This video "short" features the account of eyewitness Terry Morin, and was released as an addendum to The North Side Flyover. We present overwhelming evidence that the Pentagon attack jet flew directly over the Navy Annex building. This simple fact is irreconcilable with all official reports and the dubious physical damage, corroborates the north side approach, and of course proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon.
This video is now most useful as a supplement to National Security Alert. Please watch that video before watching this one.
This video features extended versions of our interviews with auto mechanic Edward Paik, gas station employee Robert Turcios, Sgt. William Lagasse, and Sgt. Chadwick Brooks, excerpts of which are seen in National Security Alert. It is now considered a supplement to the video National Security Alert. Please watch that video before watching this one.
In 2006 Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the act of terrorism which took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This exhaustive three-year inquest involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day.
Be forewarned: Our findings are extraordinarily shocking and frightening. They are also deadly serious, and deserving of your immediate attention. This is not about a conspiracy theory or any theory at all. This is about independent, verifiable evidence which unfortunately happens to conclusively establish as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a false flag "black operation" involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.
If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you. We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.
Al snel na 911 rezen er vragen of er wel een vliegtuig in het Pentagon was gevlogen. Het zou niet passen in het gat, er lagen geen of niet voldoende brokstukken van het vliegtuig op het gras voor het Pentagon, de kaper die het vliegtuig bestuurd zou hebben kon met zijn gebrek aan ervaring nooit de manoeuvres maken die hem werden toegedicht en wat al niet meer...
Maar toen verscheen er een filmpje, eigenlijk 5 frames, die moesten bewijzen dat er toch echt een vliegtuig in het Pentagon was gevlogen. Dit was opgenomen door een camera van het Pentagon zelf bij de entree voor verkeer. Maar echt overtuigend was het eerlijk gezegd niet. Aan alle kanten werd er in die tijd over gedebatteerd. Was er een staart van een vliegtuig te zien of niet? Was het witte een rookpluim of niet? Kon het vliegtuig wel zo laag hebben gevlogen?
Maar toen kwam er een tweede video. Vanuit dezelfde hoek. Van de camera bij de andere slagboom bij diezelfde entree. En zo werd het bedrog ineens duidelijk!
Ik zal het proberen kort en bondig, en in Jip en Janneke-taal uit te leggen.
De 2 video's komen van 2 camera's die slechts een kleine afstand uit elkaar stonden. Hierdoor filmden ze vanuit een gelijke hoek de plek waar het vliegtuig in het Pentagon gevlogen zou zijn. Sterker nog, die 2 camera's werden aangestuurd door 1 systeem, waarbij ongeveer om de seconde een beeld werd geregistreerd, op hetzelfde moment door die 2 camera's. Dit betekent dat de losse frames van die video's bijna identiek zijn. Dit is goed te zien vanaf de explosie, waarbij deze, en de daarop volgende rookwolken steeds dezelfde vorm hebben. Je kunt die 2 video's dus synchroon aan elkaar afspelen, dan zie je de gelijkenis extra goed.
Nu was er in de eerste video dus 1 frame waarop door sommigen beweerd een staart van een vliegtuig te zien was. De rest het vliegtuig was niet te zien omdat er een betonnen paal voor stond die het zicht op het vliegtuig ontnam. Maar in die betonnen paal zat nu juist camera nummer 2. Deze filmde in dezelfde richting en daar zat geen betonnen paal meer in het zicht. Dit betekent dus dat het vliegtuig op deze video wél zichtbaar zou moeten zijn.
Maar het vliegtuig zien we dus niet!
Nu zou je, als je frame bekijkt kunnen stellen dat je er wel een neus van een vliegtuig in zou kunnen zien, wat mogelijk zou kunnen zijn door een lichte afwijking in de synchronisatie. Op de eerste plaats is dat het enige frame welke niet synchroon zou zijn, want alle volgende en vorige frames zijn dat namelijk wel. Daarnaast is het zo dat wanneer je de snelheid van het vliegtuig, de afmeting van het vliegtuig en de mogelijke afwijking in synchronisatie in ogenschouw neemt, het vliegtuig alsnog gegarandeerd op het frame zichtbaar zou moeten zijn. Als laatste blijkt uit analyse dat de vorm van de "neus" uit video 2 gelijk is aan een deel van de rookpluim uit video 1.
Al met al kan men volgens mijn bescheiden mening niet anders dan concluderen dat er geklungeld is met de beelden, er is aan gesleuteld. Dit betekent dat er bewust bedrog in het spel is en er in werkelijkheid geen liegtuig op beide video's te zien is. Een zogenaamde "smoking gun" wanneer we het over het Pentagon hebben.
Natuurlijk is dit allemaal veel makkelijker te bevatten wanneer dit als video bekeken kan worden. En dat kan. Dit wordt helder uitgelegd in de documentaire September 11 - The New Pearl Harbour. Hieronder start de video precies op het moment dat dit onderdeel wordt behandeld. Maar het is in het Engels, dus hopelijk helpt mijn uitleg in het Nederlands mee om dit belangrijke stuk makkelijker te begrijpen.
De maker van de documentaire heeft het ook uitgewerkt met foto's op zijn website, maar dit is in het Italiaans, dus nog lastiger te begrijpen. Craig McKee van de website Truth and Shadows schreef er een Engelstalig artikel over welke ik onder de video integraal zal overnemen.
Al met al een duidelijke zaak als je het mij vraagt. Ik zal de komende dagen dan ook vaker mijn aandacht richten op het Pentagon verhaal, want hier is erg veel over te vertellen en het bedrog is om meerdere redenen duidelijk. Maar ik wilde graag aftrappen met dit verhaal omdat dit over slechts 1 frame in een video gaat. Zo klein, maar toch zo groot. Zoals de Amerikanen zeggen:
A single frame gives it away. All but one frame of two sets of surveillance videos purporting to show the impact of Flight 77 into the western face of the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 appear to show the same thing. But it’s that one frame that tells the tale. It shows that evidence was falsified and that a deliberate plan was carried out to fool the public into thinking that a plane hit the building when it did not. This, combined with other key evidence (including the nature of the damage to the building, the lack of debris outside the building, and the on-camera accounts of credible witnesses who put the plane on a different flight path that the one required to produce the damage path), proves that the Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash and that 9/11 was an inside job. The falsifying of the video evidence is explained in the impressively comprehensive 2013 documentary film September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, produced and directed by Italian filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco. The video analysis itself was originally carried out by researcher Pier Paolo Murru, who has worked with both Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizen Investigation Team. In 2002, the Department of Defense released five frames of video that it claimed showed a 757 flying just above ground level across the Pentagon lawn followed by an explosion that appeared to have been caused by the plane hitting the building. The camera that recorded the image was located in a parking booth located to the north of the alleged impact zone, and it was pointed south offering a view across the Pentagon western face and lawn. In the image, we see what appears to be the dark tail of a plane sticking up, but most of what would be the plane is blocked from view by a concrete barrier at the entrance to the parking area, just a few feet from the camera. The alleged shape of the plane is followed by a white trail, generally believed to be smoke from the plane. The following frame shows a large fireball and black smoke billowing from the facade of the building; we don’t actually see any impact at all. In the response to a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI and Department of Defense for all video footage that may have shown the impact of Flight 77, we learned that there were 85 videos that could “potentially” have met this criterion. But the response to the request also stated that only one of those videos actually showed the crash. This was, of course, the famous five frames we had already seen. It would take until 2006 before we would find out that this wasn’t true. That’s when the Department of Defense released a second set of frames from almost the exact same angle along with an extended version of the first set of frames. It turned out there was another camera in the very concrete parking barrier that blocked us from seeing the whole plane in the 2002 footage. Without a barrier to block the view of the plane, the second video should have given us a clear and definitive view of it. But it didn’t. As explained in the Mazzucco film, the two sets of videos, which recorded images at roughly one-second intervals, were synchronized using a centralized system called multiplexer or TLR so that the frames could be matched to each other with precision. This was easy to determine by comparing the shape of the large, billowing smoke clouds in each. Although the 2006 video begins a few frames before the one released in 2002 (and ends a few frames sooner), it is possible to perfectly synchronize all the equivalent frames – about 100 in all. Except one. The one that shows the plane. Or at least the one the government claims shows a plane. Frame 23 in the film’s comparative analysis is clearly and irreconcilably different. In the second video sequence, with the concrete barrier no longer blocking the view of the alleged plane, we now see that the shape that appeared to be the plane’s tail is simply gone, and now the white “smoke” trail is what appears to be the plane just coming into frame. In fact, the analysis shows that the white blur in the second video is actually present in the first one, but it appears a whole section has been added to it. I know this is not easy to picture, so I strongly recommend that you watch this section of Mazzucco’s film – the section on the Pentagon surveillance videos starts at the 17-minute mark of DVD 2. So, 100 frames in each of two angles are perfectly synchronized – and just one frame doesn’t match. How could this possibly be explained by anything other than tampering with the video? Of course, the issue could easily be cleared up if the 85 other videos were released, but the government has refused to do this. There’s also the issue of the confiscated tapes from area businesses. Attendant José Velasquez from the former Citgo gas station across the street from the Pentagon has stated that the FBI arrived within minutes of the alleged impact and confiscated footage from the station’s surveillance camera. Velasquez was quoted as saying that the footage would have shown the alleged impact. In 2006, footage taken at the station was released showing nothing conclusive. Other video footage was confiscated from the nearby Sheraton National Hotel, the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Va., and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Doubletree tape was later released. It showed the explosion but no airliner. And who knows what we might learn from cameras places inside the Pentagon. If a plane had actually hit the Pentagon it would be impossible to believe that none of the video cameras in and around the building on 9/11 would have shown this. And if the videos did show the crash, then it would make no sense that the government would withhold them. And if, as the evidence shows, the video frames that were released were falsified, then there can only be one conclusion: there was no plane impact, and this was just one more deception on a day filled with deceptions.
In this classic Corbett Report podcast from 2008, Indira Singh discusses Ptech, the company with numerous investors and managers with direct links to terrorist financing. Ptech’s clients included the CIA, FBI, the White House, the Department of Energy, the Air Force, the Navy, the FAA, IBM and Enron…Yet Singh learnt they were a CIA front company and their software could gain control of the most sensitive computer systems in the country.
[Editor’s Note: Following is a transcription of Episode 045 of The Corbett Report podcast, Ptech and the 9/11 Software. To listen to the episode, and for links to all of the articles and documents mentioned in this episode please CLICK HERE.]
[Introduction and News]
[0:07:45:00]
James Corbett: Welcome, my friends. Welcome to Episode 45 of The Corbett Report: “PTech and the 9/11 Software.” Today’s episode features information that comes from corporate whistleblower, Indira Singh. Regular listeners to The Corbett Report might remember Indira Singh from Episode 31: Welcome to 9/11 Truth.
In that audio documentary, we featured a clip from Indira Singh’s presentation to the Citizens Commission on 9/11. If you want to refresh yourself with that information, please listen to Episode 31 of The Corbett Report, starting at [0:16:31] and ending at [0:27:36]. That clip, which we featured in that earlier episode of The Corbett Report, featured some of Indira Singh’s startling testimony about the information that she gleaned when she was working at J.P. Morgan-Chase.
Singh was hired as a consultant for J.P. Morgan-Chase to develop the next generation of business architecture enterprise software. The software she was seeking to implement at J.P. Morgan-Chase, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, was specialized, cutting-edge risk architecture software, that would essentially be artificially intelligent and capable of scanning through the millions of transactions taking place across the J.P. Morgan-Chase institution in real time, monitoring these transactions for suspicious activity such as rogue trading; and would then be able to alert the proper people within the J.P. Morgan institution to the problem; and potentially even stop the transactions from taking place.
The importance, sensitivity, and sophistication of any such software necessarily led Ms. Singh to seek out the true leaders in the enterprise architecture software industry. Her research and due diligence into the issue, led her to a company called PTech.
As the senior risk-management consultant for one of the largest financial institutions in the world, Ms. Singh knew to trust credible, proven sources of third-party software. That is why PTech’s roster of clients immediately put them in the top echelon of software providers.
PTech’s clients included some of the most sensitive organizations and agencies in the United States government, including NATO, The U.S. Armed Forces, Congress, The Department of Energy, The Department of Justice, The FBI, Customs, The FAA, The IRS, The Secret Service, and the White House.
This sterling roster of clients made Indira Singh very eager to take a look at PTech software. However, when the PTech representatives arrived at the J.P. Morgan-Chase offices to display and present their software, Ms. Singh knew there was something wrong right away.
Today, we are going to do something we have not done since Episode 20 of The Corbett Report, which featured a presentation by Webster Tarpley on the 9/11 drills.
Regular listeners to The Corbett Report will remember Webster Tarpley’s lecture from Episode 20, on the 26 war games and drills that Webster Tarpley has identified as taking place on, or around, 9/11 that directly affected the U.S. Air Force’s ability to counteract the hijackings that day
That was one of the key talks to get people into the deep research through which they can come to a more informed understanding of the operational aspects of 9/11 as an inside job.
Likewise, the interview that we are about to present with Indira Singh gives a more informed, more detailed, account of what was really taking place on 9/11, and the software that was used to help bring that about. This is an extremely important interview for anyone interested in the serious, deep research into 9/11, and is an excellent starting point from which to begin a deeper investigation of that day.
I heartily recommend that my listeners check out this interview in its entirety. And, again, please go to the Documentation list on corbettreport.com for a link to the original source file of this audio interview, so you can listen to it in its entirety.
Today, I present an extended audio extract from this interview, conducted by Bonnie Faulkner of KPFA’s “Guns and Butter” in 2005. This extract begins with Indira Singh explaining what happened when PTech arrived in her office.
[begin audio: [0:12:37:5]]
Indira Singh: Well, they came a little late. Immediately there were some issues with how the day would proceed. For instance, they showed up without the agreed-on software in hand. The most important thing about it is that their chief scientist, Dr. Hussein Ibrahim, came. He is an Egyptian-American and he had a very good reputation in the field, very bright; someone you would like working with, very knowledgeable. But they had showed up without the software.
What I had done was I slated a work station to get off the net. After all, we were testing whether this software would meet our criteria, and if I had said it did, then that would be a big deal if it subsequently could not. So, I needed to start with an out-of-the-box version of PTech.
They did not bring that, and Dr. Ibrahim said that is not a problem. We can develop the demo on his laptop. If you know anything about these things, that is a No-no because at the end of the day he is walking out the door and I do not have anything; and he is walking away with enough of our thinking about doing operational risk.
Operational risk is about how to spot bad things that are going on in a financial institution; things like rogue trading, money laundering, and so on and so forth. It is very subtle. Our intellectual property, at least what J.P. Morgan was hiring me for, was to think, innovatively out-of-the-box in the next generation, how do you proactively design a blueprint to spot these things? That is pretty big.
These people are definitely smart enough to get an idea: “Oh, they are thinking of going down this road.” That is a big deal. I was your “risk” person so I am very aware of not to expose our intellectual property or that of the company I am consulting for. I am very protective of that.
So, they showed up without the software and that was a huge enough red flag that I began paying attention to them. A couple of the things went on and within half an hour I just walked over to the same people who had recommended them and began calling.
I said to one of them, I have the PTech people here, and the reaction was not the reaction I would have ever expected. It was, “What are they doing onsite?”
I said, you recommended them, and they said, “No, you should have come through an American distributor.”
I said, no, J.P. Morgan reserves the right to work directly with the company. And, besides which, they are a preferred vendor of IBM: their preferred vendor program. That is the way we work. We do not work for small distributors. If we are going to go with this software as a standard, we are going to go right to the source and make the agreements there.
So, I said, what is the problem? Basically, this person said, “Do not let them out of your sight.” That is when my stomach sank.
You have to understand how all of a sudden I am beginning to see these people in a different way, because when they said, “Do not let them out of your sight,” I have a Middle Eastern company there and we are taught not to discriminate and that was not something I was about to do – and to prove that they were there being evaluated, so that is never going to be a bone of contention. Although later, people made that an issue.
But if I had a problem working with a Middle Eastern company, they would have never been there in the first place, much less before Ground Zero closed. I had no problem whatsoever having them up there. I liked the idea.
Bonnie Faulkner: What do you mean PTech was a Middle Eastern company?
Indira: That is what, subsequently, was revealed in the phone call: that their financier, their funders, their investors were all Saudis. And I said, so what?
They said, “One Saudi has been placed on the U.S. terror list October 12, 2001.”
It got very quiet, and I said, you better have proof of that because having thrown that into my lap now, this is not something that I can ignore. I have to follow up on it. This is not something I can ignore, pretend would go away, or have someone else handle. This is risk management; the highest levels of one of the largest banks in the world. It is my responsibility to deal with this and I said, how can I get proof of this?
That is when they started saying, “You need to talk to a Jeff Goins,” who was one of the only three people in PTech who knew of this relationship, as he was that well-hidden within PTech. So I subsequently called Jeff Goins and I said if this is true, did you not report this? PTech is a private company so this relationship would have been privy only to those on the inside.
I said, did you report it anywhere, that someone who has been placed on the U.S. terror list is key funder – angel investor – to a company whose software is utilized at the highest levels of almost every government and military and defense organization in this country, including the Secret Service, the FBI, the Department of Defense, the House of Representatives, the Treasury Department, the IRS, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, and last but not least, the Federal Aviation Administration?
Bonnie: Are you saying these were all PTech clients?
Indira: These were all PTech clients. When I was evaluating them I was pretty impressed. Why not PTech? Exactly. They are being used at the highest levels of all of these organizations. So I was very excited about using them, and having their software be able to be a part of what I wanted to develop.
I had no reason to believe that if they were in use everywhere at that caliber that I would have a problem. And they were also used in Enron. Perhaps I should have thought twice about that, but they were at use in IBM, of course, and the top accounting firms and even in the FBI. In MITRE. . .
Bonnie: What is MITRE?
Indira: MITRE is a large company that does specialized technology for defense and intelligent. You would not expect to have an exposure with the company that was so well entrenched and imbedded in these kinds of organizations.
Bonnie: So what about the meeting? Did they leave? What happened?
Indira: No, because, basically my position was until I had proof, I could not react. That would have been very unprofessional of me. I thought of a number of scenarios that could be going on at that point. I thought it might have been competitiveness out of control, distributors wanting the J.P. Morgan account. It could have been anything.
However, the one thing that was true is that the chief investor, Sheikh Yassin al-Qadi, was indeed placed on the U.S. terror list because while I was talking to them, while they were still there, I checked out a website that had a list of everyone who had been placed on the terror list.
The missing piece was, of course, proving that Sheikh Yassin al-Qadi was indeed affiliated with PTech, was an owner of PTech. Because it was a private company, you could say that anybody was an investor, any bad guy or good guy was an investor. Proving it was another thing, so I let everything ride but I kept an eye on things.
In fact, we did we have a presentation that went very, very well because in no way, shape, or form was I going to jeopardize that.
Bonnie: What happened next? Did you go on working with them, or did you start to investigate PTech?
Indira: I continued multi-tasking. I was working with them. I placed a few phone calls and people got back to me later that day while they were still on the premises. So, I was able to separate the concerns, accomplish the task, evaluate the software anyway, start the phone calls to start getting more information. Then my report would have been: This is the software. It is used everywhere. It can do what we want it to do, however we have this issue with the company. And present that to my superiors and let them decide.
Bonnie: Then did you start investigating the company?
Indira: Yes. What happened next was I spoke with Jeff Goins and he told me that, basically, not only was Yassin al-Qadi an investor, but that a Yaqub Mirzawas on the Board of Directors, and he had been the subject of Operation Green Quest. Many of his Herndon, Virginia vehicles and companies and financing companies had been raided in March 2002.
Again, that Mirza was on the Board of Directors. As we spoke, other names started to come out. My head was spinning at this point, and I said, have you reported any of this to the FBI? The answer came back, “Yes, I wrote a report to the FBI.”
I said, if the boss and FBI has been told, I need to speak with people there because it is not just my group that is evaluating them. There are so many other groups. But I could not believe that, if this was all true, PTech was still being used by the Department of Defense. There is something a little bizarre about all of this.
Really, I was beginning to understand, unwillingly, that the world was not the way we thought of it.
Bonnie: This person that you were discussing this with, Jeff Goins?
Indira: Goins. Yes.
Bonnie: Was he an employee of PTech?
Indira: Yes, he was. He was one of the key people at PTech. He held several important positions. He had traveled to Saudi Arabia. And he had met with Yassin al-Qadi and he had met with most of the investors. His last position was Vice President of Sales which, for a small company, is pretty significant.
He worked with PTech, helping build the company, for five years. He was the one that was based in Virginia, who was responsible for getting a lot of the government accounts with, of course, Oussama Ziadewho was the president. Oussama Ziadeis a Lebanese-American who, according to Jeff, got his citizenship under very questionable circumstances which involves the INS.
This is all according to Jeff, so at some point, later in the week I had decided to go down to Virginia and meet with not only Jeff, but a number of other PTech and ex-PTech employees because this was beginning to sound like a Tom Clancy novel and I needed proof.
I told them I needed emails, I needed documents, I needed hard evidence. But in the meantime, within a day or two, I had contacted my rep at IBM. I said I need to walk outside with you and talk to you about something. If you guys are thinking of getting seriously in bed with this company, I would suggest that you do some background investigation so that your clients like J.P. Morgan and myself do not end up in this situation. His name was Kyle Hiligoss.
Kyle told me that he “wrote a book report” and sent it to his legal department. He was told to just back off the whole thing. In fact, he did not even want to have anything to do with me as I continued investigating.
Jeff did get the agents at the Boston FBI office to call me back. And with Kyle listening in, so it was not just me reporting on what Jeff had said, we spoke to the FBI agent who had picked up the information that Jeff had reported on PTech when Yassin al-Qadi was placed on the terror list in October 2001. Remember, this is eight or nine months later.
My question to him is: If you have an investigation that is ongoing, that is fine. We do not want to get involved with it or impede it in anyway, but in the meantime, this country’s infrastructure is seriously exposed and I can not, if any of this is true, can not. I need some evidence, something that you can give me to hang my hat on when I report this, that this is true; that this is not just someone making a terrorism report; that you know that this is true.
Basically, what he said is, Indira you are in a better position, on the outside, to get the proof that’s needed than I am. I asked him to check with the supervisor. I said do you understand how serious this is, to have a company with this alleged terrorism connection in the highest levels of corporate America and the U.S. infrastructure? I said, if you do not know, we need to make you aware of this.
He apparently went to his supervisor. The supervisor said that the position would not change. The Boston FBI office, you can check this out, was rated as one of the worst in terms of corruption. I believe the Whitey Bolger incident – the connections between the FBI and the Mafia – has been (how should I put it?) extremely well-explored.
Anyway, this mob character, Whitey Bolger’s brother, was in a very high level political position in Boston, MA. In fact, if people were to read Peter Lance’s book, Cover Up, he explores it very well and backs up a lot of what I have found here: the interaction between organized crime and the FBI.
When they said they were not going to proceed, I. . .
Bonnie: And by “they” you are talking about the FBI?
Indira: The FBI. I said I need something to hang my hat on, so he sent me a video tape. The substance of the video tape, which I have here, was a news clip. It was a news clip of a CBS affiliate based in Boston, called WBZ-TV. Their investigative reporting team – the I-Team – which was led by investigative reporter, Joe Bergantino, had investigated a number of Middle Eastern men who were sought after 9/11. They were affiliated with Muslim-Islamic terrorism-financing charities.
He had created this clip to show the connection between the 9/11 terror attack and the financial vehicles that were supposedly used to fund it. What he did was very interesting. The I-Team connected Care International – not the big Care International, but something called Care International – that was based in Boston all the way back to al-Keefah which was the financing vehicle at the center of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993; all the way back to something called Maktab al-qeedah-mad, which means “the office”, which was a financing vehicle that was set up by the CIA for the Pakistani ISI back in the days when Osama Bin Laden was America’s fair-haired boy and was on our side fighting with the Mujahidin, fighting the Soviet Union.
My goodness! The question to me, when I saw the video tape, was: What is Maktab al-qeedah-mad doing being run out of PTech on 9/11? And the reason I say “being run out of PTech “is that the faces in the video tape were the faces of core employees at PTech.
Now remember, this is a small company. There were only one or two people who had access to the source code in PTech. That is a very trusted position, and he was one of them. His name is Suheil Laher. The people who started Care International; some of them were actually on an FBI terror watch list prior to 9/11 in Boston.
Bonnie: What do you mean by “the source code”?
Indira: All software products have some group or organization or person write code that is then packaged up. For instance, the word processor in your desk, the spread sheet, the browser, and so on and so forth. It is all written in some sort of code. Those are the keys to it and if you wanted to improve it, add new functionality, you would change the original code and add new functionality, and then repackage it and send it out there.
Whoever had access to the source code of PTech, that was where the value was. If you lost the source code, you essentially lost product for all intents and purposes from a marketing point of view. So, only one or two people would have access to the source code. It would be like having the formula for Coca-Cola, basically.
Bonnie: Let’s go over that a little bit again. You were talking about Care International and some other funding groups that have been what? Funding international terrorism. . .?
Indira: That is correct.
Bonnie: . . .and also have been funded by what? The CIA . . .?
Indira: The roots of al-Keefah and Care International, if you look at it, were way back in the late 80s around the time of Iran Contra, for instance.Maktab al-qeedah-mad was set up so that monies could be passed to Osama Ben Laden and the Mujahidin when they were fighting the Soviet.
I will not go into a lot of detail, but it ended up that Osama Ben laden took that over and was running al-Qaeda through that. The connections to the Pakistani ISI still stood. The connections to the CIA still stood. Not in the way that was originally set up, but through a black or a gray operation. That had been later confirmed to me.
At the end of the day, when I was finished with certain parts of the investigation, it was clear to me that there was no way PTech could have done all of this without a lot of inside help. That is what I began focusing on: that it was a cutout, that it was a front. Was it a regular CIA front? Was it a clandestine front? What was it? There are walls within the FBI, walls within the CIA, behind which these operations take place. Who is behind those operations is a key question.
People might say, “Oh, this is all conspiracy theory,” but I would like to remind people that conspiracy is very much recognized by the United States Federal Code and it is called RICO Racketeering and Influence. It is very much recognized because there is so much power in these organizations that they have rules in place. For instance, the DCIA – the Director of CIA – cannot, after his term of DCIA, subsequently run for Vice President or President, which is what happened with George Herbert Walker Bush. That rule was bent for him. He went on from being the DCIA to running for Vice President. That is a No-no.
[music in background]
Bonnie: I am speaking with 9/11 whistleblower and risk technology architect, Indira Singh. Today’s show: Ground Zero 9/11: Blueprint for Terror, Part 2.
I am Bonnie Faulkner. This is “Guns and Butter”.
[music stops]
It sounds like you are describing an interlocking relationship, then, between this software company funded by Saudis and funded by whomever: the United States government, U.S. corporations, and then-known groups, globally, that are accused of staging terrorist attacks. This is all of a piece.
Indira: Yes. Absolutely. One of the things I want to say is, maybe those organizations do not fully know who their masters are. PTech is the one golden thread you pull on. All of this is unraveled because it goes into the corporations, it goes into these government entities, it goes into the terrorism financing entities. None of which have been, oh, by the way, taken to task.
There are just so many questions about what does this all mean? As we investigated further, we found that the origins of PTech were very interesting. Where did this company come from, obviously, is the first question. And how did they get to be so powerful? Who were the people or the organizations that brought them in? Who knew? Who gave them the power? Who, for instance, signed off Ziade’s U.S. citizenship without doing background checks? Who said that they had a bad feeling doing that?
I remember that PTech’s competitors, U.S. companies, were extremely annoyed at the fact that they could not get equal time. All the plum contracts were going to a foreign-owned company. I said, did you know they were foreign-owned, and if they are foreign owned, they could not get certain classified projects? And he said, “Indira , everyone knew some of them.”
Some of the competitors said everyone knew that they were Saudi-owned, and that meant that they got favorable treatment on Capitol Hill. I said, are you saying that they just got favor treatment or was there something more going on? They would not answer. Their lawyers instructed them not to answer. So, they knew a lot of what was going on.
Bonnie: Who were you talking to about this?
Indira: In one particular case, I was talking to one of their competitors, Popkin Software. I have no problem naming names because I think that in the memory of 3,000 U.S. and worldwide civilians who were murdered, if we are going to wage wars and spill blood around the world, we ought to take a look at this, and just have the truth come out, because the truth has not come out. There has been a lot of speculation. There has been a lot of innuendo, but there has not been hard proof.
PTech is the one situation where you can get hard proof. When we investigated PTech and the people behind it, where they came from, we found out that one of the founding members was a man by the name of Soliman Biheiri, who was one of the founding directors. He had put together a vehicle called BMI, which stands for bitol mal (?)[34:48:6].
BMI was identified as being involved with terror financing, but this is just not going to be “The Muslims hate America”. That is not what it is. There is something else going on here. They are being used as a tool, just as the good people of the United States are being used, are being misled and frightened and terrorized. And if we do not wage these horrific wars our way of life will be over. Who benefits from that?
Bonnie: What else did your investigation of PTech turn up? Didn’t you meet with several employees or former employees of PTech?
Indira: Yes. It goes back to when all of this was being revealed to me. This is the last week of May, 2002 – the last day, or June 1 or so of 2002 – and low and behold out of nowhere the Chicago FBI enters the picture. We have Agent Robert Wright, of the Chicago FBI, who was giving Congressional testimony. He stands on the steps of the Capitol and bursts into tears, apologizes to the 9/11 families’ victims that he did not do everything he could to prevent 9/11 from happening; that his investigations were repeatedly shut down.
I almost fell over because he announced that his investigation was investigation into Yassin al-Qadi, the same Sheikh Yassin all-Qadi who was the money-man behind PTech. You could not ask for a more direct connection to 9/11 than that. I will even discount the fact that some ex-PTech employees – when I went to see them, I presented all the terrorists’ faces – had indicated that they had seen some pass through PTech.
In fact, one or two had mentioned that they thought one of the hijackers had actually passed through PTech, and I said, did you report this to the FBI? Can you tell me when? Can you get evidence of that? Can you get litigation-quality evidence, something that would stand up? Whatever you can get, give it to me. Make copies. Give it to the FBI. I still thought they were on our side.
Bonnie: The FBI, you mean?
Indira: The FBI. In fact, and this has to be made very clear, there are some extraordinarily real patriotic Americans and good people in the FBI. As has been said by, I believe, Agent Colleen Rowley, one of the FBI whistleblower’s bosses, that there is a wall in the FBI. This has been validated to me by various attorneys in Houston who are very close to the power bases, and are pretty ticked off at what is happening to this country and they are speaking out. As are many CIA agents who are very concerned that it has gone too far. As are many NSA agents who are concerned that it has gone too far. And, FBI agents. So, we have a lot of people who are speaking out. They have kept quiet too long.
They are afraid. They are afraid of what is happening to this country. When I say the Third Reich, what is happening to this country, they say – and I will indentify “they” if pressed – we will make the Third Reich look like a tea party. I guess we have that many more billion people to control on this planet.
Bonnie: And when you say “they say” are you referring to people that you have spoken with in the FBI?
Indira: Absolutely, within the FBI, within the CIA. One of the things I did not want to have happen is that when PTech was finally raided in December 2002 – something that took all of six months- a tremendous amount of agony to have happen – the White House, Ari Fleischer, spun it to fine sugar that day. He said there’s nothing wrong; nothing here; not a thing to see here; everything is fine.
They did a token raid and that was basically it. Everything that I have done since that time has been for one reason and one reason only: that there may come a time that people will find the trail to PTech and it will not be hidden or buried. I have kept it alive. Whether they rename their company and move on, I want to keep the names, the details, everything alive, no matter what I have to do, so that should there come a time for justice and accounting for 9/11 and for what is happening in the world today, it makes it easier for other people to unravel the truth.
I have gone to the mainstream press. I have gone to people on the left, on the left of left, on the right, on the right of right, and I have talked to them face to face and said this is wrong. Whatever your political inclinations, this is wrong; this is criminal; this is murder; this is worldwide atrocity. And I have reached some very good people on the left and on the right who are willing to speak out about PTech.
I have contacted the alternative press. The alternative press, very much like the nine blind men and the elephant, touch a piece of PTech, they understand it and they say, “This fits my theory of how things went wrong.”
I have no problem with that because the facts are the facts. If someone wants to spin it to fit their particular viewpoint, for instance, From the Wilderness has said that this software that is in PTech is very much like PROMIS, the Prosecutor’s Management Information System, that has a whole cargo cult behind it of these legendary capabilities. Maybe back in the 80s and 90s it was legendary, but today you can do pretty amazing things with software. It is not a big deal.
Anyway, From the Wilderness and Mike Ruppert for instance, thesis was that Dick Cheney was running an alternate command and control center that day confusing everyone. And, in fact, there were four war games that were going on, on 9/11. Who knows why the fighters weren’t scrambled in time? Who knows all this?
In fact, the fighter to Pennsylvania was scrambled in time because we have first-hand proof – whistleblowers within the correct organizations – that that was shot down. It is just that “Let’s roll” was a better story; perhaps a story that the American people could handle. But, no, I was told at Ground Zero that day. We heard them go over and we knew they were shot down. We were told. It was just later that we were told the passengers brought it down.
If you are running a country and you are really under a terrorist attack that might be the way to go. Empower people by saying if this bad thing happens to you, get up and do something, and have a story. I really do not have such a big problem with that. But the fact of the matter is that it was shot down.
Bonnie: Oh, that is interesting. And you heard that on the day of September 11?
Indira: Yes, I did. And it was corroborated a couple of weeks ago by people who were in a particular situation room.
Bonnie: Did you want to say anything more about that?
Indira: It is possible that there was an alternate command and control system. Could you technically use PTech software to do surveillance and intervention? Well, gosh, yes. That is exactly what I was planning on using it for in one of the largest banks in the world. It is not a problem.
So, if someone wants to make it their thesis, I have no problem with that. However, I cannot say for sure that that was going on because I do not have direct first-hand knowledge of that and no one has told me and offered me proof of that. But could I state that it could happen? Absolutely, it could have happened.
Was it necessary for it to have happened in order for us to have a 9/11? I do not know. I do not think so. Maybe. Maybe not. That is not my point. The Towers came down. Three thousand people were killed. And what I know is the characters behind the funding of it were totally in bed with characters in the United States. Not only just for 9/11, but going on throughout our nation’s history. And the big question is why? What are they up to?
Bonnie: Could you describe the relationship of PTech with the FAA? PTech worked with the FAA for several years, didn’t they?
Indira: Yes. It was a joint project between PTech and MITRE. It is interesting. They were looking at, basically, holes in the FAA’s interoperability with responding with other agencies – law enforcement – in the case of an emergency such as a hijacking.
They were looking for the escalation process – what people would do, how they would respond in case of an emergency – and find the holes and make recommendations to fix it. Now if anyone was in a position to understand where the holes were, PTech was, and that is exactly the point: if anybody was in a position to write software to take advantage of those holes, it would have been PTech.
Bonnie: Was there a reference to PTech having operated in the basement out of the FAA?
Indira: Yes. Typically, because the scope of such projects are so over-arching and wide-ranging, when you are doing an enterprise architecture project, you have access to how anything in the organization is being done, where it is being done, on what systems, what the information is. You have carte blanche.
If it is a major project that spends several years, the team that comes in has, literally, access to almost anything that they want because you are operating on a blueprint level, on a massive scale. So, yes, they were everywhere, and I was told that they were in places that required clearances. I was told that they had log-on access to FAA flight control computers. I was told that they had passwords to many computers that you may not, on the surface, think has anything to do with finding out holes in the system, but let’s say you isolated part of a notification process that was mediated by computer and you wanted to investigate it further, then you would typically get log-on access to that computer. From that, back upstream or downstream. So, who knows?
From my own experience I could have access to almost anything I wanted to in J.P. Morgan-Chase. And, did not, for the reason that if anything went wrong, I did not want to have the access. But if you were up to no good as an enterprise architect with such a mandate, you typically could have access to anything.
Bonnie: What do you think of the claim by the so-called 9/11 Independent Commission and the testimony before it, in their report: intelligence agencies did not talk to each other? What did you think of their so-called report?
Indira: Completely flawed. Governor Kaine was the second choice for the head of the commission. I believe Henry Kissinger was the first. Governor Kaine had, oh, by the way, done business deals with BMI, Soliman Biheiri, PTech. None of which came out, which he should have volunteered and either recused himself as being had or have it out there in the open. There were three other members of the commission who had similar kinds of relationships in the past. They were all on the team.
But their findings were so flawed. They are using an excuse. Yes, there are interoperability communication issues in any organization. Yes, there are, but in a case of an emergency, it does not get that bollixed up.
Unless, of course, Roberta is right and Cheney was running interference somewhere. Or, someone was running interference. Or, whoever. We do not know.
There were four war games, four simulations, going on the morning of 9/11, and I just want people to remember that MITRE – they also develop software for intelligence, which includes the CIA – and PTech, if they were going to test whether they had fixed these holes, would have probably run a simulation. I do not know that they did, but that is how we do things. But there were four of them going on. So was there room for confusion? I do not think these people are stupid. I think they were deliberately confused, if anything.
Bonnie: We know very well that there was a simulation of the very event taking place during the event, right?
Indira: Yes, there was. I believe there is proof there was more than one just in case the first one did not confuse people enough. What does this say? I can be very objective about this and say the terrorists knew that there were war games scheduled for this day, and they took advantage of it and called 9/11 the particular day.
However, we do know that 9/11 had been selected prior. OK, so then maybe the war games were set many weeks prior for 9/11. You can play this game over and over and over. Yes, it was the perfect day. And, yes, you needed inside knowledge. And, yes, PTech, with all its myriad associations would have had the inside knowledge. And, yes, PTech was a CIA front. And, yes, PTech was protected.
So, was it an inside job? You do not have to look at this indirectly. This is direct. This requires direct investigation.
[end of audio: [0:48:06:0]]
James: Again, that is a stunning interview, jam packed with incredible information that goes to the very heart of 9/11, and I suggest that people who find this information important and find the controlled corporate media’s complete blackout on this information reprehensible, do their own part to get this word out by spreading the word about Indira Singh and this breakthrough interview.
Remarkably enough, considering the bombshell information provided by this corporate whistleblower, Indira Singh, about this company which actually operated in the basement of the FAA with complete and total access to every operational detail including their management of interoperability systems with NORAD, that could have directly affected the response of NORAD on 9/11. Absolutely nothing has resulted from the FBI investigation of this company and its links to terror.
“Oussama Ziade’s business has suffered millions in losses this year, none of which can be attributed to a limp economy. His lost millions can be attributed to his devastated professional reputation due to a bogus tip to Federal investigators and ensuing bad press. Really bad press.
“On December 4th, Ziade’s business, PTech, had been recognized as one of the top ten companies that matter by KMWorld for three years running, as well as one of the fastest growing tech companies in New England by Deloitte and Touch.
“PTech is a global supplier of software that helps clients visualize and analyze tech infrastructure and builds models for business planning. Clients include governmental agencies such as the FBI, the IRS, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Secret Service.
“Business was good until December 5th when PTech was visited by Federal investigators acting on a tip that a company investor had links to al-Qaeda, and that PTech may have designed a backdoor in its software allowing terrorists entry to the above named clients’ databases.
“Ziade cooperated, saying he had nothing to hide, while the government took measures to comelate at night in the hope that its visit would be stealthy. It wasn’t. The following day Ziade opened the newspaper and saw his photo next to a story describing a raid on PTech to investigate possible terrorist links. He became really scared.
“’It was a nightmare. I took my family out of the house immediately,’ he says. ‘I thought what if someone comes to my house. I was in a bad situation.’
“It would be 30 days before he would sleep through the night. In the meantime, he had to lay off a dozen employees because in the following two months business fell off by $3 million. It seemed many customers didn’t want to do business with a perceived terrorist sympathizer, while those who knew PTech and its founder extended kindness.
“By March, things started to get a little better. Word came directly from the White House, making official what the Feds thought all along, that there is no terrorist connection to PTech, nor was there ever any backdoor in the software.”
Again, that incredible mindless whitewash article, which provides no evidence whatsoever about the very real links of top PTech investors to terrorist organizations, was run in Mass High Tech Business Journal in 2003.
Just how ridiculous that whitewash is becomes clear in an excellent article from FrontPageMag.com, called “The Business of Terror,” by Dr. Rachael Ehrenfeld. This article comes from June 17, 2005, and reads in part:
“On May 11, 2005 Muhamed Mubayyid was arrested and charged in Boston’s district court for filing false tax returns on behalf of Care International for which he acted as Treasurer. Mubayyid was also the Customer Services Manager of the company known as PTech, a privately owned technology company based in Quincy, MA.
“Ptech, which recently changed its name to Go Agile, developed a software also called PTech that was used primarily to develop enterprise blueprints that held every important functional, operational, and technical detail of the given enterprise. Mubayyid is only the latest of PTech’s top investors and managers to run afoul with the law. Mubiad personifies the interlinks of the complex infrastructure which were established by al-Qaeda and other Islamist organizations in the U.S.
“Mubayyid was not arrested for his connection with al-Qaeda. Rather [he] was charged for making false statements and conspiring to defraud the U.S. by misrepresenting Care’s activities which involved ‘the solicitation and expenditure of funds to support and promote the Mujahidin and Jihad, including the distribution of pro-Jihad publications.’
“Care International is the now-defunct Muslim charity that was originally the Boston branch office of the al-Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn, N.Y., from which Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman funded and plotted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Care International was already publicly identified as supporting al-Qaeda back in 2002, yet it remained open, and several of its employees worked and/or were affiliated with Ptech. Ptech was raided by the FBI on December 6, 2002, following a tip from an employee who suspected that the company was connected to the 9/11 attacks.
“Indeed, on October 12, 2001, Yassin al-Qadi, Ptech’s top investor at that time, was listed by the US government as a specially designated global terrorist for his support of al-Qaeda. al-Qadi invested at least $18 million directly in Ptech, $5 million through the Isle of Man, and $9 million indirectly through BMI, a now-defunct New Jersey-based Islamic investment firm with connections to other members on Ptech’s management and investors. al-Qadi also transferred $2 million USD to Ptech from Switzerland between 1997 and 2000, according to Swiss investigators.. .
“al-Qadi’s businesses extend throughout the world, and included banking, diamonds, chemicals, construction, transportation, and real estate. It would be hard to find a more strategically placed individual to advance the agenda of al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization. al-Qadi is still at large, and according to recent media reports, expanding his business in Asia. The identities and connections of some other Ptech investors and managers should have also raised a red flag.
“Even Ptech removed from its website the names of several board members and/or their affiliations after a WSJ expose on December 6, 2002.”
All of that carefully researched article is backed up by another article, also incredibly well-researched and definitely worth looking into, from TheAmericanMonitor.com. This article is from January 16, 2007, and is headlined: “Ptech Owner’s Assets Confiscated in Albania.” It reads in part:
“The Albanian government has seized the assets of a wealthy Saudi that for several years reportedly maintained simultaneous connections to both al-Qaeda and the U.S. government while serving the interests of the CIA.
“’The Finance Ministry said it ordered authorities to block four apartments, a house, four bars and shops, and more than two hectares (about five acres) of land belonging to Yassin al-Qadi,’ the Associated Press reports, citing the Official Gazette.
“Yasin al-Qadi, the owner of the property, according to the U.S. Treasury Department, ‘heads the Saudi-based Muwafaq Foundation…an al-Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen.’ The Treasury has thus identified the prominent entrepreneur as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).
“Despite his alleged affiliations to terrorism, al-Qadi has maintained concurrent contacts within influential Washington circles. In fact, prior to being publicly connected to money laundering and terrorist financing, al-Qadi regularly spoke of his relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney.
“al-Qadi, who has been identified as one of Osama bin Laden’s ‘chief money launderers,’ owned a prominent U.S. technology firm and alleged CIA front known as Ptech. He also escorted U.S. officials around during their visits to Saudi Arabia.
“As reported by the Associated Press, al-Qadi ‘allegedly worked with Osama bin Laden to provide support to terror networks in Albania,’ prompting the recent confiscation of his assets in that country.
“According to the Associated Press, al-Qadi used six different names for the recently seized assets, all of which were in the Tirana area, Albania’s capital city.
“One charity to allegedly launder money in Albania for the al-Qaeda network was Yasin al-Qadi’s Muwafaq Foundation.
“Khalid bin Mahfouz, an extremely influential and wealthy Saudi who ‘established and funded’ the Muwafaq Foundation, was once the principal shareholder and director of BCCI, a criminal enterprise used by the CIA during the 1980s to funnel cash to Osama bin Laden for the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan.
“As former DEA undercover agent Michael Levine explained to The New American in 1999, the U.S. armed and funded “the worst elements of the Mujahidin in Afghanistan — drug traffickers, arms smugglers, anti-American terrorists. We later paid the price when the World Trade Center was bombed [in 1993], and we learned that some of those responsible had been trained by us. Now we’re doing the same thing with the KLA.”
“’These guys,’ Levine said, referring to the KLA, ‘have a network that’s active on the streets of this country. … They’re the worst elements of society that you can imagine, and now, according to my sources in drug enforcement, they’re politically protected.’
“According to Yossef Bodansky, Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association, ‘The role of the Albanian Mafia, which is tightly connected to the KLA, is laundering money, providing technology, safe houses, and other support to terrorists within this country.’
“’In any case,’ Bodansky told The New American, ‘a serious investigation of the Albanian mob isn’t going to happen, because they’re ‘our boys’ — they’re protected.’
“This may help explain why, according to FBI whistleblower Robert Wright, his investigation into Yasin al-Qadi during the 1990s was “intentionally and repeatedly thwarted and obstructed” by higher ups at the FBI.
“According to Agent Wright, who seized $1.4 million directly linked to al-Qadi in 1998, ‘FBI intelligence agents lied and hid vital records from criminal agents for the purpose of obstructing his criminal investigation of the terrorists in order to protect their ‘subjects,’ and prolong their intelligence operations,’ as reported by the group representing Wright, Judicial Watch.
“”The supervisor who was there from headquarters was right straight across from me and started yelling at me: ‘You will not open criminal investigations. I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects,'” Agent Wright told ABC News in 2002.
“According to Agent Wright and other members of his former unit, the money trails of the 1998 African embassy bombings led back to al-Qadi, but even after the bombings, FBI headquarters wanted no arrests.
“According to Agent Wright, it is very likely that 9/11 would have been prevented if he had simply been allowed to do his job.”
Again, the importance of all of this information cannot be underestimated. Special Agent Robert Wright said he was investigating a company with 26 subsidiaries and when he was referring to that, he was referring to BMI, the large organization which had PTech as one the jewels in its crown. It later came out that the head of the 9/11 Commission, Governor Kaine, actually sold the piece of property in New Jersey through BMI, Inc.
What does it mean that Robert Wright’s investigation into BMI and PTech and the global terrorist financiers was “shut down”? And that the person who was appointed to head the 9/11 Commission, after Kissinger did not make the grade with the 9/11 victims’ family members, actually had dealings with that company?
For more information on that, please look into FBI agent Robert Wright, and the claims that he made in September 2002; that the FBI was continuing to protect terrorists from criminal investigations.
And for even more information on the cover-up, I suggest an article entitled “Michael Chertoff and the Sabotage of the PTech Investigation,” which details how Chertoff was involved in a turf-war with the FBI for control over Operation Green Quest, the special customs investigation force which Indira Singh cited in that interview with Bonnie Faulkner, that was charged with finding and tracking down international sources of funding for global terrorists.
Perhaps it is no surprise and no coincidence that after Chertoff gained control of Operation Green Quest, it became completely ineffectual, as evidenced by an article on the Counterterrorism Blog by Christopher Heffelfinger, called “Operation Green Quest Unresolved,” which notes that this massive multi-agency initiative has not yet yielded any convictions, and that was as of October 2007.
For those wondering what has happened to Indira Singh since 2005, you might want to join the club. She has gone underground in the last three years, presumably as a way of staying safe while she continues to research and write her book about the PTech investigation and the various links that she has uncovered through that investigation.
She has recently resurfaced, however, to write a memorial to Michael Corbin, a radio talk-show host, who has interviewed Indira Singh before, and who died under mysterious circumstances in March of this year.
I direct listeners, again, to the Documentation list for this episode from which they can find a link to Indira Singh’s memorial to Michael Corbin, and also to the interviews that Michael Corbin conducted with Indira Singh in which she goes even further into naming the names behind PTech, and her investigations into the global terrorist financing ring.
Again, this is the deep research which really will expose those people who had a hand in not only perpetrating, but in then covering up the attacks of 9/11, and this sophisticated enterprise architecture, the software, that they used to help bring those attacks about.
It is my hope that this episode of The Corbett Report does not present all of the answers to what happened on 9/11 in one neat little package, but I do hope that it presents enough information to get you thinking and get you started on your own research. It is only by the collective efforts of a community united in a common cause of exposing the real culprits of 9/11 that we can ever hope to achieve 9/11 justice.
Please get out there and use these articles and this interview as a basis for your own deep research. And please keep The Corbett Report updated on your research. Again, I invite all my listeners to submit articles to The Corbett Report through the Contact function of the corbettreport.com Home page.
[music begins]
That is it for today. Thank you for joining me. And join me again next week for another edition of The Corbett Report.
