Seven Questions to Evaluate Nineteen 9/11 Suspects

Who could have committed the crimes of September 11, 2001? Answering that question requires understanding the details of 1) what happened that should not have happened and 2) what did not happen that should have happened. Additionally, it requires asking specific, well-formulated questions and seeking answers that are evidence-based to assess potential suspects in terms of means, motive, and opportunity.

In my book Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects, a case is made for the investigation of nineteen people who were in position to do everything that was needed to affect the crimes. These legitimate suspects can be compared to the nineteen young Arabs who were accused of the crimes yet who did not have the means or opportunity to accomplish most of what happened that day.

The following seven questions should be asked when considering suspects. For each question, my nominees are described.

  1. Who could have prevented U.S. intelligence agencies from tracking down and stopping the alleged hijackers before 9/11?
    • Louis Freeh was Director of the FBI for the nine years leading up to 9/11. Under Freeh’s leadership, the FBI failed miserably at preventing terrorism when preventing terrorism was the FBI’s primary goal. During this time the actions of FBI management suggest that it was facilitating and covering-up acts of terrorism. After 9/11, Freeh went on to become the personal attorney for Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar and a director for a company linked to 9/11 insider trading.
    • As Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCI) from 1997 to 2004, George Tenet led an agency that botched and bungled its duties related to counterterrorism. The evidence suggests that, as with Louis Freeh and the FBI, at least some of those failures were intentional. Tenet had developed secret paths of communication with Saudi authorities and he appears to have disrupted plans to capture or investigate al Qaeda suspects.
    • Richard Clarke was appointed U.S. “Counterterrorism Czar” by President George H.W. Bush in1992 and he held that position until after the 9/11 attacks. Clarke was also a member of the highly secret Continuity of Government planning group along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and he implemented that secret plan for the first time on 9/11. He was a personal representative of the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country that financed terrorism and had many ties to 9/11. Clarke predicted terrorist attacks on Washington and New York and, through tipping off his friends in the UAE, was behind the failure of two CIA attempts to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. On 9/11, he led the secure White House videoconference that failed to respond to the attacks.
    • Richard Armitage was a special operations soldier, long-time covert operative, and a member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). On 9/11, Armitage was Deputy Secretary of State and, in this role, he implemented an express approval program that provided visas to the alleged 9/11 hijackers. On 9/11, he was involved in the secure videoconference run by Richard Clarke that failed to respond to the hijacked airliners.
  1. Who could have disabled the systems in place to prevent hijackings that should have been effective?
    • On 9/11, General Michael Canavan was in the role of hijack coordinator for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) but he was mysteriously missing that morning. Canavan’s role was most responsible for communications between the FAA and the military and his absence was critical to the failure of air defenses. Having only started as FAA’s hijack coordinator just months earlier, Canavan left the position in October 2001. According to an FAA intelligence employee, Canavan started his job by running training exercises that were “pretty damn close to the 9/11 plot.”
    • Duane Andrews, a long time protégé of Dick Cheney, was a leading expert on the defense systems that failed on 9/11. At the time, he led the company Science Applications International (SAIC) that created the national databases to track and identify terrorists, supplied U.S. airports with terrorism screening equipment, predicted and investigated terrorist attacks against U.S. infrastructure including national defense networks and the WTC, helped create the official account for what happened at the WTC both in 1993 and after 9/11, was a leader in research on thermitic materials like those found in the WTC dust, led the robotics team that scoured the pile at Ground Zero using equipment capable of eliminating explosives, and provided the information to capture the alleged mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
    • Benedict Sliney was the FAA’s Command Center national operations manager on 9/11. It was his first day in the job, having just left a lucrative law career defending Wall Street financiers. Despite his lack of experience, his FAA superiors deferred to him as the attacks proceeded and allowed him to take charge of the response to the hijacked airliners. Sliney’s failure to respond effectively on the day of the attacks, allegedly not even knowing how to respond, contributed significantly to the failure of the national air defenses.
  1. Who could have disabled the U.S. chain of command that should have immediately responded to the attacks but did not?
    • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was in charge of U.S. defenses on 9/11. After the Pentagon was hit, Rumsfeld wandered out to the parking lot for approximately 30 minutes. His presence there showed that he was not concerned about other planes that were reported as hijacked, as if he knew what to expect. Rumsfeld did not concern himself with the work of his direct subordinate, NORAD Commander Ralph Eberhart, and he did not do his job to ensure the nation’s air defenses. Rumsfeld and his Defense department later failed to cooperate with 9/11 investigations.
    • Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge at the White House on 9/11 and is known to have been the primary decision maker that day. In the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, Cheney gave instructions that appear to have directed a stand down of air defenses as well as an order to shoot down United Flight 93. Cheney later worked to prevent any investigation into 9/11 and led a campaign of lies to start the Iraq War.
  1. Who could have disabled the U.S. national air defenses that should have responded effectively and intercepted some, if not all, of the hijacked aircraft?
    • Ralph Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on 9/11, sponsored the highly coincidental military exercises (i.e. war games) that obstructed the military response. Twelve hours before the attacks, Eberhart apparently ordered the defense readiness alert system Infocon to its least protective level, making it easier to hack or compromise the defense computer networks. Failing in his duties to protect the nation while giving orders that further prevented response, Eberhart later lied to Congress about the military’s knowledge of the hijackings.
    • As a special agent in charge for the Secret Service, Carl Truscott supervised all protective matters relating to the president, the first family, and the White House. The response of the Secret Service to the 9/11 attacks suggests foreknowledge of the events because the agency failed to protect the president from the obvious danger posed by terrorists. Combined with the failure of the Secret Service to follow-up on offers of air support from Andrews Air Force Base, this led to the suspicion that the agency was complicit in the attacks.
  1. Who could have caused three WTC skyscrapers to fall through the path of what should have been the most resistance?
    • Brian Michael Jenkins, as deputy chairman of Crisis Management for Kroll Associates, played a leading role in planning for terrorist events at the WTC, including having reviewed the possibility of airliner crashes into the towers. A special operations soldier and long-time right-wing political advisor, Jenkins had been accused of implementing a “terror war” in Central America during the 1980s.
    • Wirt Walker was named a 9/11 insider trading suspect in previously classified 9/11 Commission documents. Walker’s company Stratesec provided security services for the WTC, United Airlines (which owned two of the planes hijacked on 9/11), and Dulles Airport (where American Airlines Flight 77 took off that day). Stratesec held its annual meetings in offices leased by Saudi Arabia and Walker also ran an aviation company in Oklahoma at an airport that was associated with the alleged hijackers.
    • Barry McDaniel was the chief operating officer of Stratesec. McDaniel was in charge of WTC security in terms of what he called a completion contract, to provide services up to the day the buildings fell down. He is also an Iran-Contra suspect and previously worked for companies that conducted covert operations, like Sears World Trade and The Vinnell Corporation. After 9/11, McDaniel went on to start a business with Dick Cheney’s former business partner, Bruce Bradley.
    • Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of New York City on 9/11. He and his staff had foreknowledge that the WTC Towers would fall when no one could have predicted such a thing. Giuliani was also responsible for the destruction of critical WTC evidence at Ground Zero. In a crime that continues to take lives, he told people in the area that the air was safe to breathe, when it was not, in order to speed the removal of evidence.
    • L. Paul Bremer’s career with the State Department and as managing director of Kissinger Associates led to him becoming, like Jenkins, one of few leading experts on terrorism before 9/11. On the day of 9/11, Bremer had an office in the South Tower of the WTC and was working for Marsh & McLennan, a company that occupied all the impact floors in the North Tower. Also associated with a company that had patented a thermite demolition device, Bremer was one of the first people to provide the official account for what happened on television that morning.
  1. Who could have coordinated an attack against the Pentagon that struck the exact spot that had just been renovated while allowing all Pentagon leadership to escape unharmed?
    • Paul Wolfowitz was Deputy Secretary of Defense on 9/11. Along with Armitage, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz was a leader of the organization PNAC that, one year before 9/11, had called for a transformational event “like a New Pearl Harbor” to reinvigorate U.S. military spending. In the eight months leading up to 9/11, Wolfowitz led the Pentagon building project that renovated the exact spot where Flight 77 was reported to have impacted the building.
    • Peter Janson was the chief officer of AMEC Construction, the company that performed the renovation work on the Pentagon building in the exact spot where it was hit on 9/11. AMEC was also hired to clean-up the debris at both the Pentagon and the WTC immediately after the attacks. A long-time business associate of Donald Rumsfeld, Janson went on to benefit from the War on Terror as a director of an oil and gas transport company.
  1. Who could have ensured that no effective investigation was conducted and that no one was held accountable?
    • Porter Goss was a CIA operative who, after 9/11, became DCI. On the day of 9/11, Goss was meeting with Pakistani secret service (ISI) General Mahmud Ahmed as the first plane struck the WTC. He later helped cover-up the crimes through his leadership of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11. As DCI in 2004, Goss took actions to ensure that no one in the intelligence community was held responsible for 9/11.
    • Robert Mueller, although not named as a suspect in my book, was a leader of the 9/11 cover-up in his role as director of the FBI, a position he took one week before the 9/11 attacks. Mueller had a history of covering-up government crimes including FBI collusion with organize crime, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, and the CIA terrorist financing network known as BCCI. That made him the perfect guy to lead the FBI investigation into 9/11.

It should be obvious that the 19 young Arab suspects accused of the crimes could not have accomplished any of the things required to pull off the 9/11 crimes, as described in these seven questions that need to be answered.  In fact, the evidence indicates they could not even fly small aircraft. On the other hand, the suspects noted above not only had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the crimes, many of them were long-time associates known to have engaged in covert operations or cover-ups. Anyone who is objective in an analysis of 9/11 suspects knows which of these groups should be investigated first.

This entry was posted in 9/11, 9/11 Suspects, Terrorism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Seven Questions to Evaluate Nineteen 9/11 Suspects

  1. Michael G says:

    Excellent info. Thanks.

    (Double “meeting with” in Porter Goss paragraph.)

  2. Damon Bean says:

    Fantastic summary Kevin ! ! Mueller’s possible role definitely needs to be further investigated especially in relation to Russia Gate. There is no way that the potential exposure of 9/11 is not constantly in the minds of these traitorous criminals and continues to influence their current actions. The truth will eventually come out, lets just hope it is in their life time so we may see justice served.

  3. anthonyhall7094 says:

    AE911Truth are Not interested Who committed 9-11; but How 9-11 was carried out. They can`t beleive that George W.Bush and Cheney were involved in Killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

  4. Tony says:

    I’m re-reading your book again Kevin. It’s very good. I’d be happy if you did a second volume running though further potential participants, as many come to mind. James Woolsey, for example.

    This 1995 article by Norman Augustine below rewards a close reading. Augustine had previously written a book with Rumsfeld’s former assistant Kenneth Adelman, and then they later wrote another volume together. THE DEFENSE REVOLUTION (1990) deals with the subject of the title. SHAKESPEARE IN CHARGE (1999) reflects some of the themes of Augustine’s article, linked here.

    Once you’ve read Augustine’s 1995 piece linked above, ponder this question. Which readership was he really writing it for?

  5. jacob rothstein says:

    Excellent approach. I want to add that in June of 2001 President Bush turned over control of Norad to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld from July 1 to October 1 2001. It was the first time in US history that a civilian controlled the nation’s defense.

  6. mdmorrissey says:

    Excellent article. I (and others) have linked to it in a recent article by Wayne Coste on, to which my latest comment was as follows. I see you are a member of OEN, and it would be great to have your input.

    Wayne, let’s cut to the chase. You correctly surmised above that I have doubts about all the supposed plane crashes on 9/11, for the same reasons as millions of other people. But for the sake of argument, that is, in order to pursue the truth that I presume we all wish to see, let’s assume that you are right and that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon exactly as the official story describes. Let’s go even further and assume the same is true of NYC and Shanksville. Let’s go even beyond that and assume the story of the 19 hijackers is true.

    That would be the ultimate “closure,” in your sense, right? All 9/11 “truthers” united under one LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) banner. This would be a minimal consensus, but let’s assume it happens. I would like to see the “truther” who would refuse to swallow his doubts for the purpose of accomplishing tangible progress. “The whole truth and nothing but the truth” would have to be held in abeyance here, for the purpose of getting anywhere at all. Who would insist on that, given the slough of darkness we live in now? That is precisely the purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel. Can I assume you support this consensus?

    What now? What do you think should happen next? Shall we continue calling for “investigations” for another 50 years or so, until there is as much interest left in 9/11 as there is now in, say, the JFK assassination? (Which is to say, virtually none.) What are the open questions about 9/11 that you think are important and should be pursued? What do you recommend be done about the people mentioned in Kevin Ryan’s post that Lila linked to above (here)? And let’s add to his list Presidents Bush 2, Obama and Trump for the continuing failure to investigate properly.

  7. The only time a commander stands down air defenses while under attack is when a surrender is imminent – or if that commander is a Benedict Arnold, a traitor, a Quisling. Cheney – and Bush – and the rest of these conspirators should have been indicted, tried, and if convicted, hanged for their treason against the United States and its people. Instead, they were lauded and praised as leaders – and re-elected – and their co-conspirators were promoted and put in places of more power. The US is the way it is today because of them and their treason, and a terrible price remains to be paid.

  8. Winston Smith says:

    Stand down or shoot down? According to the FAA liaison (with the SS (Garabito) in the WH) Terry Van Steebergen, authorization to shoot came from the WH shortly after 9:03 when it was obvious we were under attack by airplanes. From the 9/11 Commission Steenbergen Memo for the Record: :
    “Two minutes after Steenbergen suggested Garabido seek authorization to shoot, he
    responded that the Vice President had authorized the use of lethal force. Steenbergen did
    not do anything with this information.”

    The other question that we should ask about shoot down, by those aircraft best in a position to actually do something, Andrews Base in DC, is WITH WHAT? They had no weapons loaded and couldn’t get them in time to launch any defense. See this:

    Since we don’t have the capability to shoot down, the question about stand down becomes moot. There was nothing to hold back.

    And no, the Pentagon doesn’t have a missile defense system. That is a myth. Besides, standing up any defense action would require knowing what the target was in advance.

    • Steven Jobe says:

      “And no, the Pentagon doesn’t have a missile defense system.” Citation needed. Until you provide basis of some kind, this is just an assertion or an opinion.

      • Winston Smith says:

        The head of the agency that provides security at the Pentagon informs another military employee that the Pentagon is unprotected against an aerial attack. In reaction to the news of the attacks on New York, Army Deputy Administrative Assistant Sandra Riley telephones John Jester, the chief of the Defense Protective Service (DPS)—the law enforcement agency that guards the Pentagon. She asks him, “What do we have in place to protect from an airplane?” He tells her, “Nothing.” According to the Defense Department’s book about the Pentagon attack: “The Pentagon did not have an antiaircraft system on the roof of the building or on the grounds. Even if DPS had received word of an inbound plane, it had no plan to counter a suicide air attack. Had a warning been issued in time, DPS’s only effective response would have been evacuation and dispersal of the building’s occupants.” [Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 152] The Washington Post will similarly claim the Pentagon has “no anti-aircraft guns posted on its roof, nor any radars of its own for tracking local air traffic.” [Washington Post, 9/16/2001]

  9. mdmorrissey says:

    Kevin, shouldn’t you include the various presidents, not only Bush 2 but his successors, for failing to investigate properly, and also Richard Meyers, who was acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11 and promoted to Chairman on October 1, 2001?

  10. Ort says:

    Thanks for another informative article!

    Grammar nitpick: In the second paragraph, “nineteen people who were in position to do everything that was needed to affect the crimes.” I think it should be “effect the crimes”.

    • anthonyhall7094 says:

      Cui Bono ; who benefitted ? Bush and Cheney ok`d 9-11 as spectacular massacre of US Citizens, twisted to justify Invasion of Iraq to steal it`s Oil and eliminate Saddam Hussain as enemy of Israel.

  11. truaxd says:


    Don’t forget these three:
    Richard Fuisz

    DIA Paul Hoven

    FBIs David Frasca

    Love “Light” and Energy


  12. Lynn says:

    Good article, Kevin, but I think it does not go high enough. An author followed Bush 2 around during 1999 campaign, planning to write a book on it. Bush told him something to the effect: “If elected, I will invade Iraq.” They later had a falling out so that book wasn’t written, but the author wrote another book trying to warn us what Bush said during election season 2004. Also, after Bush was elected the first time, there were articles listing a couple of quotes from Bush meetings during the time of 1st inauguration and 6 months into the term – “I don’t care how you do it, just do it” and “Stop throwing the constitution in my face, it’s just a piece of paper!.” I used to be able to websearch these quotes and find the stories (back around 2005) but not so easy to find now (purged?) These could have easily (and most likely) referred to preparations for that invasion of Iraq, which would require a “New Pearl Harbor” to get the public’s support. And one of the objectives would likely be to provide Bush with “plausible deniability” on a very big operation, which they have done very well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s