April 21, 2009
by George Washington
5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld said “my interest is to hit Saddam”.
And at 2:40 p.m. on September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top administration officials, several lines below the statement “judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same time”, is the statement “Hard to get a good case.” In other words, top officials knew that there wasn’t a good case that Hussein was behind 9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify war with Iraq anyway.
And yet, the government knew that Al Qaeda and Iraq were not linked. For example, “Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the [9/11] attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda”.
And a Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy.
By Peter Duveen
PETER’S NEW YORK, Saturday, April 18, 2009–U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer
(D-NY) said yesterday that while he was positively disposed toward a new investigation
into the events of 9-11, his support for such a probe would depend on the form
it would take.
Schumer, who was attending the launch of the Tour of the Battenkill annual
bicycle races in Cambridge, New York, responded to a question regarding efforts
in New York City to establish a new 9-11 investigation.
"I think it’s not a bad idea," Schumer said. "You know, you’ve
got to do it in a good way, but yes, I’d be for it."
Schumer qualified his remarks by noting that his support would depend upon
the manner in which the investigation was structured. "I’d have to see
the parameters of the investigation and all that," he said. He briefly
mentioned "finding body parts," which may have referred to the discovery
in 2006 that the roof of the Deutsche Bank building near the former site of
the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was strewn with human remains from
A report sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology maintains
that the Twin Towers were brought down entirely due to fire and mechanical damage
from the two airliners that collided with them on 9-11. A similar report by
the same government agency asserts that the sudden and rapid collapse that same
afternoon of a third office tower, the 47-story Building 7, was caused… Continue reading
By Christopher Beam
April 8, 2009
In the new season of the FX drama Rescue Me, firefighter Franco Rivera espouses the belief that 9/11 was “an inside job.” According to a Sunday New York Times article, the show’s writers added this assertion because actor Daniel Sunjata is a “truther”; but the real firefighters on set–who work as script advisers–were offended by his allegations. This got the Explainer wondering: Do any firefighters believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Yes. There’s no evidence that firefighters buy into 9/11 conspiracy theories at higher rates than the rest of the population. (A 2007 Zogby poll found that 26 percent of Americans believe the government “let it happen.” A 2006 Scripps-Howard poll found it was more than a third.) But some firemen do believe the government was behind 9/11 and use their status as first responders to draw attention to their statements.
The most common conspiracy theory held by firefighters is that the Twin Towers–as well as a third building, 7 World Trade Center–collapsed not because planes crashed into them but due to a “controlled demolition.” On Sept. 11, an NBC reporter quoted New York Fire Department Chief of Safety Albert Turi as saying he believed there were explosives planted in one of the towers. After the attacks, the New York Fire Department interviewed firefighters to create an oral history of 9/11. These tapes–which were not released until 2005–contain numerous references to… Continue reading
The bipartisan panel that investigated the terrorist attacks was widely praised.
But did its final report rely on suspect information?
From the magazine issue dated Mar 23, 2009
Powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill are clamoring for creation of a bipartisan
“9/11 style” commission to investigate the legality of the Bush administration’s
antiterrorism tactics–especially its use of harsh interrogation techniques.
President Obama has been notably cool to the idea. But the case for a “truth”
commission was bolstered by the disclosure this month that the CIA had destroyed
92 videotapes of the interrogations and confinement of Al Qaeda suspects. A
dozen showed the use of “enhanced” techniques routinely described
by human-rights groups as torture.
Lawmakers say the obvious model for such an inquiry would be the 9/11 Commission–an
independent bipartisan body praised for its authoritative account of the attacks.
But as a reporter who covered the commission from start to finish and later
wrote a history of its investigation, I wonder if Congress understands the deep
irony of establishing a “new 9/11 Commission” on these issues. Former
commission investigators have acknowledged to me over the past year that the
panel had a serious blind spot on questions about torture.
The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004
that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda’s history relied heavily on information
obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not
far from it.
The panel raised no public protest over… Continue reading
by Mickey S. Huff and Paul W. Rea
They say goldfish have no memory
I guess their lives are much like mine
and the little plastic castle
is a surprise every time
and it’s hard to say if they’re happy
but they don’t seem much to mind.
–Ani DiFranco, Little Plastic Castles
For the past eight years, American culture has seen an outburst of media-driven mythmaking. Corporate mainstream media organizations, the pundits they sponsor, and politicians from both major parties have formed a new contextual chorus singing the same refrain: “On September 11th, 2001, everything changed.” From cable TV to AM radio, from the blogosphere to the town-hall meeting, Americans repeatedly hear that “this is a post-9/11 world.”
Although there is some truth to this platitude of pivotal change, independently minded citizens may also wonder whether such mass media messages have become self-fulfilling prophecies. This provides an interesting point of debate about what has or has not changed in America since 9/11.
This chapter concerns itself with the ongoing phenomena of media mythmaking and how, like many Americans surmised just after 9/11, everything has not changed. 1 Corporate mainstream media have resurrected powerful myths from America’s past to shape public perception in the present. Through the prism of 9/11, one can see how the corporate mass media are in fact doing more mythmaking than news reporting. Here, the authors will examine central historic American myths the corporate media and even much of the alternative independent media have extended into the… Continue reading
February 24, 2009 – An alliance of doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists,
researchers, and other medical professionals today announced the formation of
Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth and its petition calling for a new investigation
into the events of 9/11. The group’s website is at http://MP911Truth.org.
“As medical professionals, we are dedicated to the service of humanity; to
alleviating suffering, to improving health, preventing disease, and to preserving
life,” said co-founder Jonathan Weisbuch, MD, MPH. “We are horrified by the
terrorist acts of 9/11 and the senseless suffering and loss of life resulting
“However,” he continued, “as medical professionals, we are trained in science
and logical reasoning. We are appalled by the lack of scientific rigor and the
substantial omissions and blatant distortions in the official account of 9/11
as embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and related government documents.”
Dr. Weisbuch is a prominent public health physician and administrator and
previously served as the Chief Health Officer for the States of Wyoming and
North Dakota, as well as Los Angeles County, CA, and Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix,
Co-founder Barry Komisaruk, PhD, added, “The official account of the events
of 9/11 is so riddled with contradiction and implausibility that an objective
re-examination is necessary to set the record straight. We need to know who
was really behind the events and bring them to justice to prevent them from
striking again. We can no longer afford to allow our government to use deadly
force in our name… Continue reading
February 7, 2009
George Washington’s Blog
Counter-terrorism experts presumably have some insight into terrorism, right?
In fact, numerous high-level counter-terrorism experts question the government’s investigation of – and explanation for – 9/11.
“The best I could say about it is they really botched the job by not really going into the real failures. … At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous.”
The idea of such an attack was well known [and] had been
wargamed as a possibility in exercises before September 11.
– Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, California
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, senior U.S. government and military officials repeatedly claimed that what happened that day was unexpected. In May 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”  Two years later, President Bush stated, “Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.”  General Ralph Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on September 11, said, “Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised.” 
Yet these claims were untrue. Not only had the U.S. military and other government agencies discussed the possibility of such attacks, they also conducted numerous training exercises in the year or two before September 11 based around scenarios remarkably similar to what occurred on 9/11. As John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, said, “No one knew specifically that 20 people would hijack four airliners and use them for suicide attacks… Continue reading
January 17, 2009
DC 911Truth has produced an attractive new brochure to be distributed at the
Obama Inauguration and surrounding events. On the cover, President Obama is
asked to “help America learn the truth about 9/11,” but the interior
aimed at general audiences who may not be aware of problems with the
official account, or who may be quick to dismiss any questions as conspiracy
In a concise and straightforward way, the brochure presents the many facts
that challenge the 9/11 Commission Report (including doubts expressed by
Co-Chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton themselves), as well as
contradictions in the accepted narrative about air defense, the alleged
hijackers, the destruction of the World Trade Center, and the anthrax
attacks. Only statements that could be verified in mainstream news sources
were included and carefully footnoted, so as to maximize the credibility of
At the end, readers are asked to face a difficult reality: 9/11 could not
have occurred without high-level complicity from inside the U.S. government.
They are urged to learn the truth and tell others-especially the media and Congress-with the goal of opening a new, truly independent investigation.
The brochure can be downloaded and printed on the front and back of a letter-size sheet of paper (8.5 x 11in.), folded and distributed by mail or as a handout.
The DC Truth group considers this brochure an effective communication tool and will soon release another version not geared to the Obama Inauguration.
January 14, 2009
Posted at History Commons Groups
The National Archives today released a set of records the 9/11 Commission gave it. It did so today because the commission told it it had to wait until 2009 to do so, presumably on the off chance that people would have forgotten about it all by then. The records are in two groups, Memorandums for the Record (MFR), which are available online, and other records, which are not available online.
Editor’s Note: The National Archives 9/11 Commission Records URL’s have been updated.
Kevin Fenton, who wrote this blog entry today, is one of the great researchers working with Paul Thompson and so many other fine people at HistoryCommons.org (formerly known to most of us as CooperativeResearch.org) to document our history. Not just about 9/11, but about aspects of our lives so appallingly rewritten by media and textbooks. The work underway at HistoryCommons is absolutely invaluable, and we encourage readers to get involved and otherwise support that work.
I have been trawling through the ones that are available online and I have learned a few things of interest.
(1) Stacks of the MFR are not actually available. Either they have not been reviewed yet (pending), or have been withdrawn because they are very classified, or they have been made available, but have had the bejesus redacted out of them.
From The National Archives Legislative Branch – The Center for Legislative Archives
January 14, 2009
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, known as the 9/11 Commission, was an independent, bipartisan commission created by Congress. The Commission’s mandate was to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and to provide recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future. The Commission, extant from 2003 – 2004, held hearings, conducted interviews, and produced a report.
When the 9/11 Commission closed on August 21, 2004, it transferred legal custody of its records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The Commission encouraged the release of its records to the fullest extent possible in January 2009. Because the Commission was part of the legislative branch its records are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Approximately 35% of the Commission’s archived textual records are now publicly available. Due to the collection’s volume and the large percentage of national security classified files, NARA staff was unable to process the entire collection by January 2009. Review and processing focused on the portion of the collection that contains unique documents created by the Commission and those that reveal the most about the scope of the investigation and the internal workings of the Commission and its staff.Continue reading
Stephen C. Webster
A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.
According to a time-line of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.
On behalf of retired Army officer April Gallop, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.
“The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised ‘painful questions’ about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent” said Veale in a media advisory.
Gallop also says she heard two loud explosions, and does not believe that a Boeing 757 hit the building. Her son sustained a serious brain injury, and Gallop herself was knocked unconscious after the roof collapsed onto her office.
The suit also named… Continue reading
In this supplement to The NORAD Papers , I shine the spotlight on The 9/11 Commission Report’s assessment of NORAD in relation to the defense organization’s “air sovereignty” mission on 9/11. To accomplish this task, I compare the report’s view of NORAD’s air sovereignty capabilities before and on 9/11 with that of the historical record as provided by articles published before September 11, 2001.
The 9/11 Commission Report is correct when it affirms that, “NORAD is a binational command established in 1958 between the United States and Canada. Its mission was, and is, to defend the airspace of North America and protect the continent. That mission does not distinguish between internal and external threats…;” 1 The report becomes addled however when it explains NORAD’s seemingly poor performance on 9/11, “…;but because NORAD was created to counter the Soviet threat, it came to define its job as defending against external attacks [see Addendum].” 2
The statement that NORAD “define[ed] its job as defending against external attacks” 3 due to the Soviet threat, and that is why NORAD was taken off-guard on 9/11 is nonsensical on its face. The Soviet threat was the reason that NORAD was mandated to provide “surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States” in the first place. Soviet bombers, missiles or other aerospace vehicles breaching North American borders was just as much of a concern to the political leadership of North America, if not more of a concern, than Soviet bombers, missiles… Continue reading
By William R. Woodward
On Dec. 7, 1941, our country was attacked by Japan. What do our children know of the economic and political reasons for this tragic event?
Robert Stinnet’s book “Day of Deceit. The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor” reveals that Franklin Roosevelt not only let the attack on Pearl Harbor happen, but provoked it over a period of 14 months. At the time, the public was only 17 percent in favor of intervention against Germany. Roosevelt secretly had an eight-point plan drawn up to lure Japan into an act of war. The fleet was left exposed, and Japan’s oil supplies were cut off. Roosevelt even conspired to prevent the available intelligence from reaching the admiral in charge. In historical hindsight, it turns out to have been a PsyOp, a psychological operation to turn the public into support of a World War against the Axis powers Germany, Japan, and Italy. Two days after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Congress declared war.
The author is a UNH professor who sparked a controversy in September 2006 when he was quoted in a newspaper story as saying “government elites orchestrated 9/11″ while summarizing literature on the subject. The university defended his academic freedom and he chose to let the firestorm subside. Now, he breaks the silence with his first opinion piece on the topic.
This book flies in the face of a complacent ideology that the U.S. leaders occupy the moral high ground. In fact, false… Continue reading
The nearly 40% of American people who doubt the official account regarding
the September 11, 2001 attacks will be gratified to learn that their misgivings
have become recommended reading by a pillar of the book trade, Publishers
The leading starred review on PW‘s “Web
Pick of the Week” is Dr. David Ray Griffin’s newly released The
New Pearl Harbor Revisited (Interlink/Olive Branch press, 2008).
In its November 24, 2008 online issue, PW writes:
Griffin “addresses many points in exhaustive detail, from the physical
impossibility of the official explanation of the towers’ collapse to
the Commission’s failure to scrutinize the administration to the NIST’s
contradiction of its own scientists to the scads of eyewitness and scientific
testimony in direct opposition to official claims.
“Citing hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, [Griffin’s] detailed
analysis is far from reactionary or delusional, building a case that, though
not conclusive, raises enough valid and disturbing questions to make his call
for a new investigation more convincing than ever.”
Weekly reviews from this trusted and prestigious publisher have guided the
book trade, including booksellers, publishers, librarians, and literary agents,
for 136 years.
Dr. Griffin’s book can be found at good bookstores or purchased at a discounted price from 911Truth.org.
The review is copied below.
Victoria, BC, Canada
Web Pick of the Week
The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé
David Ray Griffin. Interlink/Olive Branch, $20 (386p) ISBN 9781566567299
Author and professor Griffin (9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press) knows his work is referred to by officials and the media as conspiracy theory, and he has a rebuttal: “the official theory is itself a conspiracy theory.” In this companion volume to 2004’s The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, Griffin provides corrections, raises new issues and discusses “the two most important official reports about 9/11,” the 9/11 Commission Report and the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the Twin Towers, both “prepared by people highly responsive to the wishes of the White House” and riddled with “omission and distortion from beginning to end.” Griffin addresses many points in exhaustive detail, from the physical impossibility of the official explanation of the towers’ collapse to the Commission’s failure to scrutinize the administration to the NIST’s contradiction of its own scientists to the scads of eyewitness and scientific testimony in direct opposition to official claims.…Continue reading
Monday’s New York Times reported that former Deputy A.G. and 9/11
Commissioner Jamie Gorelick was a candidate for Attorney General in the new
Obama Administration. Five-time Emmy winning investigative reporter Peter Lance
details a shocking, but little known story about Gorelick involving the loss
of a key al Qaeda operative. This is an excerpt from his 2006 HarperCollins
book TRIPLE CROSS soon to be published in trade paperback.
On December 16th, 1994, agents in the FBI’s San Francisco office made
an extraordinary seizure. Mohammed Jamal Khalifa (MJK) Osama bin Laden’s
brother-in-law and former roommate, was captured at a Holiday Inn in Morgan
Hill, California. If this arrest had been fully investigated by the FBI and
the Justice Department, it might have led to the seizure of 9/11 “mastermind”
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and stopped “planes as missiles” plot dead
in its tracks. But what followed was series of missteps and bad decisions at
the highest levels of the State and Justice departments that had a catastrophic
impact on America’s ability to cut short bin Laden’s jihad against
At the center of the decision making at the time, was Deputy Attorney General
KHALIFA’S EXTRADITION BACKED BY TWO TOP FEDS
Even if the Feds were savvy enough to see the value in questioning him, however,
they never got the chance. On January 5, 1995, a decision was made by Secretary
of State Warren Christopher and supported by Deputy A.G. Gorelick, that arguably
ranks as one of the most profound intelligence errors committed by any U.S.…
By Matt Taibbi and David Ray Griffin
October 6, 2008
A poll of 17 countries that came out September of this year revealed that majorities in only nine of them “believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.” A Zogby poll from 2006 found that in America, 42% of respondents believed the US government and 9/11 Commission “covered up” the events of 9/11. It’s safe to say that at least tens of millions of Americans don’t believe anything close to the official account offered by the 9/11 Commission, and that much of the outside world remains skeptical.
Over the years, AlterNet has run dozens of stories , mostly critical, of the 9/11 Movement. Matt Taibbi has taken on the 9/11 Truth Movement head on in a series of articles, and most recently in his new book, The Great Derangement .
In April, I asked Taibbi if he would be interested in interviewing David Ray Griffin, a leading member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice , Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University and author of seven of books on 9/11 , about his recent book, 9/11 Contradictions . After months of back and forths between them and some editorial delays, I’m pleased to share their written exchange — all 24,000 words of it. What we have here are the preeminent writers on both sides of the 9/11 Truth argument; a one-of-a-kind debate.… Continue reading
By Tod Fletcher
September 11, 2008
In THE NEW PEARL HARBOR REVISITED , David Ray Griffin provides a brilliant and much-needed companion to his path-breaking and movement-building book on 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor (NPH; 2004). Now, on the occasion of the seventh anniversary of those horrific events, Griffin surveys in detail all the main lines of evidence against the official account of 9/11 to have emerged during the last four years. THE NEW PEARL HARBOR REVISITED (NPHR) has been designed as volume 2 of a two-volume set with NPH as volume 1; together they provide a thorough and up-to-date case against the official conspiracy theory (they can be bought separately, of course).
Griffin has already published four other books that provide in-depth analysis of most of the evidence to have emerged since 2004. NPHR’s main purpose is to provide an easily accessible survey of all of the new evidence, so that it is now possible for a beginner to the subject (including journalists and members of Congress) to master its enormous complexity simply by reading two books. NPHR is structured identically to NPH; each chapter in NPHR comments and builds on the corresponding chapter in NPH. Much of the content is entirely new; there are many facts and analyses in NPHR which Griffin presents for the first time, and which literally make the book an up-to-the-minute statement of the case.
In the Preface, Griffin explains why he undertook to “update” The New Pearl Harbor . In the Introduction he… Continue reading