whack-A-Mole. You're never going to whack them all."

Now we know the second rule of the Kean Commission: Don't test theories. Just whack them if you can, and otherwise do your best to ignore them.

We shall conclude with two more of the "moles" that Zelikow and the Commission refused to whack. Is the Washington Post willing to take a swing?

First: The owner of World Trade Center Building 7, Larry Silverstein, interviewed for a PBS documentary of 2002 ("America Rebuilds"), seems to reveal that this building's little-reported collapse on the afternoon of Sept. 11 was the result of a decision to intentionally demolish the building.

Isn't this worthy of a follow-up call to Mr. Silverstein's offices? Is it possible to wire a 47-story skyscraper for a controlled demolition within a few hours? If not, what does this imply?

Second: The 9/11 Commission report revised the older NORAD and FAA timelines of air defense response on Sept. 11. For more than two years, these two agencies presented a series of conflicting chronologies to explain the failure of standard operating procedure, under which the errant flights of Sept. 11 should have been intercepted by jet fighters as a routine matter of reconnaissance.

Last June, the Kean Commission issued a staff statement that radically contradicted all accounts upheld until then by either NORAD or FAA, establishing an entirely new timeline. This is now Chapter 1 of the 9/11 Commission report.

It exonerates everyone of blame for the failures of 9/11, in keeping with the dictum of Kean's vice-chairman, Lee Hamilton: "We?re not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that part of the commission?s responsibility."

Given the complexity of this issue, it may be asking too much of the Washington Post to figure out if the new timeline holds water - it most assuredly does not. (8) But if the Commission's version is right, then officials at NORAD and the FAA were issuing false accounts for more than two years. Isn't that, at least, an issue?
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041009142411882