Editor's Note: This is a transcript from the Press Conference held after the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry filed their lawsuit on March 25, 2019 against the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI for their failure to perform a congressionally mandated assessment of any evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission. The press conference was transcribed by Mark C. Miller of Massachusetts, former publisher of the Berkshire Eagle.
A news conference about these filings was held on the afternoon of March 25, 2019 in Washington, DC near the federal courthouse. The conference location was at 555 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, outside the Newseum, helping underscore the news value of the topic. The press conference announcing the filing of the lawsuit starts at 52:12 in the following video.
Mick Harrison Statement
Mick Harrison: So, good afternoon, folks. My name is Mick Harrison, I'm an attorney and litigation director with Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, and with me is David Meiswinkle, who is president of the board of the Lawyers' Committee; Bob McIlvaine, a 9/11 family member [and] longtime advocate for 9/11 truth, and Richard Gage, the president of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. And we do have an important announcement for you today. I'll give you the basics, and let my colleagues add the details, and then we'll take some questions.
So today, literally moments ago, we filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, a seven-count federal complaint asking the federal court to order the Federal Bureau of Investigation to comply with an important federal mandate concerning 9/11. That federal mandate requires the FBI to conduct an external assessment of all 9/11 evidence that was not considered by the original 9/11 Commission that was known to the FBI and to report that evidence and that assessment to Congress.
In our research and investigation -- and I say "ours," I mean the Architects & Engineers, the Lawyers' Committee, and some associated family members including Bob -- we determined that there are at least seven categories of 9/11-related evidence that was not assessed by the new 9/11 Review Commission established by the FBI in a purported effort to satisfy this Congressional mandate.
So, we're asking the federal court to order the FBI to fully comply with the mandate, to go back to the drawing board, and to assess this important evidence.
Now, I'll give you the short version of what the evidence is that we're asking to be assessed. But before I do, let me just make clear that this is a suit to compel a federal agency to perform a mandatory duty. I emphasize the word mandatory -- not discretionary. So Congress imposed this duty on the FBI, and the FBI failed to comply. So this lawsuit is ordering compliance.
And [of] the seven categories of evidence that were focused on in this complaint -- the first and the most extensive is the evidence of the controlled demolition of the three World Trade Center towers -- the Twin Towers and Building 7. And you'll hear from Mr. [Richard] Gage in a minute about more details of that evidence.
The short version is -- notwithstanding a decade of discussion of this evidence developed by I don't know how many chemists, physicists, architects, engineers -- the FBI in its 2015 Review Commission completely ignored that evidence. You won't even see it mentioned in their 2015 report.
Now remember what Congress required them to do: assess all, any, evidence related to 9/11 and the attacks known to the FBI that was not assessed by the original commission.
Now if you go back to 2004 and the Hamilton-Kean Commission, you won't see any discussion of controlled demolition in that report. You also don't see it in the new 2015 Commission's report. Which means that the FBI failed to comply with its mandate. Now, you might be wondering, how can we prove that the FBI knew of the controlled demolition evidence. And the short answer is, apart from the fact that Mr. Gage has been broadcasting it worldwide for about ten ... (looking at Richard Gage)
Richard Gage: Twelve years ...
M.H.: We actually have two documents showing that the FBI was informed of Richard Gage and his colleagues' work. [In] one of them, the FBI actually says, you know, it's very thorough work, and we're going to look at it.
So that's the short version. Now we're also talking about [4 min, 6 seconds] other evidence that was ignored by the new commission. In addition to the demolition evidence, some of you know that on 9/11 several individuals were arrested because they were observed celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center. And these folks, who self-edentified as Israelis, were held in custody, they were interviewed by the FBI at some length, eventually were deported. But the FBI has extensive reports on this incident and that evidence is not addressed in [the reports of] either the original commission or the new commisssion. That's the second count [of this lawsuit].
A third category of evidence that was ignored has to do with the Saudi support and other international support for the 9/11 terrorists, and that evidence is part of this lawsuit. We also are complaining and directing the federal court to require an assessment of evidence relating to the videos of the Pentagon that no one has seen yet. We also want an assessment of the plane parts that were recovered after the crashes.
And last would be an analysis of the evidence related to phone calls -- both cellphone calls and air calls from the airplanes on 9/11.
So let me turn this over to my colleague, Dave Meiswinkle, and we'll go around and have everyone speak and then we'll take some questions. Dave?
Dave Meiswinkle Statement
Dave Meiswinkle: Thank you, Mick.
This is a very significant action here on behalf of the -- actually, on behalf of the people of this country. It's symbolic that we're here on Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Capitol is right down the street.
And we're actually doing, and asking the federal government to do what should've been done all along. What we've been ever asking for is a thorough, proper, objective, honest investigation. We've done ... what we could to get a grand jury moving in what we say is dispositive [def.: directed toward or effecting disposition] evidence of a controlled demolition, pre-planted explosives and bombs in the building but this [lawsuit in the District of Columbia] takes the action -- at least of the Lawyers' Committee, that's committed to transparency and accountability -- another step further.
What we're doing now is we're opening up the process, because these counts transcend -- or move, to some extent -- even beyond New York City.
So the accounts that Mick mentioned having to do with cell phone commmunications and airphones, they could be information that should have been assembled and that was never considered by the original 9/11 commission. This actually is evidence that would connect at, or could connect, the various ... at least the incident in Pennsylvania with United [Airlines] 93 and with the incident allegedly with ... American [Airlines] Flight 77 that allegedly hit the Pentagon.
Those telephone calls. Along with the plane parts that Mick mentioned -- the serial numbers and those plane parts are very indicative to identify what planes hit what buildings and get a confirmation that this plane actually hit this building. And in particular in Washington at the Pentagon there is a lot of questions regarding that. Et cetera, in other areas also.
So that is something, that this is evidence that ... certainly the FBI has, that they were required to assess, and that the 9/11 Commission originally never considered, and these reports were never given to Congress [which has] never been updated on these developments and this evidence -- this crucial evidence -- in addition to the cameras right here in Washington, D.C., on the Pentagon -- there are cameras that the public is not aware of. Certainly the FBI would be aware of these cameras and certainly the 9/11 Commission was never made aware of the cameras, and yet whatever the footage is that is shown -- so they were not able to really ... to consider that information or that evidence either.
So what's it's done now, this suit, and Mick also mentioned the Saudi connection, he also mentioned the reference to the "high fivers," and there's some consideration as to how these people were, where they were at the time -- what they were doing there celebrating. And there's a lot of mystery around that. There are reports -- we've read the FBI reports, but there's no indication in any of the official narratives as far as the original 9/11 Commission, that they were aware of or at least never considered it.
So this is all very important evidence that starts to open up the process. What we've asked before is that the law enforcement do what they're mandated to do. If they did what they were supposed to do I don't think we would be here at all. This crime would have been solved way back in 2001 when it happened and we wouldn't have our constitutional rights rolled back, and we wouldn't have an incipient police state at our door knocking.
And that's why it's really important to address these crimes. America's heart and soul was lost that day. The country's Constitution was hijacked that day. And what we want to do is get the Constitution working like it's supposed to -- allow the Bill of Rights to do what it's supposed to do, and that's protect us, and to protect us against the government. We're asking the government to do their job. And as Mick said this is a declaratory and injunctive relief we're asking for -- as if to say, Judge, tell these agencies to do their job, their duty. That's what they're supposed to do, that's what they get paid to do.
Now, Richard Gage, the foremost -- probably in the world in reference to the evidence at Ground Zero at the World Trade Center. So I'm going to Richard and to Bob McIlvaine, to talk about the evidence. Thank you.
Richard Gage Statement
Richard Gage: Thank you, Dave. Thank you, Mick, and thank you, Bob. We're going to hear from Bob [undecipherable], quickly, because his son was killed, murdered, at the Twin Towers on 9/11 by the explosions -- for which we have so much evidence -- before the towers collapse, and there are some indications that these explosions occurred before the planes -- the plane even hit that particular building. Bob will discuss that.
But, as an architect of 30 years, I was shocked to learn that a third tower came down on 9/11. Because I didn't hear about it from the American Institute of Architects, of which I'm one of the 80,00 members. I didn't know that there were explosions that were heard before the building came down, heard by witnesses that were documented on camera -- documented on camera, which the FBI saw and acknowledged in this letter [holds up a copy of letter] that their ______ had saved in Florida -- because he had the insight to submit that first documentary of ours, called "9/11 Blueprint for Truth," in which we documented all this evidence. And the assistant director, counterterrorism division, at the FBI was forwarded that DVD by [Robert] Mueller, the director of the FBI at the time. And Michael Heimbach [Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division] says, "This letter is in response to a correspondence dated November 7, 2008, to director Robert S. Mueller III in which you urged the FBI to consider the work of Mr. Richard S. Gage, director of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and his supporters in the ongoing federal investigation into the World Trade Center attacks. The director's office quoted his own letter to the counterterrorism division for a direct response to you: 'First let me thank you for offering to provide to the United States government ...'"
Well, we've been doing that now for 12 years without success, so we're seizing the opportunity to take legal action against the FBI -- back to the letter:
"First let me thank you for offering to provide this information. The FBI receives from concerned individuals is critical to its mission of protecting the U.S. and its citizens against terrorism."
So they're acknowledging that this is critical information, in writing.
 "As in all cases, the FBI will continue to examine the 9/11 investigation from every angle as new evidence develops, utilizing all leads available. Mr. [indistinct] presents an interesting theory ..."
[Commenting on term] -- representing facts, by the way, but they also call these "theories," but [the letter] goes on --
[From the letter] "... backed by thorough research and analysis ..."
[Commenting] -- so they've already done their assessment, which was not reported to the 9/11 Review Commission. So all we want them to do is report that in more detail, as mandated by Congress.
[From the letter] "... backed by thorough research and analysis. The [indistinct]
agents in charge of the investigation will undoubtedly review all relevant information before making an unbiased decision."
So this is what we're expecting them to do, what Congress mandated, and what they actually agreed in writing to do.
Now, what did the evidence include? It included the third skyscraper to collapse on 9/11, a 47-story skyscraper that dropped like a rock, at free-fall acceleration, as fast as a bowling ball falling down from the sky -- after witnesses hear explosions. The aftermath proves the [indistinct] evidence of termite incendiaries purer than molten iron.
They haven't used molten [sic] iron for a hundred years in our skyscrapers. So how does it get to be iron -- where did that come from? How did it get to be molten -- twenty-eight hundred degrees? NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, says that the temperatures of office fires -- they only burn for 20 minutes in a given area. So they couldn't have caused the thermal expansion which NIST claimed was the cause of the initiation of collapse.
More to the point, they couldn't have melted the steel. That steel melted ... actually iron melted. Where did it come from? Where did the sulfur come from? The FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] says in their Appendix C of their main 2002 report, said the hot sulfur corrosion attack on the steel of World Trade Center 7 and the Twin Towers. Where does that come from? Where does the sulfur come from?
Well, thermite is an incendiary used by the military to cut through steel -- like a hot knife through butter.
So, we've got the evidence of thermite incendiaries, in the form of [indistinct] chips, throughout the World Trade Center. We have [indistinct] incendiaries, thermite particularly in the form of previously molten iron microspheres -- billions of them -- ten kinds of this material -- found as a residue of thermite. The U.S. Geological Survey doesn't tell us where this came from. But it can only come from these red [indistinct] chips, which also were found -- about ten tons of that material -- red on one side, gray on the other. They're attracted by a magnet. They're examined by x-ray energy [indistinct] spectostrophy and a nuclear microscope to find the nanoparticles of iron oxide and aluminum powders comprising these very sophisticated materials formed only in the most advance defense contracting laboratories.
All of this information, and a lot more, was presented to the FBI. And they squashed [quashed] it. So we're fortunate to have this opportunity, eighteen years later, to get this evidence into the record. That is important to no one more than Bob McIlvaine, who's here with us.
As \I mentioned, his son Bobby was killed that day. And Bob has been relentless for more than 18 years in trying to seek justice, not just for his son but for all the victims (and their family members) that died on 9/11. Bob?
Bob McIlvaine Statement
Bob McIlvaine: I don't know if anyone's -- has anyone seen "Silent Witness" on Netflix? It's an English show -- a great show. Pathologists go to a murder scene, and they look at the body and they go in for a post-mortem and they find and they get involved in an investigation of the murder, or whatever happened -- whether or no it was a murder or an accident, and so forth and so on.
Well, Bobby's like a silent witness [nearby motorcycles obscure some words]. And in Britain it's been going for like years and years. I always think of Bobby when I watch it.
Well, Bobby, at first we got a body [indistinct]. That first week, Bobby was dound minutes after the first Towers were hit, and was taken -- he had a post-mortem done on Tuesday [FIND DATE] -- Tuesday morning, on First Street [IS THE MORGUE THERE?] 'Course I didn't have the guts to look at the body, they told me not to -- I really regret that I didn't -- because the injuries were just so big that it was -- I get upset -- but he took a blast, from here to here [indicating with his hands his head and chest, then becoming momentarily overcome by emotion]. But I really never again looked into that.
But with all this stuff that is coming out -- especially about the seismic screenings up at Columbia University -- and Bobby didn't work at the Towers, he worked at Merrill Lynch on West Street. So no one can doubt there must have been a hundred calls made to Bobby -- so he had his phone -- people were saying how do now he wasn't on the 106th floor?
Well, if he was on the 106th floor I don't think he died instantly -- I feel sorry [about those who were on upper floors]. And people say, well, did he jump? [indistinct] That's impossible, because we called him at least a hundred times -- I mean friends, neighbors. I mean everyone was calling, about what was happening -- and no one got ahold of him.
So it's been years, but anyway. That's what I've been doing. I've been investigating, finding out what happened to him, and of course who did it.
Now, his injuries -- I don't want to go into it, but he took a huge blast to the head and chest. It almost looks like someone had a couple of shotguns, hit him with a shotgun. And he died instantly, and he didn't have burns on him. He had -- and this was the way it was explained to me -- he was hit and driven back, God knows how far. I never found the nurse, I think I know who she is, but I think she's so messed up she can't do anything anymore -- but she found him and took him to the morgue -- the ambulance took him to the morgue. But anyway, he was I don't know how many feet away he was but he had post-mortem burns -- in other words, he was hit by a big blast, and then the heat -- in a big detonation the heat follows it. So then he caught some heat in his legs and so forth and so on -- and I have pictures of that.
But my whole thing is -- and it's important to me -- and I've been around the world talking about this ... it eliminates the Muslims in this.
I don't care about what people say about the Muslims -- the planes and so forth and so on, but I'm one hundred percent sure that Bobby died before the planes hit. So unless we can prove that Muslims put those bombs or detonations in there, in the Towers, then they're off the hook as far as my son's death is concerned.
I have no reason [indistinct]. You can't prove to me that the Muslims have anything to do with it. I'm not saying [indistinct] -- I don't know. But the thing is that's why I feel Bobby is the silent witness.
I feel good about it. And what's happening today is the fact that these people are now talking beyond .... What Richard's done is phenomenal. [He's] convinced my wife that something happened on 9/11. She didn't want to have anything to do with it. I don't blame her. But once she saw the movie [ ], she's on board. My sister called me -- she's on board. But then we have to take it a step further, and what they're bringing in is the [legal] complaint. And they're talking about the Sauds, they're talking about different things that happened on 9/11 that haven't been answered.
And I remember being down here in 2002 with the Jersey Girls, and we went to see [then-FBI Director Robert] Mueller and he ... just ignored us. You know, they were asking the same questions as this complaint asks: What about the Sauds. What about this? What about that? And they just ignored us. He [Mueller] says there's nothing to see.
Well, I don't know, I went berserk I was so upset. So what I've done over the years, I read history, that's all I do is I read history. And it makes me feel -- it's almost impossible to say -- can our country do something like that? It really is ... people really can't put their hands on it.
Well, if you read history, you can see that things like this happen all the time. Sometimes I feel guilty, complaining about my son being lost, when the millions upon millions, hundreds of millions of people have died in this century, for no damn reason whatsoever. And it's what people have to realize -- that's what empires do. The British empire did that forever, and we've taken up that mantle -- I'm not blaming this one specific country on anything.
But, that's why I say Bobby is a silent witness. Just that fact alone, that he did not die by the hands of Muslims -- then somebody's got a big time problem -- who the hell put those explosives in there, and detonations in there? And I stand by that. And I can just go to court. But this coming up is monumental because now other people are talking about deep state. Other people are talking about other things that are happening in the world. Talking about 9/11.
I've been contacted by millions of people around the world that are all on board, but they just don't have the information. And a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon as far as the destruction of the Towers, but they have to get further than that. They really have to -- you have to work hard. They really have to work hard. You really have to work hard. And I think this is ... provide the impetus to ... [To a questioner] Yeah?
Questioner: Could you tell us about the Bobby McIlvaine Act and what can people do to help this process? That's one question. We also happen to be in front of the Museum, a kind of tabernacle of journalism -- they have a 9/11 exhibit -- but what can ordinary people seeing this do? Maybe several people can answer that.
B.McI.: The question was what can people do that look into this, what can they do to bring this out into the public... to bring this out amongst their friends -- to bring this out in the newspapers. I don't know. [25:40 min.] I have heard people tried this, and they quit. All the 9/11 family members, how many are out there now? They've been trying. What about the Jersey Girls? You can't try harder than them ... to bring this to fruition. And then they just got [indistinct], and they just crucified him on TV. So, calling your Congressman is a very important thing, and if you get millions of Congressmen getting calls -- but they're afraid to touch this with a ten-foot poll.
So I think reading -- get, become informed about what happened. Really I think that's the most important thing -- because then you can talk to somebody. But other than that it's very difficult and you can jump on the Architects & Engineers [for 9/11 Truth], but then that will ... that's a good start. [Hands the microphone to Richard Gage]
R.G.: Regarding the Bobby McIlvaine Act? Here is drafting legislation , Bob sponsored it for us, in many ways, to bring to Congress legislation that forces an investigation into the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.
So we have now taken this act, and the petition signed by 3,000 architects and engineers. And, by the way, if 3,000 architects and engineers wrote you a letter that your house was in danger of collapsing, would you listen to them? Yeah! So we expect to be listened to. But the political climate is tough, and it continues to be tough, even with President Trump in office. We are not getting the disclosures that we need to have. But we're relentless.
I mean, this group has been at this for more than a decade -- and two decades, almost, for many in the 9/11 movement. But we expect either the House or the Senate [27:44 min.]
to form a Select Committee to investigate this, or eventually as more truth comes out, as people tire of the 9/11 wars, which President Trump seems to be continuing, we -- and Obama continued after Bush before him -- we will expect the American people will eventually wake up and tire of this, maybe because some of this information actually gets out in court through the FBI lawsuit that we filed today.
Maybe, through the U.S. Attorney's promise to empanel a grand jury to investigate these crimes -- this crime of a century, which has instigated a $6.5 trillion war on terror, which continues. This is an ongoing issue. It is not a historical, obsolete piece of grave [sic] -- um, people try to minimize this. It couldn't be more relevant for today's geopolitical climate.
And this is why we submitted this lawsuit, and I bet Mick and Dave have more to share about that.
Additional Joint Comments
M.H.: Sure. So, in terms of what folks can do, let me state the obvious. You can go to Architects & Engineers and make a donation that would help us prosecute this lawsuit. You can go to the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry's website -- LCfor911.org to make a donation. You could also volunteer your time, if you have time to help. In addition to those obvious steps, I think Bob McIlvaine is right that educating yourself is a huge step, a huge first step. And then the next step would be educating your Congressperson. And let me point out what may not be obvious here is this lawsuit is basically doing Congress's work for them.
Keep in mind, what we're suing on here is a Congressional mandate to the FBI. We're forcing the FBI to do what Congress told them to do. So we're helping Congress achieve the goal that Congress laid out, which is assessment of all the 9/11 evidence.
Now, when Richard said it's still relevant, Congress considers it still relevant. Keep in mind, this new mandate was [in] 2014. It was 13 years after 9/11 and Congress wanted to know from FBI the current assessment of all the new evidence -- and they didn't get that from their FBI -- and that's why we're suing to make sure Congress is informed of this new evidence. Get the assessment of the FBI and its external commission on that new evidence and report it to Congress. And when they report it to Congress, we're going to get it.
So this basically a right-to-know suit. It's not about trying to prove one thing or another about what happened on 9/11. It's about informing all of us, and the Congress, on all the all the evidence available so we can all make up our own minds, and then decide what to do. David?
D.M.: In my life I've taken the oath three times, basically to protect and defend the Constitution. I did that as a soldier, United States Army; I did it as a policeman; and I did it as an attorney. Now I speak right here as just myself. I don't want to say this is what the Lawyers' Committee would say. But this is what I say -- at least in my assessment -- is that there has been since 9/11 dumbing down of -- intentionally by the media -- of the Americans' perspectives and thank God for alternative media that have kept the truth alive and have left investigative journalism as something that is a true vocation and an honorable occupation that presently, as Mick has said and as Richard said and as Bob said, education is very important -- how you educate yourself.
The Lawyers' Committee website, the Architects & Engineers website, are key areas to go -- LCfor911.org or AE911Truth.org are excellent sources, but a realization, too....
In sort of esoteric sciences they talk about a third eye that's in your forehead that sort of could be calcified with some of the junk media that we receive. We have to clear out that third eye, that's our eye that allows us to dream, to have visions, to have insights, to step out beyond where we are to get out of this muck and mire.
So we need a real assessment of what we are as Americans, where we're going, the direction, and 9/11 is the focal point where things really started getting bad. So we have to go back, find out what happened there, prosecute the people who are responsible, reclaim our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and be the Americans that we all envision ourselves to be and should be. And don't let anyone change that -- any political party, and lobby, and special interest. And let's all be Americans and love our freedom. And let's be honorable to our neighbors in the world -- and really, truly be that beacon of light that the world craves and is disappointed that the United States is not doing what we all believe it should be doing.
To step out, and this is an action to do that. We're stepping out. There's more actions to come. But this is a very important opportunity now to get the courts to order the Federal Bureau of Investigation to do what they're supposed to do. Thank you very much.
Question and Answer Period
Questioner: This building, the Newseum, is where five years ago there was an anniversary of the 9/11 Commission meeting right upstairs, and their focus was on defense contracts and improved security. They rented the [room in the] building. But what significance do you place that you're in front of the museum of the news industry that hosted this meeting five years ago. I believe they rented the space.
M.H.: Let me add my thoughts and I'll pass it around for folks. The immediate thought for me is that -- and this is true for the 9/11 Review Commission too. What they focused on in their report wasn't the new evidence that would help us really understand what happened on 9/11, who was responsible, and why. What they focused on was fine-tuning the FBI, the CIA, improving the intelligence community and their procedures. And here's the problem with that: Until we know who was responsible for this crime of the century and exactly how they accomplished it and what their purposes were, none of this fine tuning of the intelligence community means a damn. Because until you get to the bottom of, you know, who was responsible and you put those folks in jail, they're still out there and they're still doing their thing, and we've never going to be protected until we get the truth out. [Hands microphone to David Meiswinkle.]
D.M.: The irony is that we are here -- and to answer that, Andrew -- that we are in front of a building that you would think that the freedom of the press and the truth would be very significant. But as we've seen there seems to be a dumbing down of the news. And I get my news, for the most part, through alternative media and media sort of like Goodman's media and other media where they really use the Socratic method and they have a dialog and they go back and forth to try to get to the truth. And that's what they're doing, and that's what Mick said and it's really important -- underline it -- that the people who committed these crimes are still at large. They're still at large, and they will be encouraged to do more things if they are not brought to justice. So an example has to be set to protect all of us. And as we get older with kids and grandkids, we're leaving them this heritage -- either one of freedom or one of the exact opposite. So I would say that thew truth is what we're after. And here in front of this building -- of this building that, unfortunately, that's not their primary mission, to give us the truth, and that's what our lawsuit is all about. [Passes microphone to Bob McIlvaine.]
B.McI.: Well, I made, I'd say, ninety-nine percent of the 9/11 Commission hearings, and it was a disgrace -- they were all a disgrace. Yet they admit it, they admitted that it was a sham. They didn't have opportunity to do what they were going to do. But then they had these commissioners here, [shrugs] you know, they're cowards, and then they come out, Hamilton came out and said it was a sham, and Max Cleland.
It was just ... People would leave here so angry. You know, you'd talk to the press and you'd try to be civil, but sometimes it was so difficult to be civil because ... you know they were just stalling. You know, there was no [indistinct]. It was just ... everyone was lying.
I hate to get back to [Robert] Mueller, but everything, you know ... he'd come up there -- he stands up there and lies -- everybody was lying. There was no subpoena.
The main thing is, you got five minutes to interview a witness -- and that's all they would get. You can't go anywhere with that five minutes. So with these people to be here [in MONTH AND YEAR NEEDED] to be talking about the defense industry, spending more money -- you know, they sold out.
Maybe some of them were trying to do their job. I know Max Cleland was. [Robert] Kerrey, I think he was. But they didn't have a chance. I would do an interview -- I would lose my temper beyond imagination. But finally -- it was amazing how suddenly all the news people were with you because I was just so ticked off and ... the fact that they were here doing it -- if I were here I'd be out here demonstrating and I'd be calling them sons of bitches as they walked out the door. They're cowards -- they actually are cowards. They live by the system and the system is making them rich. And they know what happened with 9/11 -- any idiot knows what happened -- they all know it. But they're not even qualified to be idiots. They're beyond, so that's why [indistinct]. [Hands microphone to Richard Gage]
R.G.: John [IS THAT FIRST NAME RIGHT?] Farmer, the attorney of the 9/11 Commission, wrote a book [HE DOESN'T GIVE TITLE] and in that book he said that at some point there was a decision not to tell the people, the American people, the truth about 9/11. Other commissioners -- in fact, I believe it was Bob Kerry, said that they were set up to fail. That alone is reason enough to demand a new investigation of 9/11 -- let alone the evidence that we've been talking about here.
[I] refer to David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions. Extraordinary work. Other questions?
Questioner: There was a reference to a meeting with Bob Mueller, as FBI director. Who was in that meeting, and when and where was it?
B.McI.: Well, it was the Jersey Girls, the Jersey Girls, I don't know how many people know the Jersey Girls, but they were out for it. And I was just sort of ... was behind them watching. But, you know, they'd have events, I'd be there.
Well, it was after one of the commission hearings. They wanted to see Mueller, so they actually came to the FBI Building [Points toward it.] I don't know the exact date -- I remember John Judge, who was very involved in 9/11, and he said, Let's go over and see him. So I just sort of walked in the back door of the Jersey Girls [indistinct] and then it just ended abruptly, you know. Every question they asked him he wouldn't answer it.
And to me it was very [indistinct: sounds like "slow"]. And I just lost my temper. I went after him. I don't know what I would have done if I'd got to him, but I lost my temper. And FBI agents were very nice and they just grabbed me and, uh, [indistinct]. It was sort of ridiculous -- he wasn't giving any answers. It was a coverup from the beginning.
Questioner: Well, he's in the news. Why do you think he did it? Is there a higher power? Could he -- this is speculation, but -- could he have answered questions? Or what is your ...
B.McI.: 'Course he could. He knows exactly what happened ... You know, I get back: All this starts with Iran-Contra. He was there when they got pardons [in YEAR?]. You know, these people should have been put in jail for the rest of their life. And some of these people are in the administration right now. Well, that's what he does, he covers up things. He was a district attorney -- I don't know exactly what he was.
Questioner: He's a fixer.
B.McI.: Yeah, he's a fixer. Well, when did he come into this story after 9/11? I don't know when it was. But this is his job...
Someone in Attendance: One week prior.
B.McI.: One week prior, was it? Yeah, then suddenly he's the man. We're going to take his information? I mean, it was ridiculous. So here are all these people in the commission hearings and then, you know, and then again I went, they asked for it in the commission hearings and then, you know, and ... again I went with the Jersey Girls, they had asked for it [the meeting] and I just popped in on my own, and it was just crazy.
Another Questioner: Excuse me, Mueller said in a group in San Francisco that the terrorists were so good that they didn't leave a shred of evidence.
R.G.: [Repeating the comment.] "Mueller said in a group in San Francisco that the terrorists were so good that they didn't leave a shred of evidence," that's true.
Someone: Except for the passport that flew out the window ...
R.G.: Oh yeah ... So I'd like to thank everybody for coming to the press conference today -- most especially the attorneys who work so hard, Dave Meiswinkle and Mick Harrison of the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry. And you [those attending the sidewalk news conference and those viewing the video of it] can help a lot because the filing of this lawsuit's just the beginning. They've put a lot of work into this without being reimbursed. So we not only are raising funds for the work that's been done. I don't know how they [the attorneys]'ve paid their rent for the last ... so many months of work on this -- but for all the work that has yet to come, preparing for the expected motions to dismiss -- there's a whole set of hoops that we will be put through that takes hundreds of hours to do this work. And I want to encourage everybody today to go to LCfor911.org -- that's L.C.for -- F-O-R nine one one dot org, or AE911truth.org, and make your donation to the joint effot so that we can make sure that we are equipped in the legal battles to come. It's a lotta work, folks. Thanks so much.
You want to close out, Mick?
M.H.: Well, just a quick note. First of all, I have to say I'm proud to represent Richard and his organization and Bob McIlvaine and the Lawyers' Committee in this lawsuit.
And, as a lawyer, I expect to win it. You might be surprised to hear it. Not every 9/11 litigation that's been tried in the past for citizens has had success. This one I expect to win -- and for a very simple reason: All this evidence we're talking about is either in the hands of the FBI (which is true, I think, for five of the six categories), and the other category that Richard mentioned they've acknowledged the work of the Architects & Engineers and their plan to review it.
So all we have to prove to win this case is that the evidence is 9/11-related, that the FBI knew about it, that the original 9/11 Commission did not consider it, and that the new [9/11 Review] Commission did not assess it.
And I can tell you -- you can read our complaint, black and white, on all four of those points, on all seven of the counts. We should win on each one of these.
So this is not a symbolic action. We expect to win it. We expect it to result in a new assessment of evidence to be given to Congress and then by doing that we expect the American public to be better informed.
So I appreciate your attention.
Dave, do you have a close?
Questioner: Where can we find that complaint?
M.H.: The complaint will be posted on the Lawyers' Committee's website. [Turning to Richard Gage.] And you [Architects & Engineers] may post it, I don't know. If you have trouble finding it let me know. I'll give it to you. But it should be on our website. [Hands microphone to David Meiswinkle.]
D.M.: This is an important step. And it's not going to be our last step. We're so happy that you're covering this and we hope that more and more people find out.
But our experience is that when people seem to be ready for this information now -- perhaps in the past they weren't -- so as we proceed forward. We think there will be more attention paid to it. And we really are optimistic that there will be some kind of resolution positive in the long run. Not only in this suit, but in the further actions to come.
So, again, thank you for coming. Keep the faith. And let's get America back.
[Sidewalk news conference ends.]