Tag Archives: 9/11 Attacks

Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks WTC Building 7 Study

Video Sep 10, 2019 Annabelle Bamforth Leave a comment

“A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” is a draft report based on a 4-year study conducted at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) by lead researcher Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, the Professor of Civil Engineering at University of Alaska Fairbanks along with research assistants Dr. Feng Xiao, Associate Professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology and Dr. Zhili Quan, Bridge Engineer at South Carolina Department of Transportation.

According to the study’s project summary:

This is a study of the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001.

The objective of the study was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.

The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred. Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Third, we simulated a number of scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

The research team is currently organizing and uploading all of its data into a format that can be readily downloaded and used. We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019.

There will be a two-month public comment period from September 3 to November 1, 2019, with the final report will be released later this year. During this period, we welcome any and all members of the public to submit constructive comments intended to further the analyses and presentation of findings contained in the report. Designated reviewers external to UAF and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth will also review the report during this period. Commenters are asked to send their comments in an attached PDF or Word document to publiccomment@AE911Truth.org.

The full, 126-page draft report can be found here.

Reality Check

Reality Check: Could 9/11 Victim Families Actually Sue Saudi Arabia?

Video Apr 8, 2018 Ben Swann Leave a comment

Last week a U.S. District court judge rejected a request by Saudi Arabia to dismiss lawsuits accusing the nation of being involved in the 9/11 attacks.

So what does this mean for the families of 9/11 victims?

Does this mean that Saudi Arabia’s immunity in the case has run out? And will the public finally get to read the 28 pages of the 9/11 report without redactions?

Let’s give it a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

Families of 9/11 victims will get the chance to try to prove that Saudi Arabia is liable for helping to fund 9/11 hijackers. That, according to a ruling by a district court judge last week.

According to U.S. District Judge George Daniels, the plaintiffs’ allegations of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11 “narrowly articulate a reasonable basis” for him to assert jurisdiction under JASTA.

JASTA, or the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, provides a legal exemption to the principle of sovereign immunity, thus allowing foreign governments to be held liable in U.S. courts.

This is a big deal because, until now, Saudi Arabia had broad-based immunity from 9/11-related lawsuits in the United States.

In 2016, then-President Obama attempted to veto JASTA, claiming that it “could expose U.S. companies, troops and officials to lawsuits in other countries,” according to Reuters. But the Senate overrode the veto by an overwhelming margin to adopt the legislation.

From Reuters: “Daniels’ decision covers claims by the families of those killed, roughly 25,000 people who suffered injuries, and many businesses and insurers.”

While the current lawsuit is moving forward, it is not the only fear the Saudis have over 9/11. The Saudi government also is reportedly worried about the possibility of the release of the un-redacted “28 pages” which have long kept secrets about the alleged connection between the Saudis and 9/11.

So what are the 28 pages?

They are 28 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 report that had been classified, until a redacted version was declassified 2016.

Yet, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and the heads of the Congressional Joint Inquiry, have indicated that if the redactions of those 28 pages were made available to the public, it would completely change everything you think you know about the 9/11 attacks.

The implications revealed so far in the redacted 28 pages are deeply concerning. According to page 424 of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, the FBI received “numerous” reports from individuals who believed Omar al-Bayoumi, the man who co-signed an apartment lease in San Diego for two of the 9/11 hijackers, was a Saudi intelligence officer.

It also reads that Al-Bayoumi also introduced the two hijackers to a translator in San Diego, who helped them get driver licenses and locate flight schools.

We also know that, according to the Miami Herald, FBI records released in 2013 show a Saudi family living in Florida directly tied to the Saudi Royal Family, had “many connections” to two other 9/11 hijackers and then fled the country in a “sudden departure” only days before the attacks, leaving valuables and personal effects behind as if they left at a moment’s notice.

Additionally, according to the New York Post, leaked information from the redacted 28 pages, details a transfer of “some 130 thousand dollars from then Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another one of the [9/11] hijacker’s Saudi handlers in San Diego.”

What you need to know is that the lawsuit against the Saudis may still be blocked… that’s because, a last-minute amendment was inserted into the JASTA legislation called the “Stay of Actions Pending State Negotiations,” which allows the U.S. attorney general or secretary of state to simply “certify” that the U.S. is “engaged in good-faith discussions with the foreign-state defendant concerning the resolution of claims against the foreign state.”

And even though Candidate Trump had said that he would consider releasing the un-redacted 28 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, based on how close he is with the Saudis, that is not likely to actually happen, as much as the families of 9/11 victims deserve to know the truth.

That’s Reality Check, let’s talk about it right now on Facebook and Twitter.

Civil Liberties, Featured, Government Accountability, International, US

US Court Allows 9/11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia to Proceed

Mar 29, 2018 Jay Syrmopoulos Leave a comment

Manhattan, NY –On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge George Daniels rejected a request by Saudi Arabia to dismiss lawsuits accusing the nation of assisting in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001, and asserted jurisdiction based on the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a federal law passed in 2016. Previously, Saudi Arabia had broad based immunity from 9/11 lawsuits in the United States.

JASTA provides a legal exemption to the principle of sovereign immunity, thus allowing foreign governments to be held liable in U.S. courts. Daniels said the plaintiffs’ allegations “narrowly articulate a reasonable basis” for him to assert jurisdiction under JASTA. However, Daniels dismissed claims against a Saudi construction company and two Saudi banks for allegedly providing material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to carry out the attacks, claiming he lacked jurisdiction.

According to a report by Reuters:

Daniels said the plaintiffs could try to prove that Saudi Arabia was liable for the alleged activities of Fahad al Thumairy, an imam at the King Fahad Mosque in Culver City, California, and Omar al Bayoumi, said to be an intelligence officer.

They were accused of helping two hijackers acclimate themselves to the United States, and begin preparing for the attacks.

Victims’ families, in court documents, highlighted that nearly all of the hijackers were Saudi citizens, and claimed that Saudi officials and institutions “aided and abetted” the attackers in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Reuters reported that “Daniels’ decision covers claims by the families of those killed, roughly 25,000 people who suffered injuries, and many businesses and insurers.”

The government of Saudi Arabia has steadfastly denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon, in which nearly 3,000 people were killed. Jim Kreindler, an attorney for roughly 850 victims’ families in the case against the Saudi government, told Reuters on Wednesday he is “delighted” that the judge dismissed Saudi Arabia’s motion.

“We have been pressing to proceed with the case and conduct discovery from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so that the full story can come to light, and expose the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks,” he added.

JASTA was vetoed by then-President Barack Obama, who claimed that the bill “could expose U.S. companies, troops and officials to lawsuits in other countries,” but the Senate overrode the veto by an overwhelming margin to adopt the legislation.

Despite the judge’s ruling, there is still a possibility that the federal government could intervene on behalf of the Saudi government. As previously reported by the author for The Free Thought Project in September 2016, a last-minute amendment was inserted into the JASTA legislation called the “Stay of Actions Pending State Negotiations,” which allows the U.S. attorney general or secretary of state to simply “certify” that the U.S. is “engaged in good-faith discussions with the foreign-state defendant concerning the resolution of claims against the foreign state.”

After the amendment was added to the JASTA bill, victims’ families said they felt betrayed by Congress.

How do I feel about the Justice Department being given this power? Not good,” 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the NY Post. “Their failure to bring their own Saudi indictment reveals how little they care about holding the Saudis accountable for either their funding or operational support of the 9/11 hijackers.‎

The Middle East Eye reported that “Wednesday’s ruling comes during Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the US. President Donald Trump heaped praise on the Saudi royal during a meeting at the White House last week.”

Featured, Foreign Policy, Politics

Rep. Adam Smith Claims Congress Put More Effort into Probing Benghazi Than 9/11 Attacks

Video Oct 26, 2015 Barry Donegan Leave a comment

As Hillary Clinton testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi last Thursday, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) claimed that Congress has spent more time and effort investigating the security failures that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya than it did investigating the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City.

Referring to the questioning of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) as “prosecution” and a “partisan exercise,” Rep. Smith said:

[pull_quote_center]”We didn’t investigate 9/11—you know, 9/11/2001, just to specify—with the length and depth that we have chose to investigate this.“[/pull_quote_center]

Smith’s statement can be seen in context in the above-embedded CNN video.

Rep. Smith added, “And, again, we are now the math here, five hours into [another hearing], count the break, maybe four hours into it. We have learned nothing substantively new about what happened in Benghazi. Very serious things happened. They were investigated. They were reported. Mistakes were made. They were reported. But this committee and all that time and effort has unearthed nothing.”

Truth in Media spoke with Rep. Smith’s office and asked for a citation to his claim. Smith’s press secretary Rebecca Bryant referred the question to the organization of the Democratic members of the Select Committee on Benghazi, who provided this fact sheet comparing the time and money spent on Benghazi versus various congressional investigations. The fact sheet fell short of proving his claim and only includes the time and money specifically spent on the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya, citing the length of time at “1 year, 4 months and counting” as of the time of the Sept. 28, 2015 report versus the “1 year, 7 months, and 25 days” that it claims the 9/11 Commission spent on its probe.

Talking Points Memo notes that official investigations of the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the 9/11 Commission and a joint congressional panel, whereas the Benghazi attack has been probed by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board and eight congressional committees. Congress reportedly held 22 hearings on 9/11 and has so far held 21 on Benghazi, according to The Atlantic. USA Today contradicted that report and cited a different number of congressional investigations into Benghazi — 32.

The Benghazi Research Center claims that at least $20 million has been spent so far on congressional investigations into the attack in Libya. BRC also cited the total running time of congressional Benghazi hearings so far at 54 hours.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States reported that the 9/11 Commission had a budget of $15 million.

Ben Swann's Truth In Media