New 9/11 Truth Film Exposes BBC Hit Piece

Strong showing for 9/11 truth movement in face of mainstream attack.

Steve Watson Infowars.net
Thursday, June 28, 2007

A new film has taken the BBC's Conspiracy files hit piece on 9/11 truth from earlier this year and ripped it apart point by point exposing it as a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation.
9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy, produced by British researcher Adrian Connock and former MI5 counter terrorism officer David Shayler uncovers the BBC's selective and distorted 9/11 coverage and the corporation's attempts to portray the 9/11 truth movement as a racist cult like group of mythology.

The BBC programme, aired in February, produced a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath. The documentary attempted to dismiss serious questions about 9/11 firstly by implying that anyone who distrusts the official version has a borderline psychological illness and is a member of a mythological cult.

The programme then failed in debunking 9/11 questions by making points structured around fallacy, lying by omission, using defamation of character and overwhelming bias.

9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy reiterates many of the counterpoints Prisonplanet.com raised in response to the BBC piece exposing it for the yellow journalism hatchet job it was.



Among the scores of counterpoints within the film, Shayler makes clear how the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation from PBS' Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin towers. He also points out that no eyewitness testimony or references to bombs exploding at all levels of the twin towers made by ground zero rescue workers and firefighters were mentioned by the BBC.

Furthermore, Shayler highlights the fact that during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue, the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting chiefs decided to "pull" the building, were not even mentioned by the BBC.

Also exposed in the documentary is the fact that despite there having been numerous war games in operation in the lead up to 9/11, including involving planes crashing into buildings, the BBC boiled them all down into one and described them as "routine".

Shayler also points to the fact that manipulative editing and emotional bias was used to paint 9/11 truthseekers as social outcasts and lead the viewer into thinking the whole movement is insulting and hurtful to the victims, when there is an overwhelming faction of victims' families who are asking the same questions.

9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy highlights the fact that the BBC's hit piece has only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and caused a redoubling of efforts on the part of hardened researchers to refute the official conspiracy theory.

An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones

Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?

David Ray Griffin
and Rob Balsamo
06/26/07
Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Did AA 77---the flight that, according to the official conspiracy theory about 9/11, struck the Pentagon---have onboard phones? This question is relevant to the possible truth of the official theory, because Ted Olson, who was then the US Solicitor General, claimed that his wife, Barbara Olson, called him twice from this flight using an onboard phone. Full Article



Click here for a larger photo of the document and info about it.

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting Customer Relations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to assist you.

That is correct we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.

However, the pilots are able to stay in constant contact with the Air Traffic Control tower.

Mr. XXXXXXXX, I hope this information is helpful. It is a privilege to serve you. This is an "outgoing only" email address. If you 'reply' to this message by simply selecting the reply button, we will not receive your additional comments. Please assist us in providing you with a timely response to any feedback you have for us by always sending us your email messages via AA.com at http://www.aa.com/customerrelations.

Sincerely,
Chad Kinder
Customer Relations
American Airlines

Cheney and Bush Declare Autonomous Dictatorial Powers

Exempt themselves from executive branch.

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, June 25, 2007

The Vice President and the President have casually declared their offices to be independent of the executive branch and completely autonomous, with Dick Cheney also attempting to abolish agencies his office is supposed to be accountable to.

Last week the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported:

Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”

As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President's position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President's executive order.

In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. ... [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials."

The documents released by the committee reveal that Cheney's office has not cooperated with an office at the National Archives and Records Administration which is responsible for overseeing the protection of classified material by the executive branch.

As the Washington Post further reported, Cheney's staff have consistently declared themselves above the law by not filing reports on their possession of classified data and even blocking an inspection of their office in 2004. The documents also reveal that after the Archives office demanded cooperation earlier this year, Cheney's staff proposed eliminating it altogether.

While Cheney has declared his office outside of the executive branch he has continued to receive funding from the bill that funds theexecutive branch. Instead of challenging Cheney's absurd declaration of autonomy, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel is now seeking an amendment to the Financial Services and GeneralGovernment Appropriations bill in order to cut the funding to Cheney's office and thus legally separate it from the executive branch.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legalcase, his office has no business being funded as part of the executivebranch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannotignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice Presidentshould be consistent." Emanuel has said.

In addition to Cheney's office declaring itself exempt from oversight, President Bush's office has also claimed it has the same status.

The LA Times reported:

An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

It has now become chillingly clear that the President and the Vice President believe that they have absolute power over the Government of the United States and cannot be held accountable to anybody.

Previously Dick Cheney has declared both himself and Bush unaccountable to Congress, stating last year that "vice president and president and constitutional officers don’t appear before the Congress.”

It is also now clear that Bush and Cheney have broken literally hundreds of laws because they see themselves as outside of them. Last April the Boston Globe reported:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

The Constitution assigns power to Congress to write the laws and asserts that the president has an obligation ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Take the "torture ban", which was approved last year, for example. After approving the bill, Bush issued a ''signing statement" giving his own interpretation of what the law meant and
giving him the right to bypass it if he so wished.

Bush and Cheney are vastly expanding Presidential power and creating provisions that set their offices up as dictatorial bodies.

Just last month new legislation was signed which declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, which also places the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security", was signed on May 9th without the approval or oversight of Congress and seemingly supercedes the National Emergency Act which allows the president to declare a national emergency but also requires that Congress have the authority to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if it believes the president has acted inappropriately.

Journalist Jerome Corsi, who has studied the directive also states that it makes no reference to Congress and "its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists."

In other words the new directive excludes Congress altogether from governance in a state of emergency.

While alluding to the "enduring constitutional government", the directive actually ensures the end of constitutional government as each branch, the executive, legislative and judicial, are stripped of equal authority and must answer directly and solely to the President.

The mainstream media has not reported on the directive and the White House has refused to comment.

Last month it was also reported that a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program named "The Day After," which would effectively end civil liberties and implement a system of martial law in the event of a catastrophic attack on a U.S. city.

Though anathema to any notion of liberty or freedom, this new legislation has not come out of the blue, it is merely an open declaration of the infrastructure of martial law that the federal government has been building since the turn of the last century, which was first publicly codified in the 1933 war powers act under Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Senate Report 93-549, which was presented at the first session of the 93rd Congress, outlines just a handful of the declared national emergencies or martial law declarations that preceded the latest one.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971."

In alliance with these open declarations of martial law and the 1947 National Security Act, bills such as the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and the Military Commissions Act have all put the final jigsaw pieces in place to complete an infrastructure of dictatorship since 9/11.

We're already living under an infrastructure of martial law and have been since 1933, all that remains for it to be fully implemented is a big enough natural disaster, mass terror attack or other catastrophe that will cause the necessary carnage and panic that affords the federal government enough leeway to implement open dictatorship with the least possible resistance.

New revelations that Cheney and Bush have openly declared themselves to be have total power and the ability to bypass law and oversight should be a code red emergency. They are moving to implement everything necessary for a total takeover should a catalyst event provide the opportunity. Given that this administration has a history of cooking up its own catalysts we should be very wary indeed.

Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11

Former Transportation Secretary Also Reveals Lynn Cheney Was in PEOC Bunker and Contradicts 9/11 Commission Report's Account of Dick Cheney's Timetable.

Aaron Dykes / JonesReport June 26, 2007

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report.

Mineta says Vice President Cheney was "absolutely" already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58-- after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff.



Mineta is on video testifying before the 9/11 Commission, though it was omitted from their final report. He told Lee Hamilton:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?

Mineta confirmed his statements with reporters, "When I overheard something about 'the orders still stand' and so, what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down."

Mineta was still in the PEOG bunker when the plane was reported down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

"I remember later on when I heard about the Shanksville plane going down, the Vice President was right across from me, and I said, 'Do you think that we shot it down ourselves?' He said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'Let's find out.' So he had someone check with the Pentagon. That was about maybe, let's say 10:30 or so, and we never heard back from the DoD until probably about 12:30. And they said, 'No, we didn't do it.'"

The two hour time delay is suspicious given the Vice President's own account of the dedicated video communications available that morning, as he told it to Tim Russert of Meet the Press on September 16, 2001.

"We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it."

At a bare minimum, this confirmation by Norman Mineta is in gross contradiction to the 9/11 Commission Report and poses serious questions about the Vice President's role in ordering NORAD to stand down on 9/11.

Video Technology

Every time I see video like this, I can't help to think that the way technology is today, who knows what the government might try in terms of Pentagon plane video.

9/11 Bombshell: WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building

Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower collpased.

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, June 19, 2007


The Alex Jones show today welcomed Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Burmas to discuss an exclusive interview they have conducted with an individual with high level security clearance who was inside the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 and has descibed and detailed explosions inside the building prior to the collapse of any of the buildings at ground zero on 9/11.

The interview, to be featured in the forthcoming Final Cut of Loose Change is currently under wraps but the creators have allowed some details to leak purely to protect themselves and the individual involved who has asked to remain anonymous until the film is released.

We can reveal that the individual concerned was asked to report to building seven with a city official after the first attack on the North tower but before the second plane hit the South Tower and before their eventual collapse, in order to provide the official with access to different floors of the building.

The city official he was escorting was attempting to reach Rudy Guiliani, who he had determined was inside building 7 at that time. According to Avery and Burmas this official now works for Guiliani partners.

The individual was also asked to provide access to the Office Of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of the building, this was the so called "bunker" that was built inside WTC7 on the orders of Rudy Guiliani.

When he got there he found the office evacuated and after making some calls was told to leave immediately.

It was at this point that he witnessed a bomb going off inside the building:

"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."

The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:

"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."

He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex.

The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm.

Listen to the clips here.

Avery and Burmas, who played the two short clips of the interview prior to further analysis and more clips to be played on their own GCN radio show later tonight at 7pm CST, further described how the individual had witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them.

This is vital information be cause it is in direct conflict with the official claim that no one was killed inside building 7. The 9/11 Commission report did not even mention building, yet here we have a key witness who told them he saw dead people inside the building after explosions had gutted the lower level.

What makes all this information even more explosive is the fact that this individual was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their so called investigation.

The fact that the building was not even mentioned in the report in light of this information thus becomes chilling and indicates that officials have lied in stating that they have not come into contact with evidence of explosive devices within the buildings.

Avery and Burmas successfully contacted the individual after discovering a TV interview he did on 9/11 while they were trawling through news footage from the day in research for the Final Cut.

Avery says that he can and will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the individual was in building 7 on 9/11 and that what he is saying is accurate.

Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files

Lawman: Brown Siege May Be Psy Op

From the front page of PrisonPlanet.com

Lawman: Brown Siege May Be Psy Op
Report: An AP photographer who was flying in a plane over Brown's property today was ordered out of the airspace
US Marshalls Serve Warrant to Seize Brown's Dental Office
AUDIO: 9:08 a.m. Associated Press interview today with Ed Brown
Report: Authorities serving warrant, don't intend confrontation
FLASHBACK: Marshal: No plans for armed standoff
Yahoo Video On Ed Brown Situation
Police assemble by Browns' home
VIDEO news report from the scene
SWAT teams, armored vehicle seen near Brown compound

Digg the Ed Brown Story. Get the info out there.

Digg
Digg
Digg
Digg
Digg
Digg

Police, SWAT Team Surround Ed Brown's Property

New Waco could be unfolding.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, June 7, 2007

A new Waco could be underway as reports come in of law enforcement, APC's and SWAT team personnel descending on the home of Ed Brown, the tax protester who has threatened to use force to defend himself against authorities.

Fred Smart, a close friend of the Brown's confirmed that Brown's phone has been cut and that at around 8:30PM last night a silent surveillance drone with a bright beaming light encircled the Brown's property as if conducting reconnaissance.

News reporters have confirmed that police have surrounded the property and that they were kept away from the property.

"Dozens of heavily armed state police and federal agents have assembled near the rural Grafton County home of tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown."

"About 50 state troopers, some armed with high-powered rifles, along with a vehicle from the explosives unit gathered this morning in Plainfield, a small town where Edward and Elaine Brown have holed up in their home since being convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to lengthy federal prison terms," reports the Plainfield Union Leader.

More live updates at this blog.

VIDEO news report from the scene.

SWAT teams, armored vehicle seen near Brown compound

Associated Press
Thursday, June 7, 2007

PLAINFIELD, N.H. (AP) - Neighbors of convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown reported police SWAT teams and at least one armored vehicle converged on a field near the Browns' Plainfield (New Hampshire) home this morning.
Federal and state authorities haven't commented on whether they are moving in to arrest the fugitives, and the local police, the governor's office and the U.S. Attorney's office referred calls to the U.S. Marshal's office, which has been negotiating with the Browns since their tax evasion conviction in January.

A neighbor who lives a mile or so away from the Browns, on Center of Town Road, said she saw police officers, SWAT team members, a fire truck, ambulance, helicopter and at least one armored vehicle assembled in a field across from her driveway.

Brown told a blog interviewer this morning he's been getting calls from people reporting police in the town, and said he lost power twice during the night.

The Browns have been sentenced to five and a half years in prison for tax evasion. They skipped their sentencing hearings, and Ed Brown has said he and his wife will refuse to surrender.

AFTF Media-Republican New Hampshire Debate---Reporter Arrested in CNN Post Debate Spin Room

Post GOP Debate coverage "Fox News Style" - Ron Paul

There's a bit of satire in this video but what can you say, Fox News deserves no respect.

Reporter Arrested on Orders of Giuliani Press Secretary

Reporter Arrested on Orders of Giuliani Press Secretary Charged with Criminal Trespass Despite Protest of CNN Staff and Official Event Press Credentials at GOP Debate in New Hampshire.

Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
Jones Report
June 5, 2007

Manchester, NH - Freelance reporter Matt Lepacek, reporting for Infowars.com, was arrested for asking a question to one of Giuliani's staff members in a press conference. The press secretary identified the New York based reporter as having previously asked Giuliani about his prior knowledge of WTC building collapses and ordered New Hampshire state police to arrest him.

Jason Bermas, reporting for Infowars and America: Freedom to Fascism, confirmed Lepacek had official CNN press credentials for the Republican debate. However, his camera was seized by staff members who shut off the camera, according to Luke Rudkowski, also a freelance Infowars reporter on the scene. He said police physically assaulted both reporters after Rudkowski objected that they were official members of the press and that nothing illegal had taken place. Police reportedly damaged the Infowars-owned camera in the process.



Reporters were questioning Giuliani staff members on a variety of issues, including his apparent ignorance of the 9/11 Commission Report, according to Bermas. The staff members accused the reporters of Ron Paul partisanship, which press denied. It was at this point that Lepacek, who was streaming a live report, asked a staff member about Giuliani's statement to Peter Jennings that he was told beforehand that the WTC buildings would collapse.

Giuliani's press secretary then called over New Hampshire state police, fingering Lepacek.

Though CNN staff members tried to persuade police not to arrest the accredited reporter-- in violation of the First Amendment, Lepacek was taken to jail. The police station told JonesReport.com that Lepacek is being charged with felony criminal trespass. Multiple witnesses on the scene reported that the state police were also heard discussing charges of espionage.

Wearing a webcam at a press event is not an act of espionage. Alex Jones, who was watching the live feed, witnessed Lepacek announce that he was wearing a camera connected to a laptop that was transmitting the press conference live at approximately 9:20 EST. When Lepacek announced that he was broadcasting live, Giuliani staff members responded by getting upset at his questions and ordering his arrest.

Freedom to Fascism reporter Samuel Ettaro was also dragged out after asking a question on Giuliani's ties with Cintra and Macquerie, two foreign contractors involved with the contentious Trans-Texas Corridor under development in Texas.

The entire incident took place in a large press auditorium, apart from the debate stages where authorized media were able to question candidates and their handlers.

Since when do campaign operatives have the power to order state police to arrest someone on false charges or arbitrate who has the right to conduct journalism, a right guarded by the Constitution?

A warning to the press-- if candidates or police don't like your questions, you could be arrested for trespassing and even espionage in the new Orwellian America.

The state police in Goffstown, New Hampshire, where the arrest was made, confirmed that Lepacek is in custody on charges of criminal trespass. Police said information on who filed the trespass complaint was not yet available and would be filed in the police report.

It is clear from talking to multiple eyewitness, as well as the live webcam, that there could not have been a complainant who originated police action, because it happened spontaneously. The police need to be very careful about violating the Bill of Rights and falsely charging someone with a felony crime. This constitutes extreme official oppression and is a total violation of the reporter's civil rights. It would have been bad enough if the reporter would have just been thrown out, but to arrest him when he had a valid press pass and CNN protested his arrest is an outrage.

The arrest-- which clearly violated the First Amendment-- was recorded from two separate camera angles, including a live feed recorded remotely-- so the episode is on record in the event that police destroy or lose tapes seized from Lepacek in attempt to obfuscate the facts of the incident.

If you doubt that police would assault reporters, seize video equipment and act on political orders, then consider the experience Alex Jones had when Texas state troopers arrested him for asking George W. Bush a question during a press conference while he was governor. See video below.

Reporters Matt Lepacek and Luke Rudkowski, both members of WeAreChange.org, as well as freelance reporters for Infowars.com, have also been previously accused-- falsely-- of being terrorists with bombs and have undergone multiple episodes of harassment during peaceful demonstrations and attempts at exercising the right of free press.

Luke Rudkowski and Jason Bermas contributed to this report.

Digg the story here

Arkansas GOP head: We need more 'attacks on American soil' so people appreciate Bush

Josh Catone
Published:
Sunday June 3, 2007

In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country.

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

Milligan, who was elected as the new chair of the Arkansas Republican Party just two weeks ago, also told the newspaper that he is "150 percent" behind Bush in the war in Iraq.

In his acceptance speech on May 19th, Milligan told his fellow Republicans that it was "time for a rediscovery of our values and our common sense."

The owner of a water treatment company, Milligan was a relative unknown in Arkansas politics until being elected the party chairman. He had previously served as the party's treasurer and the Saline County Republican chair.

THE FULL DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE INTERVIEW CAN BE READ HERE

CNN Republican Primary Debate, June 5th

The third debate among GOP presidential candidates will be held on Tuesday, June 5th from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. ET at the Thomas Sullivan Arena on the Saint Anselm College campus in Manchester, New Hampshire. The debate will be broadcast live on CNN, CNN Radio, CNN.com, WMUR-TV, WMUR.com and UnionLeader.com. CNN's Wolf Blitzer will moderate with questions from Scott Spradling of WMUR-TV and Tom Fahey from the New Hampshire Union.

Flight 93 Wreckage Under Armed Guard Buried Deep Inside Iron Mountain