The 9/11 Commission and its final report are still held up as the final word on the events of September 11, 2001. But there's just one problem: Six out of the 10 commissioners have admitted that the ... View More
The 9/11 Commission and its final report are still held up as the final word on the events of September 11, 2001. But there's just one problem: Six out of the 10 commissioners have admitted that the commission was misled, stymied, hampered by conflicts of interest, and, ultimately, forced to participate in a politically-motivated cover-up. This is the story of the doubtful 9/11 commissioners.
9/11 Whistleblowers: The 9/11 Commissioners
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
9/9/19: TRY TO REMEMBER THE LIES OF SEPTEMBER | Ground Zero with Clyde Lewis
Since 9/11, it seems like the country has been in a cascading crisis. The attacks exploited many of America’s core systems and values which have now become increasingly fragile behind the thin facad
PLAY IT AGAIN SCAM MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
Collective memory refers to how groups remember their past. Today while Americans remember 9/11 and subsequent events, the collective memory like man... View MorePLAY IT AGAIN SCAM MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
Collective memory refers to how groups remember their past. Today while Americans remember 9/11 and subsequent events, the collective memory like many memories of tragic events can be blurred or even incorrect.
Defective memory recall has been the explanation for what has been called the Mandela Effect as many people recall pop culture events in many different ways –far from the actuality of what really concurred.
For example, many generations have passed since World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. All the memories are dying as those who were there have aged and have passed away.
Families can recollect the stories that great-grandpa told about the war — Hollywood can fill in the rest but is it truly history and we need to ask ourselves how emotions affect the collective memory.
Collective memory about World War II, Korea, and Vietnam now are simply facts about recollections second hand. When asked to remember World War II, Americans report numerous events, but the majority of people report the attack on Pearl Harbor, D-Day and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
To understand a country’s memories is to grasp something essential about their national identity and outlook. Of course, countries do not have memories; it is the people in the country who retain the memories, but often there are common themes rather than true memories.
Collective remembering implies that collective forgetting also occurs and 18 years is enough time to forget details about 9/11 and so out of sheer laziness we trust the official narrative that tries to cloud some inconvenient facts that were reported first hand on the day that we are told we should never forget.
Collective memory is a burgeoning topic of research, one that might be used to understand the perspective of people in other groups, whether of a nation or of a political party or other social group. In certain cases, we can also measure collective forgetting and the events of 9/11 should be analyzed for clarity and also the narrative that is played over and over again should be exposed as an attempt to induce false memory and should be called a scam.
It can be argued that false memory implantation of 9/11 created a social contagion that began the extreme polarization of the country. It can be argued that false memories and lies about the event were intentionally made in order to provide impetus for declaring two wars with the potential for more and the lingering paranoia that was used to scare people into thinking that if they did not accept new laws that destroyed their civil rights –another event similar to the attack on New York would be carried out with more people dying and more people in peril.
A particularly dramatic form of social contagion is seen in studies of memory implantation. In these studies, rather than conversation shaping memory for incidents that actually happened, individuals are induced into taking on rich, vivid memories that were conjured and used for social engineering.
The conjurers of these contagious memories are the media and teachers who do not value the need for accurate history that supersedes political leanings or ideology.
In America today, the education system has failed in its attempt to create an interest in preserving historical consciousness. The various narrators of the events of 9/11 have intentionally overlooked details that have certainly put the official narrative in the category of induced false collective memory.
The mainstream media will be a mouthpiece for a political agenda. They have a very important influence on the formation of collective memory.
Moreover, studies on collective memory have suggested that this effect of inducing false memory by a powerful narrator can occur independently of whether the narrator is viewed as an expert. One can imagine a variety of circumstances in which one person dominates a discussion, even though the group does not view the individuals as possessing any special knowledge or expertise.
This means that regardless of who sits at the news desk with the lights and cameras rolling they are by no means an expert – they are only paid to be powerful narrators. The public, unfortunately, trusts them without knowing their backgrounds in journalism or in the subject they profess to know about.
News documentaries and Hollywood movies are an effective and influential means of spreading memories within groups. Even if the history is twisted or glamorized for the public, a lot of things we believe about history have been given the Hollywood veneer in order to make them palatable for the public’s cognitive resonance.
Through conversations, and viral stories passed around in social networks people come to a shared rendering of the past, where otherwise people would possess their own individual rendering.
There are those who still have their individual renderings, especially those who experienced what has happened first hand.
Bringing the attacks of the Twin Towers in our homes made the 911 events a shared experience but it was through the keyhole provided by the mainstream media.
When people remember the past in a social context, when they rely on recall they get from the media and from Hollywood there is the potential, through social contagion, to influence each individual’s subsequent memories and thus increase the cohesiveness of these initially disparate memories.
Things like the Mandela Effect, faulty recall, all have the potential to implant new memories and even more epiphanies about historical events.
Even though we are told that we should never forget the events of 9/11, the whole process of creating new memories is the act of forgetting other moments and memories that when not repeated are forgotten over time.
Could conversations 18 years after 911 serve as vehicles for promoting forgetting as well as remembering?
I would say yes.
84 percent of the American people feel as though we have not been told everything about the attacks of 9/11 and there has never been an event so sacred in American history as that dreadful day.
So what is it that has been forgotten – what has not been said in 18 years that needs to be said? What needs to be revealed in order to show that there has been a concerted effort to plant false memories about the event, we are told not to forget.
There is no reason to forget. Perhaps there is no reason to forgive, I am only saying that we can’t let the event cloud what happened to our country and how it was the catalyst that opened the dialogue for the socialist state and the complete and utter negation of constitutional rights.
That it was the catalyst for the polarization of the nation long before we put all of our hate into President Trump.
It is terrifying to remember that immediately after the events of 9/11 We were convinced of the necessity of big government making big decisions that were unpopular and uncomfortable and we are now in a very frightening time in our history where the shadow of what happened looms forever as a political football in the hands of endgame strategists that will do anything to keep us in a state of flux.
When we are terrified or confused we forget what is happening in real-time. We hide and we flee. We ignore details and in some moments accept cherished myths that take the sting away from the reality that we have always been vulnerable.
When you ask people to revisit the events of 9/11 and reconsider what really happened, you enter the Twilight Zone of public mythology where people don’t want to rethink unhappy events and where you challenge their personal egos. If you eliminate the emotional baggage and the constant bombardment of the false narrative you may be able to see the truth. Images begin to re-emerge and forgotten information comes back.
All of this we see being reported in the mainstream now, all of what awaits us could have been prevented if we were just able to see through the programming years before the event. If we are to look back in history we can see that there seems to be a paper trail of intent, a money trail of crime and denial of people that want to hold on to an ideal that died the day the towers fell.
FDR once said, “If it happens, it is because we planned it that way.” This kind of mindset negates the belief that people are always in control of their government. Voting seems to be the last great argument of defense. But as we can obviously see the stakes are so awesome in this contest of life and death, that the characterization of the good guys and the bad guys have reached new levels of propaganda. Those who coerce you into believing that the government will protect you from terror are very likely to be the criminal element behind that terror. They have created it and they can cure it.
They can also convince you how it all happened, with a tone of religious reverence and nationalist mythology powerful enough to convince people that giving up rights and freedoms are acts of patriotism.
One man who knew how to use political mythology was Philip D. Zelikow. At Harvard, he uncannily predicted the future. He had written in 1998 that in the future the inevitable next step is terrorism. He stated in his work “Catastrophic Terrorism” that readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves because the most serious constraint on current policy [non-aggression] is lack of imagination.
“An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force.”
More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great “success” or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a “before” and “after.” The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the “before” period, will seem woeful, even pathetic when compared to what will happen “after.” Our leaders will be judged negligent for not addressing catastrophic terrorism more urgently.” – Philip D. Zelikow, “Imagining the Transforming Event.”
Zelikow also believed that policy and history can be misused to reform cultural myth. He believed that: “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to [the] notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.”
Zelikow was the executive director of the little known Aspen Strategy Group whose members included Condoleeza Rice. He also worked with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz – the same men responsible for drafting the ‘Project for the New American Century’.
Philip D. Zelikow was the author of the 9/11 Commission Report – the report was later was demonstrated to be a complete myth, full of lies and propaganda meant to shape what we now know as the 9/11 narrative.
Both Rice and Zelikow appeared on NBC’ Today Show promoting yet another book pushing the Neocon vision of a post 911 world called “To Build a Better World” and praising the work of their co-conspirator John Bolton who recently was fired by President Trump as National Security Advisor.
The interview illustrates that the same people
We want to control the narrative and that they wish to keep their secrets close to their vest.
Is it any wonder that there are conspiracy theories being spun about the 9/11 attacks?
In all of the chaos, there were so many stories being thrown around in the media that no one got the real truth about what was happening. Even Washington couldn’t get their suspects straight.
While Osama bin Laden was the media darling and chief evil-doer-in-charge. He wasn’t even Washington’s first choice as mastermind for the attacks. All points and circumstantial evidence was being calculated by Donald Rumsfeld and he had expressed great interest in focusing our manhunt in another area.
CBS News reported in 2009: “that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.”
It was John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others that created the PNAC brief in order to send a message to Bill Clinton that he was too soft on Iraq. They demanded a regime change on January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections. Members of the PNAC drafted an open letter to President Clinton asking him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political and military power. They thought that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle Eastern Allies and oil resources in the region. They also claimed that he had weapons of mass destruction.
It’s all the same stuff we heard about after 9/11.
Does this surprise you – do you remember this? It certainly wasn’t brought up during the Condoleeza Rice interview. In fact, after Philip Zelikow praised John Bolton, the pair were asked questions about the President’s decision to meet with the Taliban and Camp David and then it dovetailed into questions about Vladimir Putin’s relationship with the President and the Russian meddling and collusion in the 2016 election.
None of this, in my opinion, was important on a day where we are supposed to remember the 911 attacks.
Unless we remember who headed up the investigation of 911 – none other than Robert Mueller head of the FBI at the time. Robert Mueller, of course, we all know is the man who recently led the probe into allegations of Trump/Russia collusion.
The media has placed in the public collective memory the idea that Mueller was a relentless crusader standing up to Trump and digging for truth.
But when it came to investigating foreign influence into 9/11, he wasn’t much of a truth warrior at all. Of course, the state sponsor of 911 was not clear enough in our collective memory of 911 thanks to Mueller and for some reason, Saudi Arabia was overlooked in the quest for truth even though Osama bin Laden was a Saudi and 15 of the 18 hijackers were Saudi nationals. It was a case of putting political interests first and not the victims of the attacks.
Do you remember?
Both the so-called phantoms of the attacks—Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are dead which in the end we were told had nothing to do with 911. It is also forgotten that Osama bin Laden may have died weeks after the September 11th attacks due to kidney failure.
And yet the announcement of his death was made by Barack Obama on May 1st, 2011.
Is this some sort of Mandela Effect? Does your memory play tricks?
Timing is everything. Do not forget the attacks of 9/11, but understand that the collective memory is being used to lure us in a social trance. A trance that may bring us back to the idea that the safe route is to find a new scapegoat; however, the suspects have always been in plain sight.
Some of them are still pulling the strings.
9/11/19: PLAY IT AGAIN SCAM | Ground Zero with Clyde Lewis
Today while Americans remember 9/11 and subsequent events, the collective memory like many memories of tragic events can be blurred or even incorrect. The various narrators of the events of 9/11 have
9/11 - Anatomy of a Great Deception - Complete Version
More info at
http://www.ae911truth.org/Should you like to buy your own copy of 'Anatomy of a Great Deception' you can do so here:
http://www.agd...
9/11 Whistleblowers: Cate Jenkins go to Corbett Report page for links included in transcript
Dr. Cate Jenkins joined the EPA as an Environmental Scientist in December 1979. Beginning shortly after 9/11... View More9/11 Whistleblowers: Cate Jenkins go to Corbett Report page for links included in transcript
Dr. Cate Jenkins joined the EPA as an Environmental Scientist in December 1979. Beginning shortly after 9/11, and continuing for years afterward, Dr. Jenkins attempted to bring the EPA’s faulty and fraudulent air quality testing practices to the attention of anyone who would listen. For her efforts, she endured a years-long legal battle with her own agency. This is her story.
To watch the full 9/11 Whistleblowers series, please CLICK HERE. https://www.corbettreport.com/911whistleblowers/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/h1CewEYLqjw/
TRANSCRIPT
Of the many scenes from September 11, 2001, that have been etched into the public consciousness, few are as iconic as the images of the survivors and first responders escaping Ground Zero completely covered in dust from the destruction of the Twin Towers.
And of the many, many lies told by government officials in the days following the attacks, few have been as blatant or as clearly documented as the lies about the safety of that dust propounded by the EPA and its administrator at the time, Chrstine Todd Whitman.
CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: We know asbestos was in there, was in those buildings. Lead is in the those buildings. There are the VOC’s [Volatile Organic Compounds], however, the concentrations are such that they don’t pose a heath hazard.
SOURCE: Christie Whitman says air is safe days after 911
WHITMAN: Well, if there’s any good news out of all this, it’s that everything we’ve tested for, which includes asbestos, lead, and VOCs have been below any level of concern for the general public health. Obviously, for those who are down here, these are very important…
SOURCE: Sanjay Gupta reports: Terror in the dust
WHITMAN: Statements that EPA officials made after 9/11 were based on the judgement of experienced environmental and health professionals at the EPA, OSHA and the CDC, who had analyzed the test data that 13 different organizations and agencies were collecting in Lower Manhattan.
I do not recall any EPA scientist or experts responsible for viewing this data ever advising me that the test data from Lower Manhattan showed that the air or water proposed long-term health risks for the general public.
SOURCE: Air Contamination at Ground Zero – C-Span
As we now know, these statements were all lies.
As early as September 18th, the very same day that Whitman was assuring New Yorkers that the air was safe to breathe, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had already detected sulfur dioxide levels in the air so high that “according to one industrial hygienist, they were above the EPA’s standard for a classification of ‘hazardous’.” And even in those early days, first responders were already reporting a range of health problems, including coughing, wheezing, eye irritation and headaches. Even so, Whitman and the EPA persisted in perpetuating the lies about the dust, assuring New Yorkers that respirators were not needed outside of the “restricted area” around Ground Zero.
And, as we examined in 9/11 Suspects: Christine Todd Whitman, it was later confirmed that the White House had been editing the EPA’s press releases on the air quality in Manhattan and removing warnings about the air safety all along.
LISA MYERS: In the wake of 9/11, there were serious concerns about whether the air around ground zero was filled with toxins, unsafe for workers and residents. But by September 18th, many New Yorkers were back in their apartments and on the job, partly because of this press release that day from the Environmental Protection Agency, reassuring New Yorkers that their air is safe to breathe.
Was that press release misleading?
NIKKI TINSLEY: It was surely not telling all of the truth.
MYERS: In an exclusive interview, Inspector General Nikki Tinsley, the EPA’s top watchdog, tells NBC News the agency simply did not have sufficient data to justify such a reassurance. In fact, a new report by Tinsley’s office says at the time, more than 25 percent of dust samples collected before September 18th showed unsafe levels of asbestos. And the EPA had no test results at all on PCBs, dioxins or particulates in the air that can cause respiratory problems.
TINSLEY: The EPA did not give the people of New York complete information.
MYERS: So what happened? Tinsley’s report charges in the crucial days after 9/11 the White House changed EPA press releases to “add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.” September 13th, the EPA draft release, never released to the public, says, EPA “testing terrorized sites for environmental hazards.” The White House changes that to EPA “reassures public about environmental hazards.” September 16th, the EPA draft says, “recent samples of dust on Water Street show higher levels of asbestos.” The White House version: “new samples confirm ambient air quality meets OSHA standards and is not a cause for public concern.” And the White House leaves out entirely this warning, that “air samples raise concerns for cleanup workers and office workers near Water Street.”
SOURCE: Officials claim EPA Misled Public about Safety of Air Quality at Ground Zero
What many do not know, because their story has been largely ignored and marginalized, is that there were officials within the EPA who were desperately trying to blow the whistle on the agency’s lies. Officials like Cate Jenkins.
Dr. Cate Jenkins had joined the EPA in December 1979, serving as an Environmental Scientist with EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Her work included “detecting hazardous waste and developing regulations for their control,” a role that took on special importance in the wake of the toxic dust clouds covering Manhattan on 9/11. Unlike many of the other 9/11 whistleblowers, however, the events of September 11, 2001 did not represent the first time Dr. Jenkins had to blow the whistle on her own agency.
Jenkins dealt with many hazardous waste products in her job, but she specialized in Dioxin (a.k.a. Agent Orange), a contaminant of wood preservatives that was used in the Vietnam War as a defoliant. Monsanto Chemical Corporation was the largest producer of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, and it was a series of Monsanto-sponsored studies in the early 1980s that led the EPA to conclude that “human evidence supporting an association” between dioxin and cancer “is considered inadequate.”
In February 1990, Jenkins wrote a memo to the EPA Science Advisory Board alleging that the Monsanto-sponsored studies were fraudulent, and that the studies, if performed correctly, would have shown the carcinogenic effects of dioxin. The memo caught the attention of the press and, under the glare of a media spotlight, the EPA launched a criminal investigation of Monsanto. That investigation was opened on August 20th and closed less than two years later, but, as EPA whistleblower William Sanjour notes, “the investigation itself and the basis for closing the investigation were fraudulent.” No attempt was even made to determine the scientific validity of the studies in question, and the EPA declined to pursue the matter because of statute of limitations technicalities.
The EPA did, however, find time to mount a campaign of retribution against Jenkins for having the audacity to blow the whistle on the agency and its listing practices for hazardous chemicals. Her work load was reduced and higher ups at the EPA immediately began talking about shunting her off into a purely administrative position where she would “not be involved with anything that puts her in direct contact with the regulated community or the public.” Her supervisor even wrote a letter to Monsanto apologizing for Jenkins’ memo questioning their studies.
Jenkins filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, and, in a series of cases that were appealed all the way up to the Secretary of Labor himself, it was found that she had been unfairly retaliated against for her whistleblowing and the EPA was ordered to reinstate her in her previous position.
But as nightmarish as that years-long, potentially career-ending ordeal in whistleblowing was for Dr. Jenkins, it was nothing compared to the ordeal she would have to face after “the day that changed everything.”
Beginning shortly after the attack, and continuing for years afterward, Dr. Jenkins attempted to bring the EPA’s faulty and fraudulent air quality testing practices to the attention of anyone who would listen. According to the Administrative Review Board of The US Department of Labor:
“Beginning in 2001, Jenkins made numerous disclosures and complaints alleging that the EPA engaged in improper laboratory testing, falsified a regulation governing exposure safety standards, and knowingly covered up the toxic properties of the dust emanating from the September 11, 2001 (“9/11”) World Trade Center (WTC) disaster. The improper testing and cover-up, Jenkins claimed, contributed to excessive and harmful toxic dust exposures of WTC “First Responders” and others sufficient to later cause respiratory and other serious and debilitating disease. Jenkins disseminated these disclosures and complaints to her supervisors and others at EPA, to the EPA Inspector General’s Office, members of Congress, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as to state officials, state elected representatives, law firms representing WTC First Responders, citizens, and the media. Her disclosures were posted on web sites and repeatedly quoted in the press and television broadcasts, and by members of Congress.”
One of these early memos, dated January 11, 2002, was written on EPA letterhead and addressed to “Affected Parties and Responsible Officials.” It examines the case of Libby, Montana—a designated “Superfund” site where the federal government is paying to help residents clean the “interiors of homes and residential soils [that] have been contaminated with asbestos from an adjacent vermiculite mining operation.” Jenkins compared the levels of contaminated dust particles found inside apartments in Lower Manhattan after 9/11 to dust samples taken in Libby, finding that the New York samples contained 22 times higher concentrations of asbestos than the Montana samples. As Jenkins noted: “The logical question thus arises: Why is EPA leaving people to their own devices in the cleanup of New York City, while intervening to clean homes at taxpayer expense in Libby?”
Worse, a team of independent scientists hired by tenant groups and New York political leaders found much higher samples of asbestos in the dust than what the EPA was reporting. As Dr. Jenkins told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at the time: “For every asbestos fiber EPA detected, the new methods used by the outside experts found nine. [. . .] This is too important a difference to be ignored if you really care about the health of the public.”
CATE JENKINS: New York City directly lied about the test results for asbestos in the air. When they finally released them, they doctored the results. They changed high hazardous levels to zero when they finally released them.
SOURCE: 911 Dust and Deceit at the World Trade Center
After years of internal memos, press interviews and other tireless efforts to blow the whistle on the severe health issues that would develop as a result of the EPA’s deliberate cover up, the mainstream media was finally forced to begin covering the issue in 2006, after many of the Ground Zero clean up workers and the residents of Manhattan were beginning to succumb to the effects of the deadly dust.
In 2006, after a federal judge ruled that Whitman’s post-9/11 lies were “conscience-shocking” and that she would not be granted immunity for her actions, the media finally began to cover the story. The New York Times, CBS and other outlets all ran stories on the scandal, and they all quoted from Jenkins’ memos and featured interviews with Jenkins herself. After the 5th anniversary came and went on September 11, 2006, however, the media’s attention turned elsewhere and the story drifted out of the attention of the public once again.
But Dr. Jenkins’ attempt to obtain justice for the victims of this horrendous crime did not end there. In 2007, she penned a remarkable 134-page letter addressed to then-Senator Hillary Clinton, as well as Congressmen Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, calling for a Senate investigation of the falsification of pH corrosivity data for World Trade Center dust. The thoroughly documented letter, containing over 300 footnotes and citations, included a detailed analysis of the falsification of WTC pH data by groups like the US Geological Survey, and the remarkable story of how “In May 1980, EPA’s hazardous waste program falsified pH levels (changed the numbers) that the UN World Health Organization (WHO) International Labour Organization (ILO) determined would invariably result in corrosive permanent tissue damage (chemical burns).”
In a much shorter—though no less explosive—letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation written at the same time, Jenkins also called for the FBI to open a criminal investigation into the EPA’s cover up. This was followed up with an additional letter to the FBI in 2008 where Jenkins went even further, alleging fraud in pH testing of WTC dust and providing documentation that the EPA lab had diluted WTC dust almost 600 times with water before testing it for corrosivity.
Remarkably, despite her very public and very serious charges against the federal agency, and despite her past experience blowing the whistle on the EPA and subsequent years-long court battle to retain her position, Jenkins told Occupational Hazards magazine in 2002 that she did not fear losing her job over her comments. “All [EPA] management has to do is say, ‘Stop,’ and they haven’t,” she said, adding that as an EPA official, speaking out about lapses in the agency’s WTC effort does not require courage, just plenty of hard work.
Despite this belief, Dr. Jenkins was indeed fired from the EPA on December 30, 2010.
The firing followed a series of inane workplace incidents that resulted in suspensions and other retaliatory measures against Jenkins. The chain of events included Jenkins sending an email under the title “Op-Ed: Should EPA Institute a Workplace Fragrance Ban as Part of its Endocrine Disruptor Initiative?” after an encounter with a heavily-perfumed IT tech triggered an asthma attack in Jenkins, and her supervisor recommending that she be suspended, as the email—which was only sent to other EPA staff—”could have misled recipients as to whether it was an official EPA communication.” Eventually, the supervisor claimed that the series of incidents culminated with Jenkins threatening him in a workplace incident that was witnessed by no one.
As the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, who supported Jenkins in her ordeal with the agency, summarized:
“Dr. Cate Jenkins, a senior chemist with more than three decades of agency tenure, publicly charged that due to falsified EPA standards, First Responders waded into dust so corrosive that it caused chemical burns deep within their respiratory systems. After raising the issue to the EPA Inspector General, Congress and the FBI, Dr. Jenkins was isolated, harassed and ultimately removed from her position on December 30, 2010 by EPA, based upon an un-witnessed and contested claim that the soft-spoken, petite childhood polio survivor threatened her 6-foot male supervisor.”
Continuing through a series of appeals, legal wrangling and bureaucratic red tape, Jenkins succeeded in having her employment reinstated in 2012.
AMY GOODMAN: A government whistleblower who was fired after exposing the dangers of asbestos and dust on workers at Ground Zero in the days after 9/11 has been reinstated to her job following a federal court decision. Cate Jenkins, a chemist who worked for the Environmental Protection Agency, was the first EPA official to warn that dust in the air around the World Trade Center could pose a serious health risk. But the head of the EPA at the time claimed there was no reason for concern. Jenkins accused the EPA of intentionally hiding the dangers of air pollution at Ground Zero. She was fired in 2010. A federal court has now ruled Jenkins must be reinstated and given back pay.
SOURCE: Democracy Now, May 8, 2012
Incredibly, even this was not the end of Jenkins’ ordeal.
Instead of returning her to her daily work duties in 2012 as ordered, the EPA instead kept Jenkins on paid administrative leave and then re-filed the same charges against her in 2013. Less than a year after being ordered to give her her job back, the agency was instead trying to take it away again, saying that Jenkins had failed to prove that the EPA was retaliating for her whistleblowing.
The agency’s move was especially galling given that Jenkins had yet to be given a chance to prove her case. Part of the reason that the EPA had been ordered to restore Jenkins to her job was because the agency had been found to have destroyed records pertaining to her case and otherwise obstructed discovery. In fact, her case that the EPA had retaliated against her for her whistleblowing was still before the Department of Labor.
The entire legal ordeal proceeded for years, finally coming to an end in 2018—a full eight years after the agency’s first attempt to fire her—when the Department of Labor confirmed a 2015 decision that the EPA had “retaliated against [Jenkins] for her reports to Congress and the FBI, and to the public through the media, about her allegations of violation of environmental laws and regulations by the EPA in connection with the rescue and cleanup operations at the WTC, in violation of the whistleblower provisions of the Clean Air Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.”
After nearly two decades of research and whistleblowing and almost ten years of legal nightmare, Jenkins was finally vindicated. She had been unjustly fired for attempting to call attention to the agency’s wrongdoings, and she was restored to her position.
But although this victory is to be celebrated, it comes as slim comfort to those seeking justice for the victims of 9/11, not just those killed in the buildings that day, and not just the victims of the wars that have been waged in the name of September 11th, but the victims of the toxic dust that Cate Jenkins and others have been warning about since the events unfolded.
And meanwhile, those who pushed the deadly lies about the air quality have moved on with their lives, continuing their careers and only occasionally being confronted by the independent media that is still attempting to shed light on the story.
DERRICK BROZE: Ms. Whitman, I appreciate your talk in there. You guys mentioned voting and the power of shaming voters. I feel like there’s probably a lot of folks who feel like you might need to be shamed since it’s been 17 years since 9/11 and nearly 10,000 people are now sick with 9/11 related illnesses. And I know you apologized about it two years ago and you were cleared in the courts, but all evidence points to your time in the Bush administration clearly led to people being sick and led to people getting cancer.
WHITMAN: Everything that I said was based on the best available science at the time. Science has progressed now. I think we found things that we didn’t know then. But I never said anything that wasn’t predicated on what the scientists told me. That morning—every morning—I had a conference call with the scientists: “What is safe to say? What can I say? What shouldn’t I say?” And they kept repeating that they were seeing nothing in their studies that show that there was a long-term health consequence from the air in Manhattan in general and lower Manhattan in general.
SOURCE: Christine Todd Whitman (Fmr EPA head) Confronted About 9/11 First Responder Deaths
They may not be the lies we think of when we think of the lies of 9/11—lies which led to the illegal invasion of Afghanistan and contributed to the illegal invasion of Iraq—but the EPA’s lies about the World Trade Center dust have killed many hundreds.
And, like a Cassandra cursed with the ability to foresee a grim future that she could not prevent, Cate Jenkins spent decades of her life warning of the consequences of those lies. And for her service, she faced years of persecution. Worst of all, her warnings were dismissed until they could no longer be denied.
And there are still those who claim that 9/11 does not have its whistleblowers.
9/11 Whistleblowers: Cate Jenkins
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
In the early 2000s, Kevin Ryan was the site manager at Environmental Health Laboraties. On November 11, 2004, he wrote directly to Frank Gayle, the director of NIST’s Twin Towers investigation. The fo... View MoreIn the early 2000s, Kevin Ryan was the site manager at Environmental Health Laboraties. On November 11, 2004, he wrote directly to Frank Gayle, the director of NIST’s Twin Towers investigation. The following week, he was fired. This is his story.
TRANSCRIPT
“But someone would have talked” say the self-styled skeptics that believe the government’s official conspiracy theory of 9/11.” After all, every major conspiracy has its whistleblowers, doesn’t it?”
But there’s a problem with this logically fallacious non-argument. “Someone” did talk. In fact, numerous people have come out to blow the whistle on the events of September 11, 2001, and the cover up that surrounds those events.
These are the stories of the 9/11 Whistleblowers.
You’re tuned in to The Corbett Report.
In 2001, Kevin Ryan was the site manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. At the time, EHL was a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), a global safety consulting and certification corporation that tests a range of consumer and industrial products for compliance with government safety standards. Among many other things, UL provides fire resistance ratings for structural steel components to insure compliance with New York City building codes.
Just weeks after the events of September 11, 2001, UL’s then-CEO, Loring Knoblauch, visited Ryan’s EHL lab in South Bend. During his speech there, Knoblauch assured the lab’s workers that UL “had certified the steel in the World Trade Center buildings” and “that we should all be proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions.” Knowing UL’s role in producing a fire resistance directory and providing ratings for steel components, Ryan thought little of the statement at the time.
But Ryan’s curiosity about UL’s role in the certification of the World Trade Center steel was piqued when, in 2003, he began to question the lies that the Bush administration had used to justify the invasion of Iraq, and, eventually, to question the official story of September 11th itself. Recalling Knoblauch’s comments about UL’s role in certifying the Trade Center steel shortly after 9/11, Ryan began to take a professional interest in the official investigation into the Twin Towers’ destruction, an investigation in which UL itself was to play a part.
As Ryan began to learn more about the issues involved with the destruction of the towers and the ongoing investigation into that destruction, his concerns only grew. Why had the actual steel evidence of the towers’s destruction been illegally removed and disposed of before a proper investigation could take place? Why did not one or two, but three modern, steel-frame buildings completely collapse due to fire on 9/11 given that such an event had never taken place before? Why did the towers fail at all when John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers, claimed in 1993—just five years before his death—that his own analysis of jet plane crashes and ensuing fires in the towers had concluded that “the building structure would still be there”? And why had Knoblauch himself bragged about UL’s role in testing the trade center steel—a test that would have rated the floor components for two hours of fire resistance and the building columns for three hours—when the North Tower “failed” in 102 minutes and the South Tower came down in just 56 minutes?
These concerns prompted Ryan, in October 2003, to write directly to Loring Knoblauch, outlining his thoughts and “asking what [Knoblauch] was doing to protect our reputation.” But if Ryan was expecting Knoblauch to put his mind at ease about these issues, he was sorely disappointed. Instead, Knoblauch—who included Tom Chapin, then the head of UL’s fire resistance division, in the email chain—wrote a response that only raised more questions than it answered.
KEVIN RYAN: Knoblauch copied Tom Chapin on his response to me, because it was Tom’s job as the leader of the fire resistance division to really address these kinds of things. And interestingly, Tom Chapin had written a letter to the editors at The New York Times in 2002 where he basically admitted, again, that UL’s testing had been behind the fire resistance of the World Trade Center towers. And so I’ve written about that a little bit, but he was very clear that the World Trade Center stood for as long as it did because of UL’s testing. And the problem of course with that is that that the south tower lasted for only 56 minutes after it was hit, and the testing that was required by New York City code was three hours of fire resistance for the columns and two hours for the floor assemblies. So 56 minutes and those ratings do not add up. That’s just not something that should go unquestioned.
So Loring Knoblauch wrote back to me after my questions in—it must have been October 2003 when I wrote to him. He wrote back to me a month later and he said all these things about how the company had tested the steel components used to build the World Trade Center towers. What he meant is he we had tested samples of those and provided ratings for fire resistance to the New York City Code—again, three hours for columns and two hours for floor assemblies. And that information established the confidence that the buildings would stand in those fire durations. And the test that was used was ASTM E119, which is the standard test used for this purpose. And UL is the leader in doing that testing, so it wasn’t a surprise.
And not only that but NIST—the government agency NIST [the National Institute of Standards and Technology]—had made clear in some of their progress reports that UL had consulted with the construction companies for the World Trade Center towers, and throughout the building of the buildings that UL had provided that information. So it’s really not a surprise at all.
And Tom Chapin replied further to me that the NIST agency was doing an investigation and asked me, basically, to have patience. And I did for maybe the next year.
In 2002, NIST began its three-year, $16 million study of the Twin Towers’ “failure.” Tom Chapin had assured Ryan that UL was cooperating with this investigation, and that his concerns would be allayed once the final report was released. But by 2004, it was already clear that there were serious problems with that report and its preliminary findings, including findings from tests conducted by UL on mock-ups of the WTC floor assemblies that contradicted NIST’s own conclusions about the buildings’ destruction.
RYAN: Well, it’s very important to understand that with the official accounts for the World Trade Center, there were a number of explanations given in the early years. And for the towers the one that was settled upon and that lasted for three years was the pancake theory.
And the pancake theory was this concept where the floor assemblies had heated up and sagged and this steel had softened or weakened and then they started to collapse upon each other in a pancake fashion. And then the the columns basically just folded inward. So that was the official account, really. It was given by the FEMA investigators Corley and Thornton and others—who coincidentally had also given us the official account for the Oklahoma City bombing. But in this video from the television program Nova it was captured for everyone’s benefit in little videos . . . animations. And so the pancake theory was the official account.
And UL tested the floor assemblies basically for the possibility of this in August 2004. So this was, again, nine months or ten months after I had asked my original questions. And they did so by using different assemblies with varying amounts of fireproofing. One of the assemblies had basically no fire proofing on it at all and they ran it through this furnace in this ASTM E119 test and concluded in the end that there would be no collapse. That the floors would not collapse even at temperatures and times greater than what we’re seeing at the World Trade Center.
And they made that clear. NIST made this clear, that the pancake theory was not supported. So that left us all at that time with no explanation, in 2004, three years later. Having invaded Iraq, having done so much to invest in the official account that the World Trade Center had been destroyed by these planes. And that was a difficult situation for NIST and for everyone.
Realizing that UL was not pressing NIST on the discrepancies in its findings, Kevin Ryan took matters into his own hands and, on November 11, 2004, wrote directly to Frank Gayle, the director of NIST’s Twin Towers investigation. That email began:
“As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing—that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.”
After pointing out the problems raised by NIST’s own investigation—including the tests that disproved claims that the steel in the floor area simply “melted”—Ryan got to the heart of the matter:
“This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
“There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and ‘chatter.'”
Predictably, if unfortunately, Gayle never responded to the email. However, Ryan made the important decision to share the email, and his concerns, with the broader public:
RYAN: Frank did not respond, no. Actually, that letter was sent to him and then also copied to a couple of people who were trying to find more information. Trying to find the truth about what happened on 9/11. Those two included David Griffin, who had just recently written a book, and Catherine Austin Fitz, the director of 911Truth.org.
Dr. Griffin asked me almost immediately if he could share it publicly. And, of course, with some hesitation, but knowing the importance in believing what I wrote, I told him it was OK. And overnight there must have been tens of thousands of people reading this letter on the web and people calling our offices in South Bend at UL constantly, and calling me at home constantly. I think a lot of people were feeling the same—they were thinking the same thing: That clearly there was something wrong here and the story was not explaining what we needed to know.
So Dr. Gayle did not respond. He’s never responded. Maybe one day I will talk to him personally and find out what he thinks. But, you know, these things are clear in terms of job—this is not really just a career decision, although it is. It’s a career decision. It’s more than that, it’s a decision about, you know, what kind of world we want to live in, and at a time where that kind of decision is really important. Because, you know, the book Nineteen Eighty-Four was supposed to be a fiction and it’s evolving into reality.
Ryan did not engage in these actions naively. He knew that allowing his concerns to go public would focus public attention on himself and on UL, and that such actions would have ramifications for his employment.
But if he was bracing himself for those ramifications, he didn’t have long to wait. His email to Frank Gayle was sent on Thursday, November 11, 2004. It was published on the web the following day. Immediately, Ryan’s phone was ringing off the hook and UL was being contacted for comment. That weekend, the company reached out to him to let him know the consequences of his actions.
RYAN: The Human Resources folks called me that weekend and asked if I would contact the people on the web who had published it and asked that it be taken down. And I refused to do that and told them that I didn’t think that was the right thing to do. And I think it was at that very point then they started making the plans to terminate me.
So I had actually taken the next Monday off of work and that was convenient. It allowed me to get my thoughts together. And then on Tuesday when I came in—which I believe was the 16th—the leaders from the Northbrook, Chicago office were there, and they had told me they would be: “Please make sure you’re there.” They brought a letter on UL letterhead and made it clear that, you know, they felt that I had practiced poor judgment in writing this letter and sending it to their client NIST. It had harmed their relationship with NIST, and thereby I was terminated.
So, yeah, that was a tough spot for my family and I. But my wife has been supportive. She knows the idealistic nature of her husband, I think, and she knew why it was important. And we’ve done fine, we’ve gotten by and gotten other jobs. And that’s—I believe people should recognize that it’s not the end of the world to lose your job. Sometimes it’s a new beginning that was useful.
Not for courting controversy, but merely for pointing out the glaring truth, Ryan was fired from his job. Like so many other whistleblowers in so many other stories, Ryan paid a price for doing what his conscience demanded.
Also like many other brave men and women who have been thrust into the position of blowing the whistle, Ryan has found a way to thrive despite the setbacks. Rather than keeping quiet and moving on with his life, Ryan has doubled down on his efforts, founding several action groups, editing the Journal of 9/11 Studies, writing articles and books on the subject of 9/11, volunteering on the board of directors of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, delivering lectures on the destruction of the World Trade Center, and continuing to raise public awareness of the problems with the official story of the founding event of the “War on Terror.”
In the end, despite the high price he paid career-wise, Ryan feels that his decision to blow the whistle and call out the self-contradictions of the NIST investigation was worth it. After all, it is only when those who know the truth are unafraid to step up and speak it, regardless of the personal consequences, that we will ever hope to achieve true justice.
RYAN: What I’ve been able to benefit from is understanding a lot more about society, history, politics, being better at communicating myself. And I’ve met a lot of great people. We’ve worked together to raise awareness and try to bring justice for 9/11. You know, I’ve met and presented with 9/11 victims’ family members. I’ve met 9/11 Commission leaders and and other people who were very central to this story. So many great researchers. So many great people. So overall it was definitely worth it for me.
It’s a personal decision, of course, and it has to be motivated by trying to do some good. If it’s not motivated by trying to do some good then you’re doing the wrong thing.
9/11 Whistleblowers: Kevin Ryan
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money
TRANSCRIPT, SOURCES AND MP3:
https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=16167 Forget for one moment everything you’ve been told about September 11, 2001. 9/11 was a cr...
Blatant 9/11 Prediction (1982)
Film: Wrong is Right (1982) Sean Connery 9/11/2001 Numerology + Suspicious Movie Plot/Location
9/11 Truth Action Project
The mission of the 9/11 Truth Action Project is to build and mobilize a global grassroots movement that will expose the truths of 9/11, create a groundswell of civic support, and the restoration of ou
page=3&callback_module_id=pages&callback_item_id=52&year=&month=
View More
Rodrigo RM likes this. 
