Investigating 9/11 and Naming Suspects

Galactic Connection Investigating 9/11 and Naming Suspects Posted by Madeline | Mar 7, 2017 | 2017, Conspiracy, Cabal, and Government, Daily Blog, Government Laws, Policies, Politicians, Military, News, Media | 0 | Investigating 9/11 and Naming Suspects Dig Within by Kevin Ryan When people ask me what more can be done to achieve 9/11 truth and justice, I tell them to spend less time calling for a new investigation and more time investigating. Even without subpoena power, independent investigators can make a lot of progress. To help with that effort, here are three steps for an independent investigation and an objective way to evaluate suspects in the 9/11 crimes. The first step is to ask specific, well-formulated questions. What do we need to know? We need to know things like how explosives got into the WTC, how the North American air defenses failed, how the U.S. chain of command and communication systems failed, how the alleged hijackers got away with so much, and how the planes were hijacked. Here are examples of specific questions that will help answer these questions. What more can we learn from the official accounts about transponder and autopilot use on 9/11? Who was invited to the explosive disposal/terrorism meeting at WTC 7 on the morning 9/11 and what was the agenda? What do the strip clubs, bars, and other businesses frequented by the alleged hijackers have in common? The second step is to collect information that might help to answer the questions. Good sources of information include the following. National Archives (NARA) National Security Archive at GWU 911 Document Archive at Scribed 911DataSets.org 911Review.com History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline Internet Search Engines: These are more useful for those who learn how to use search operators. University libraries The WayBack Machine: Wonder what a web page looked like 15 years ago? It also helps to interview people who have detailed knowledge about the events. Most of the people who were present at the time of the attacks and during the official investigations are still alive and some of them will answer questions. Additionally, useful information can be obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Direct requests to federal, state, or local agencies using resources like these: Federal: http://www.foia.gov/how-html New York State: http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/html Other help and example letters: http://nfoic.org The third step to investigation is to collect the information, analyze it, and then communicate it clearly and objectively. Collecting the information is relatively easy. Analysis might include categorizing or framing the information in ways that help to see linkages. Examples include creating a timeline of events or a matrix of people and events, and considering if the new information fits into the existing body of knowledge. Once new information is ready to communicate to others, there are a lot of venues for doing that. A good example is 911Blogger. Naming Suspects and Evaluating Evidence evidenceAs answers are found or proposed, it becomes clear that there are people who can be named as legitimate suspects in the 9/11 crimes. Things can get a bit tricky here and it’s easy to be misled. What makes someone a legitimate suspect? To answer that, it helps to understand three different types of evidence: direct, indirect, and negative. Let’s start with five examples of what I would cite as direct evidence related to 9/11. Direct evidence The suspect was in a position on 9/11 to directly facilitate the crimes. Evidence exists that the suspect did something on 9/11 that directly facilitated the crimes. Evidence exists to charge the suspect with a crime related to 9/11. The suspect was in a position prior to 9/11 to facilitate the 9/11 crimes. Evidence exists to charge the suspect with having done something prior to 9/11 that facilitated the 9/11 crimes. All of the suspects in my book, Another Nineteen, were named based on direct evidence. An example is Wirt Dexter Walker. As the CEO of Stratesec, he was in position to provide access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, as well as prevent that access from being detected. Walker can also be charged with 9/11 insider trading. Another example is Ralph Eberhart, who sponsored the military exercises that obstructed the air defenses on 9/11. Eberhart also appears to have lowered the Infocon (communications defense) level just hours before the attacks, and gave orders that directly obstructed the interceptors. He also lied to the U.S. Congress about having received documented notification of the hijackings (a crime). When one or more of pieces of direct evidence are established for a suspect, it makes sense to evaluate indirect evidence. Here are five types. Indirect evidence The suspect had foreknowledge of the 9/11 crimes. The suspect benefited from the 9/11 crimes. The suspect failed to cooperate with the official 9/11 investigations, obstructed those investigations, or lied to investigators. The suspect was an expert in the technologies that were required to make 9/11 happen (e.g. communications systems, remote control technology). Evidence exists that the suspect was involved in other terrorist acts or previous U.S. deep state events. An example of a suspect for which both direct and indirect evidence exists is Barry McDaniel, the Chief Operating Officer of Stratesec. Besides having the power to grant access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, McDaniel also had expertise in the distribution of explosives from his days as the U.S. Army’s director of Materiel Readiness. That same previous position makes him a suspect in the Iran-Contra crimes. McDaniel benefited from 9/11 by starting a police-state supply company with Dick Cheney’s old business partner, Bruce Bradley. Similarly, Ralph Eberhart is a suspect for whom there exists both direct and indirect evidence. As CINCNORAD and CINCSPACE, Eberhart was an expert on the air defense, communications, and possibly related space, systems. He also failed to cooperate with the official investigations, telling his staff to just change their responses to investigators as those responses were shown to be invalid. Is it enough to use only indirect evidence? For example, is it enough to say that the suspect benefited from the crimes? If so, there are millions, or maybe billions, of suspects. This includes everyone who profited from the 9/11 Wars or the police state policies that have resulted. It might also include anyone who was threatened by the countries that the U.S. has attacked since 9/11: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. That would be a huge number of people so the answer is no, benefiting from 9/11 is not enough to make someone (or an entire country) a legitimate 9/11 suspect. Is foreknowledge of the attacks enough to name someone as a legitimate suspect? If so, the governments of at least a dozen countries are all suspects. Therefore the answer is no, in the absence of direct evidence foreknowledge is not enough to name a person (or an entire country) as a 9/11 suspect. For instance, some people are convinced that Israel committed the crimes of 9/11. When asked why they think this, the answer is usually that Israel had foreknowledge as indicated by the “Dancing Israelis” and that Israel benefited because of the countries that were attacked after 9/11. However, as indicated above this reasoning is not convincing and would certainly never stand up in a court of law. Both foreknowledge and benefiting are examples of indirect evidence. And although indirect evidence can be helpful, direct evidence is needed to charge someone with a crime. Moreover, the direct evidence must focus on what actually happened on 9/11 that should not have happened, and what did not happen that should have happened. And that means we must focus on the specific people who were in position to make those things so. Once direct evidence exists for a suspect, negative evidence can also be used to build the case. Negative evidence related to the 9/11 crimes includes the fact that some people did not do their jobs, either in defending the country or in investigating the case afterward. For example, Ralph Eberhart, for whom there exists both direct and indirect evidence that he was involved, failed to implement military control over U.S. airspace when he should have. In the end, it’s possible that only independent investigation will reveal more of the truth about what happened on 9/11. But that power exists within people who spend considerable time today calling for others to investigate or posting strongly worded messages on social media. If we can harness that power and direct it toward the logical and objective answering of pertinent questions, we can make real progress. Share: Rate: 12345 PreviousClif High-Chaos Starts Middle of March [VIDEO] NextWikileaks: CIA ‘Stole’ Russian Malware, Uses It to ‘Misdirect Attribution’ of Cyber Attacks Help Galactic Connection Thrive Are You A Guardian? Click Here For More Information Unplug From The Matrix! Remove Your Controlling Implants! Phase 1 Click Here For More Information Phases 2 & 3: Soul Alignment and DNA Sequencing Click Here For More Information Phase 4: The Guardian Protection Initiation Click Here For More Information Phase 5: Spiritual Past Life Clearings Click Here For More Information Alchemical Organic Light Realignment Process and Anchoring Process Click Here For More Information Phase 6: Preparing for the New Divine Blueprint Click Here For More Information Co-Creating Your Desired Reality Click Here For More Information Intrusion Removal And Divine Essence Retrieval Click Here For More Information Alexandra’s Galactic Connection Alchemy Transform your life with powerful Galactic Alchemy Psychic Protection Tools, Proclamations, and Suggestions Click here for more information Follow us on YouTube! Subscribe on iTunes! Are You Feeling Isolated and Stuck? Click here for more information Stand In Your Authority [Light Warrior Mission Support] Click here for more information Break The Chains That Bind You Click here for more information Go With The Flow and Live In The Now Click here for more information Whip Your Finances Into Shape financial-alignment-widget-imageClick Here For More Information Alexandra’s Personalized Essences morgan_le_fey150X176 Click Here To Learn More About Alexandra's Personalized Essences Psychic Protection Saint Michael Slaying Satan Click Here for More Information on Psychic Protection! Implant Removal Series Click here to listen to the IRP and SA/DNA Process Read The Testimonials bokeh-789561_150 Click Here To Read What Others Are Experiencing! Copyright © 2017 by Galactic Connection. All Rights Reserved. Excerpts of material created by Galactic Connection may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Alexandra Meadors and www.galacticconnection.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. The Daily Blog page operates under a Creative Commons license. Information from our Daily Blog page may be re-distributed as long as proper attribution to the author and direction to their original content is provided. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of any material on this website without express and written permission from its author and owner is strictly prohibited. Thank you. Privacy Policy By subscribing to GalacticConnection.com you acknowledge that your name and e-mail address will be added to our database. As with all other personal information, only working affiliates of GalacticConnection.com have access to this data. We do not give GalacticConnection.com addresses to outside companies, nor will we ever rent or sell your email address. Any e-mail you send to GalacticConnection.com is completely confidential. Therefore, we will not add your name to our e-mail list without your permission. Continue reading... Galactic Connection 2016 | Design & Development by AA at Superluminal Systems