Thursday, August 4, 2016

“9/11: The Unanswered Questions?” - Coming Soon!


Ramesh S Arunachalam

If there is one event that you ask me to name as a single transforming day in the last 100 years, I would say it was September 11th 2001. As someone who has lived and worked across the world over the last 30 years including in the United States, Afghanistan and Much of Europe, Far East Asia, East and South Africa and Caribbean apart from having worked in close to 550 districts of India’s 600 odd districts, I saw the twin towers as a symbol of eternal freedom and free spirit. To witness their horrific collapse (due to acts of terror) into their own foot print, perhaps faster than free fall, are images that refuse to go away even today. Worse is the collapse of WTC 7 and that really set me thinking!

Never in the history of mankind, have tall multi-storied steel structures supposedly collapsed due to fire other than three buildings (WTC North Tower, WTC South Tower and WTC 7) – interestingly, they were all located at the same place (Lower Manhattan, New York, USA), they all fell on the same day and they all had been leased (just less than 100 days before their collapse) to the very same person. Remarkable indeed and I said to myself – ‘is that a coincidence or what”. I decided to research this issue and this book is an outcome of this quiet effort for over 14 years. I hope to bring a very objective and highly rigorous analytical research perspective to this transforming event, its antecedents and consequences.

We owe this to the American People, especially the families of the 9/11 Victims as well as the General American Public and also the Global Community.

As I stated above, September 11th, 2001 was a day that drastically changed the world. Without any doubt, 9/11 is one of the world’s most horrific crimes where thousands of (innocent) people died and we certainly need to get to the bottom of the truth. And while what happened on 9/11 was indeed a horrific crime, my work through these 14 years have slowly and surely convinced me that 9/11 has not been fully and properly investigated as a crime and that is what I have attempted to do in this book.

Using clear and objectively verifiable facts collected painstakingly over several years, the book shows why and how the official 9/11 commission report has (miserably) failed to do a fair, transparent and objective analysis of the 9/11 crime and thereby failed to fix responsibility and accountability for its actual happening.

Specifically, while I analyze events, incidents, evidence, statements, people, institutions etc in an objective but critical manner, I must underline the fact that I don’t put forward any conspiracy theories. Rather I attempt to set the ground - in a clear and objective manner by solidly critiquing the work of the official 9/11 commission and its final report using strong evidence - for a new objective crime like investigation. People who read this book and peruse the evidence will surely not be able to defend the official 9/11 commission report, under any circumstances what-so-ever as the evidence is solidly presented in black and white and hits a reader on face right upfront!

While the book builds on previous excellent work (cited in the book) with regard 9/11 done by scholars, researchers, scientists and other stakeholders, it differs from the existing attempts to critique the work of the 9/11 commission in several major ways:

a)      It analyses the crime of 9/11 from first principles and thereby draws up an exhaustive list of evidence that should have been examined and people who ought to have been interviewed in terms of how the security was breached both in air and the ground (of the most protected place on the planet) with a focus on stakeholders involved, and people, companies, contractors, consultants etc associated and the key interrelationships among them.

Security companies at WTC/airports, insurers of WTC buildings, owners, lessors and lessees etc along with enterprise architecture consultants who worked for the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) and set up the key systems (modeled on the Zachman framework who even supposedly cautioned the use of systems based on such frameworks at FAA) among others, have been focused upon in a microscopic manner along with their key relationships and interrelationships. The causal analysis helps isolate responsibility and fix accountability, something which the 9/11 report has failed to do.

b)      It traces antecedents as far back as the Iran Contra Affair, the October Surprise and the hearings way back in 1980s when Lee Hamilton and Dick Cheney were reportedly coordinating with each other closely. It moves through the last stage of the Nixon Presidency, sifts through two terms of the Reagan Presidency, Bill Clinton Presidency, George W Bush Presidency and The Obama Presidency with the George H W Bush Presidency sandwiched between the Reagan and Clinton Presidencies.

The focus here is on pentagon policies, accounting issues and the missing trillions, key counter terrorism policy issues and their implementation - especially after the WTC was bombed in 1993 and Tridata Corporation (subsidiary of System Planning International) analyzed the security breaches for the same - the major people involved in all these decisions including those supposedly responsible (for example like Jamie Gorelick). Interestingly, Jamie Gorelick, who became a future 9/11 commissioner, reportedly issued a memo as Deputy Attorney General (DAG) in the Clinton Administration) and has been cited as responsible for building the wall between FBI and CIA - one of the most often cited reasons for the 9/11 intelligence failure.

c)      The book also explores the key inter-relationships between various people including consultants, companies and defense contractors and especially with future 9/11 commissioners and staff along with a detailed microscopic exposition of associated conflicts of interest etc and ramifications of all of the above for 9/11, as a horrific transforming event.

Again, as before every bit of evidence including memos are presented in black and white for the reader. There are no inferences. Plain simple facts dominate the discourse and that would make it hard for anyone to defend the official 9/11 report.

To give you an example, even 15 years after the horrific 9/11 crime, we are not aware of the systemic failures that caused it. Specifically, on 9/11, one important stakeholder who thoroughly botched up was the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA summarily failed to not only protect the United States airspace in the first place but also failed to take immediate effective remedial action to protect its key (air) assets that were turned into deadly weapons. This cannot be disputed by any one! 

While several issues deserve mention in this regard, two aspects especially appear important: a) First is FAA’s communication with North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), which in my opinion, was ineffective, for some strange reason; and b) NORAD’s own response to the hijacking, which again, is very perplexing!

Put differently, communication emanating from FAA was ineffective to various stakeholders including NORAD and others, who in their own manner also miserably could not provide an (effective) collective response to the hijacking. Thus, FAA and NORAD collectively failed to protect not only the airspace and air assets (that ultimately were used as deadly weapons) but also precious lives (in air and on ground) and assets on the ground.

That FAA and NORAD failed miserably in their response on 9/11 has been widely acknowledged. But merely stating that is simply not enough – just naming the FAA and/or NORAD is NOT sufficient. We need to get to the bottom of the pit and ascertain how and why things panned out in the way they did and it is here that the 9/11 commission has missed the bus...completely...

As noted above, an often mentioned argument is that the lack of proper and timely communication between FAA and NORAD was responsible for much of what happened on 9/11. If communication was sub-optimal and has been blamed for much of the systemic failure to protect air space, air assets (including life) and ground space and assets (including life), then it is only fair to look at systems related to communication to fix responsibility and accountability for the 9/11 failure!

Ok folks, what are these systems? Obviously, we are talking of information systems across the FAA that fall under the purview of the National Airspace System (NAS). The NAS may be viewed as an information system of systems that collectively supports all air operations in the United States and certain oceanic areas. Viewed in this light, the NAS can be divided conceptually into three parts:

1.      Sources (or originators) of information necessary to perform air operations.
2.      Users (or beneficiaries), who use the information to perform air operations and who, in the course of performing them, produce additional information. In other words, users themselves become sources as they collate and aggregate information and data
3.      Access to and management of all the information that fall between the sources and users and are produced by these stakeholders

It is important to note that billions of US taxpayers dollars ($) were invested in the design of FAA’s NAS that failed so miserably in protecting airspace, life & assets on 9/11. Yet, you will be shocked to know that the FAA’s NAS is mentioned just once and that too very fleetingly in the 9/11 commission’s final report.

Why is this so?

If 9/11 had a systemic failure in the communication/information systems between FAA and NOARD, then, it is not appropriate that this communication/information system (called NAS) should be examined closely to determine what facets caused the systemic failure?

This then leads to the next set of questions:

a)      How was the NAS designed and implemented?
b)      Who designed and implemented it?
c)      Who were all involved in the design and implementation?
d)     What were their security clearances?
e)      Did any of these stakeholders have access to the complete 
         NAS or even parts of the NAS on 9/11?
f)       Who else had access to the NAS on 9/11?
g)      Were there conflicts of interests that prevented the NAS designers and implementers from being investigated? Did any of the 9/11 commissioners and other stakeholders have relationships with these NAS designers and implementers that prevented them from being investigated?
h)      Why were they not probed as part of the 9/11 commission activities?
i)        Plus several other questions are explored in this book!

This is just one example and many more such aspects are explored microscopically here in this research effort.

d)     There are many more distinguishing features but let me refrain from letting the 'cats' out of the 'bags' for now and I would urge the reader to read the book and judge for themselves. I am sure you will find the book interesting given the above and also given the fact that I have used my deep networks across USA, Europe, Africa and Asia where I have lived and worked with governments and private sector in various capacities; and

e)      Most importantly, the book does NOT advance any conspiracy theory. It relies simply on objectively verifiable facts and provides all such evidence upfront and black and white and raises valid questions that could help a new objective probe and thereby fix accountability and ultimate responsibility. 

Something we owe to the the thousands of innocent people who 
died that day!

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Will Ms Jane Garvey, Former Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Explain Herself To The American People on Her Statements to the 9/11 Commission?

Folks, Good Morning to those in the Orient and Good Evening to those at the Occident...Have a great day and great evening, whichever is appropriate...
Here are the two statements by Ms Jane Garvey, who was the FAA’s Administrator during the years preceding and succeeding 9/11.

The first one is dated 22nd May 2003:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/…/hearing2/witness_garvey.htm

The second one is dated 27th January 2004:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/…/hearing7/witness_garvey.htm

You may want to READ these carefully after you read this POST! Thanks!

It is VERY clear from these statements that Ms Jane Garvey, FAA’s Administrator (prior to, during and after 9/11), DID NOT share information (in her statements) on FAA’s National Airspace System and its on-going design and implementation by NAS Information Architecture Committee (NIAC) comprising of several stakeholders (including Defence and Private contractors) who could have had complete access to the NAS in its ENTIRETY on 9/11, thereby compromising the security and sanctity of the NAS itself (hugely) on 9/11! This needs to be noted!

A search for the words NAS, National Airspace Design, Interoperability, NIAC, NAS Information Architecture Committee and so on in the two statements provided by Ms Jane Garvey reveals that these words are not found!!!

So, the question is whether at all Ms Jane Garvey did talk about the on-going design and implementation of the NAS by NIAC to the 9/11 commission as the process of on-going design (and going implementation) of FAA’s NAS which took place under the aegis of the NAS information Architecture Committee (NIAC) is something that has very serious implications for FAA’s role as an aviation administrator on 9/11.

Please recall that the 9/11 commission in its report on page 16 stated that:
“FAA HEADQUARTERS IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM. The Operations Center located at FAA headquarters receives notifications of incidents, including accidents and hijackings. “ (Page 16, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT).

And, an often mentioned argument is that the lack of proper and timely communication between FAA and NORAD was responsible for much of what happened on 9/11. If communication was sub-optimal and has been blamed for much of the systemic failure to protect air space, air assets (including life) and ground space and assets (including life), then it is only fair to look at systems related to communication to fix responsibility and accountability for the 9/11 failure!

Ok folks, what are these systems? Obviously, we are talking of information systems across the FAA that fall under the purview of the National Airspace System (NAS). THE NAS MAY BE VIEWED AS AN INFORMATION SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS THAT COLLECTIVELY SUPPORTS ALL AIR OPERATIONS IN THE US AND CERTAIN OCEANIC AREAS. Viewed in this light, the NAS can be divided conceptually into three parts:
1. Sources of information necessary to perform air operations.
2. Users, who use the information to perform air operations and who, in the course of performing them, produce additional information.
3. Access and management of the information between sources and users.

Billions of US taxpayers $ was invested in the design and implementation of FAA’s NAS (which took place under the aegis of the NIAC) that failed so miserably in protecting airspace, life & assets on 9/11.

Yet, is it NOT strange that neither the 9/11 commission analysed and discussed the NAS and especially issues related to its on-going design and implementation by NIAC (which had DEFENCE and PRIVATE contractors in its midst) nor did Ms Jane Garvey, in her two statements, report on these issues related to the NAS and especially, its on-going design and implementation by NIAC (which had DEFENCE and PRIVATE contractors in its midst).

The presence of Defence and PRIVATE contractors is very serious because those designing and implementing the NAS could have had (and maybe did have) complete access to the NAS on 9/11, which has huge implications for the safety and security of the NAS.

Therefore, it is only logical to argue that Ms Jane Garvey, SHOULD have informed the 9/11 commission on this huge design and implementation exercise with regard NAS that was on-going prior to and during 9/11 at the FAA. Likewise, it is the paramount duty of the 9/11 commission to have thoroughly investigated issues related to the huge design and implementation exercise with regard to FAA’s NAS that was on-going prior to and during 9/11.

I am completely STUNNED as to why neither Ms Jane Garvey nor the 9/11 commission focussed on the huge design and implementation exercise with regard to FAA’s NAS that was on-going prior to and during 9/11. They both owe the American people a proper TRANSPARENT answer! And indeed this is a serious LAPSE in the investigation of 9/11 as a (horrific) crime!

Folks, stay tuned and I have more information coming out in subsequent posts where the saga of the design and implementation exercise with regard to FAA’s NAS that was on-going prior to and during 9/11 will UNFOLD...and it is HUGE indeed...

PLUS a lot, lot more...that has not been written about so far...about the 9/11 crime...

And of course, I put forward NO CONSPIRACY THEOREIS but rather PROVIDE hard, hard EVIDENCE IS on how and why the 9/11 Commission TOTALLY failed the American People by not investigating 9/11, the CRIME, in a proper and thorough manner...

Have a nice day/evening!

WHAT DO THE CHAIR, MR THOMAS KEAN, VICE CHAIR MR LEE HAMILTON AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MR PHILIP D ZELIKOW HAVE TO SAY ON A SERIOUS INVESTIGATIVE LAPSE BY THE 9/11 COMMISSION?


Was the 9/11 commission aware of the following happenings at FAA, in the years before 9/11?
That,

a) FAA's National Airspace System (NAS) Architecture was developed to provide a high level overview of the behavioral characteristics that would be intrinsic to the FAA's NAS.
The FAA NAS Architecture thus described significant changes that were to be made in and outside the FAA to meet the needs of airspace users, and to increase efficiency and effectiveness, while accommodating global growth of airspace.

b) A critical characteristic of the FAA NAS was INTEROPERABILITY - the capability to exchange data and information between and among applications and platforms. THIS NEEDS EMPHASIS AS THIS WAS ONE OF THE CORE OBJECTIVES AND IT HAS HUGE IMPLICATIONS.

c) IN JANUARY 1997, representatives of several FAA organizations which shared understanding of the objectives described in the Architecture joined to form the NAS Information Architecture Committee (NIAC).

d) NIAC’s purpose was to guide, direct and coordinate the establishment and future management of information-based processes and procedures that accomplished interoperability of systems across the NAS via data standardization and data exchange. THE IMPLICATION OF THIS IS HUGE AGAIN.

e) NIAC co-chairs (whoever they were) assembled a steering committee and obtained funding from other FAA organizations to design and conduct a conference to increase understanding of the implications of sharing NAS information. PLEASE NOTE THAT NAS INFORMATION WAS TO BE SHARED.

f) The steering committee met weekly from December 1997 to April 1998 to plan a 2-day conference for the FAA, selected government agencies, and PRIVATE contractors (WHO WERE THEY?) who were supporting NAS operational systems.

g) The committee identified six important issues surrounding interoperability and prepared a list of NAS stakeholders who were invited to participate in a discussion of those issues.

h) The conference, ACHIEVING INTEROPERABILITY WITH A NAS COMMON DATA ARCHITECTURE, was thus held on April 21 and 22, 1998. It was the first of several participatory symposia on issues of interoperability.

i) Support for the ABOVE INTEROPERABILITY conference theme was presented in letters from the FAA Administrator, Ms. Jane Garvey and the Acting Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services, Mr. Ron Morgan. Incidentally, Ms Jane Garvey testified before the 9/11 commission!

j) The conference theme OF INTEROPERABILITY was also underscored in the conference keynote address given by Dr. Anne Harlan, the Director of the W.J. Hughes Technical Center, as well as the other presentations made by key FAA staff, ATM experts from EuroControl, and the renowned Systems Architect, Dr. Eberhardt Rechtin.

k) Almost 200 FAA managers, systems engineers, analysts and PRIVATE contractor staff then participated in six parallel Work Sessions on the key issues, and presented recommended approaches to the full session at the end of the conference.

l) The primary goals of the two-day conference were not only met, but several were exceeded.
In other words, the NAS was designed by the NIAC as noted above and it has serious AND HUGE implications for 9/11 because it is this NIAC developed NAS that failed totally on 9/11.
Right Folks, That being the case, i am totally amazed as to why the 9/11 commission DID NOT investigate, IN A FOCUSSED MANNER, the issues around NAS, its design, the role of the NIAC IN DESIGNING THE NAS and so on.

Without any doubt, the Chair, Mr Thomas Kean, the Vice Chair, Mr Lee Hamilton, Other Commissioners and the Executive Director, Mr Philip Zelikow (and Other Staff ) have to take responsibility for this very serious INVESTIGATION lapse by the 9/11 commission and themselves.

How can they explain this SERIOUS LAPSE made by them and the 9/11 commission? What can they say to to the American people and the global community on this? What implications does this SERIOUS LAPSE have for the investigation of 9/11 as a crime!

Stay tuned for more updates and information in the coming months as we further analyse the issues surrounding the NAS and NIAC with regard to the work of the 9/11 Commission.

Have a good day folks!

What the Co-Chair of NIAC Said with regard to NAS design prior to 9/11?

“The co-chair of FAA’s NIAC and product lead in design of FAA’s NAS said,

“NO ONE CAN DO AN EXCELLENT, COST-EFFECTIVE JOB BY THEMSELVES, DEPENDENCY IS UNIVERSAL...OPTIMIZING EACH SYSTEM SUB-OPTIMIZES THE WHOLE NAS...SHARING INFORMATION GLOBALLY WILL BE THE BASIS FOR FREE FLIGHT...SHARING INFORMATION PRESUPPOSES COMMON INTERPRETATION OF INFORMATION OTHERWISE TOO MUCH IS LOST IN TRANSLATION ($, MEANING, TIME, AND SAFETY)...WE DON’T HAVE $ AND TIME TO WASTE ON DUPLICATIONS TO ENSURE SAFETY” - 

Profound statements indeed! 

Solving the Enterprise Architecture puzzle seems to be critical for thorough investigation of the 9/11 Crime!!! 

Yet the 9/11 commission did not seem to think so... WHY? 

And who was this GUY who was Co-Chair of FAA NAIC and Product LEAD in design of NAS???????

LOOK AT THE IMAGES FROM THE 9/11 COMMISSION OFFICIAL FINAL REPORT - THEY MAKE VERY INTERESTING READING!

LOOK AT THE IMAGES FROM THE 9/11 COMMISSION OFFICIAL FINAL REPORT - THEY MAKE VERY INTERESTING READING!

Ok Folks, and first of all thanks for your comments. Please have a look at the images I attach. They clearly prove that the terms NAS, NIAC, Interoperability, Enterprise Architecture are not EVEN mentioned in the official 9/11 report.

The term National Airspace System appears just once and in a small sentence and fleetingly. When understanding the failure of the National Airspace System (NAS) along with those who designed and implemented it (including stakeholders in the NIAC) was extremely crucial to investigation of 9/11 as a criminal event, it is INDEED very surprising that the final 9/11 report does not even mention the NAS, 
NIAC, Interoperability, Enterprise Architecture. When billions of $ of American Tax Payers money went into an information system (NAS) that failed miserably on 9/11 to protect the air space, air and ground assets (including life and liberty), IS IT NOT IMPERATIVE THAT THE 9/11 COMMISSION AT LEAST INVESTIGATE ASPECTS RELATED TO THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INCLUDING THOSE WHO DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED IT. Most importantly, many of these contractors may have EVEN had access to FAA's complete NAS on 9/11 and that needs to be determined and probed further. 

What explanation can Mr Thomas Kean (or Mr Lee Hamilton or Mr Philip D Zelikow) offer to Americans and the global community regarding this very serious lapse by the 9/11 commission in its investigation! What I am stating here is just a tip of the ICEBERG and I have much much more information laid out fully and transparently in the book, "9/11: The Unanswered Questions". So long folks, stay tuned for much more information over the next couple of months.








Where the 9/11 Commission Failed? An Example!

Where the 9/11 Commission Failed? An Example!

Dear Friends,

MANY Thanks for your SUPPORT AND comments. I have already gone through all major material on 9/11 including the links given in the comments on the other posts...
However, my objective in writing the book is very, VERY clear –

a) To Show that the 9/11 (KEAN) commission did an extremely poor job of investigating 9/11 as a crime and ALSO that the KEAN COMMISSION report was a biased, partisan, subjective report that neither investigated 9/11 as a crime nor even considered each and every piece of objective AND TANGIBLE evidence available to investigate the crime;

b) To demonstrate the serious SHORTCOMINGS in the 9/11 COMMISSION official report and provide TANGIBLE evidence on why it is such a poor report based on a biased, subjective and incomplete/incompetent investigation;

c) To bring in facets of the 9/11 crime that are HITHERTO unexplored and this is done with SOLID IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that will help further criminal investigation;

d) To help the 9/11 families fighting the court case with available IRREFUTABLE TANGIBLE and OBJECTIVE evidence; and

e) To Present a STRONG CASE for an INDEPENDENT AND OBJECTIVE CRIME LIKE (re) investigation that could be carried out by a new independent body, with no vested interest what-so-ever.

Hence, NO CONSPIRACY THEORY IS PUT FORWARD in the book! I would like to make it very clear!

Friends, 9/11 was a horrific crime and even 14 years later we are not aware of the systemic failures that caused it. Let me give you an example and many more such aspects are explored MICROSCOPICALLY in the book!

On 9/11, one important stakeholder who thoroughly failed is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA summarily failed to not only protect its airspace in the first place but also failed to take immediate effective remedial action to protect its key (air) assets that were turned into deadly weapons.

Communication emanating from FAA was ineffective to various stakeholders including NORAD and others, who in their own manner also failed in providing an effective collective response to the hijacking and the protection of airspace/air assets (that ultimately were used as deadly weapons) as well as protection of life/assets on the ground.

That FAA and NORAD failed miserably in their response on 9/11 has been widely acknowledged. But merely stating that is simply not enough – just indicting the FAA and/or NORAD is NOT sufficient. We need to get to the bottom of the pit and ascertain how and why things panned out in the way they did and it is here that the 9/11 commission has missed the bus...completely...

As noted above, an often mentioned argument is that the lack of proper and timely communication between FAA and NORAD was responsible for much of what happened on 9/11. If communication was sub-optimal and has been blamed for much of the systemic failure to protect air space, air assets (including life) and ground space and assets (including life), then it is only fair to look at systems related to communication to fix responsibility and accountability for the 9/11 failure!

Ok folks, what are these systems? Obviously, we are talking of information systems across the FAA that fall under the National Airspace System (NAS). The NAS may be viewed as an information system of systems that collectively supports all air operations in the US and certain oceanic areas. Viewed in this light, the NAS can be divided conceptually into three parts:
1. Sources of information necessary to perform air operations.
2. Users, who use the information to perform air operations and who, in the course of performing them, produce additional information.
3. Access and management of the information between sources and users.

Billions of US taxpayers $ was invested in the design of FAA’s NAS that failed so miserably in protecting airspace, life & assets on 9/11. Yet, you will be shocked to know that the NAS is mentioned just once and that too very fleetingly in the 9/11 commission’s final report.

While it acknowledged that the NAS failed, the question arises as to who designed the NAS? It is about time that we FIND THE STAKEHOLDERS WHO DESIGNED & IMPLEMENTED THE NAS & INVESTIGATE THEIR ANTECEDENTS INCLUDING SECURITY CLEARANCES AND THEIR ACCESS TO FAA’s NAS ON 9/11 AND WHAT EXACTLY THEY WERE DOING ON 9/11? That is a starter’s imperative for any criminal investigation of the 9/11 event.

Several other questions arise here:
1. Who developed the blueprint for the design of FAA's National Airspace System (NAS)?
2. Which individual led the design of FAA's National Airspace System (NAS)?
3. Who set up FAA's NAS Information Architecture Committee (NIAC) and mandated it with the task of designing FAA's NAS?
4. How was membership in FAA's NIAC decided in terms of criteria? Who set these criteria? On what basis? What about the security clearances? Who did the due diligence and who issued them?
5. Was there an antecedent check on the participants of the NIAC? Who did it and was a copy of security clearance with antecedent check provided to the FAA?
6. What was FAA's role in all of this?
7. What about JANE GARVEY, the administrator of the FAA? What role did she play in setting up the NIAC?
Did the NIAC steering committee meet on a weekly basis in 1997 98 as the NAS design was underway?
8. Who were the coordinators of the NAIC?
9. What were their roles?
10. Which private and defence contractors were part of the NIAC?
11. How many working groups were part of the NIAC?
12. What was their mandate and what were they working on?
13. Were any technical papers published as part of the NIAC working groups?
14. What the objective of free flight path as set by the FAA's NAS?
15. What were the members of NIAC and designers of NAS doing on 9/11? Did they have access to FAA’s NAS in its entirety?
Plus many more questions!

You would all be shocked to know that the 9/11 commission did not investigate issues related to FAA's NAS, NIAC, Enterprise Architecture and Data Interoperability at all. Why? Was there a conflict of interest as my other post asks? (https://www.facebook.com/September112001theunansweredquestions/posts/514874898690931)

It is really sad because FAA's NAS is the first system that should have been subject to a thorough (criminal) investigation as were the issues related to NIAC, Enterprise Architecture and Data Interoperability and the like

Folks, the book, 9/11: The Unanswered Questions lays it bare, clean and straight and the evidence is so hard hitting that I don’t need a CONSPIRACY THEORY as a backbone. Neither the 9/11 commissioners themselves nor their famed executive director/other staff will be able to defend their product as my book drives a crater like hole in their official report!

Thanks and I look forward to your support and America needs to know the truth and what happened to many things including FAA’s NAS, NIAC, Enterprise Architecture and Data Interoperability etc

The World needs to know as well...

Stay Tuned for more updates my friends...

Kind Regards

Ramesh S Arunachalam

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

WERE THERE CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST(S) IN THE 9/11 COMMISSION?


Ramesh S Arunachalam

Did the 9/11 Commissioners (Chairman Kean, Vice Chairman Hamilton and Individual Commissioners) and the 9/11 staff (Executive Director, Philip Zelikow and Other Staff) have any CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST(S), that adversely affected the investigation of the 9/11 event as a CRIME? This is especially a critical question given the VERY special and important mandates provided to the 9/11 Commission by the PEOPLE of THE UNITED STATES! Read on...folks...

What is meant by CONFLICT of INTEREST?

In this context, “A ‘conflict of interest’ is a SITUATION that arises in which a person has a PRIVATE, PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND/OR FINANCIAL INTEREST sufficient to appear to influence the objective, independent and impartial exercise of his/her official duties as, say, a PUBLIC OFFICIAL, an EMPLOYEE OF A PUBLIC BODY, and/or a PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATED WITH A PUBLIC BODY like the 9/11 Commission.”

Indeed, CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS - which are often responsible for much of the malaise found in governance - are one of the major themes explored in the book, "9/11: The Unanswered Questions".

In a broad sense, two key questions are explored under the ‘conflict of interest’ theme:
a. Did CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS exist in the 9/11 Commission at the Aggregate Institutional Level?
b. Did the 9/11 Commissioners (Chairman Kean, Vice Chairman Hamilton and Individual Commissioners) and the 9/11 staff (Executive Director, Philip Zelikow and Other Staff) have CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS at an individual level?

The CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS issue has indeed been raised by some people including the 9/11 affected families.

What is done differently though in this book is to examine in MICROSCOPIC DETAIL the various aspects - such as working and personal relationships, professional associations, family ties, political/ideological associations, co-authorship and joint publications of books/articles on important topics (including those related to the subject of terrorism) and other related aspects and the like - to see whether or not the 9/11 Commissioners (Chairman Kean, Vice Chairman Hamilton and Individual Commissioners) and the 9/11 staff (Executive Director, Philip Zelikow and Other Staff) had any CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST(S) that adversely impacted the work and investigation of the 9/11 CRIME including the findings, FINAL REPORT and recommendations.

Specifically, here the book looks at whether CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS resulted in any or all of the following:

a. Whether conflicts of interests prevented a thorough and objective investigation of the 9/11 event as a CRIME?

b. Did conflicts of interests cause important pieces of information and evidence to be removed, omitted, suppressed, tampered with etc?

c. Did conflicts of interests result in exclusion of key people, institutions, organizations and stakeholders - including 9/11 fellow commissioners or staff who may have been in key positions in the George H W Bush, Bill Clinton and George W Bush administrations in the preceding 10-12 years - known and/or related to the 9/11 Commissioners (Chairman Kean, Vice Chairman Hamilton and Individual Commissioners) and the 9/11 staff (Executive Director, Philip Zelikow and Other Staff) from the OVERALL PURVIEW of the 9/11 investigation?

d. Whether conflicts of interests undermined the IMPARTIALITY, INDEPENDENCE, PROFESSIONALISM, OBJECTIVITY AND THOROUGHNESS of the working of the 9/11 Commission in the investigation of the 9/11 CRIME?

e. Did CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS lead to the ABUSE OF THE TRUST reposed BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES - in the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners and 9/11 staffers – who gave them a huge and paramount mandate to investigate 9/11 as a CRIME?

f. Plus many more related issues.

The book has analyzed the CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS issue in a very comprehensive, objective, EVIDENCE BASED MANNER and provided all available and necessary DETAILS in support of the arguments made. As they often say, the DEVIL is in the DETAILS and the book strives to substantiate its analysis of the CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS issue by providing up to the smallest level of DETAIL (using the Principle of Reductionism)!

And friends, stay tuned because you will truly be amazed by what you see in the book and there is SOLID evidence (in black and white) to substantiate the arguments made, which are far beyond what has been publicly ever written/reported so far with regard to 9/11. The evidence has to be seen to be believed and it is mind boggling my friends.

The book, “9/11: The Unanswered Questions”, lays it all bare, clean and straight, with no vested interest what-so-ever!