9-11 Commission dealt with several issues by simply ignoring them
by James Ridgeway
The Village Voice
December 5th, 2005
Posted by wdk
On 9-11 the U.S. government faced a terrible decision: Should the military be ordered to shoot down other commercial airplanes full of civilian passengers, so that they, too, would not be used as missiles? Vice President Dick Cheney, although not part of the National Command Authority, gave the orders, although under the Constitution the vice president has no authority to command the military. The 9-11 Commission dealt with this fundamental issue by ignoring it. Among the other 9-11 topics the commission ignored:
• In the six months before 9-11, Federal Aviation Administration senior officials received 52 intelligence briefings regarding threats from Al Qaeda, warnings that mentioned hijacking, according to a commission staff study. The study was not part of the final commission report. The Bush administration blocked release of that information until after the 2004 election, and well after publication of the final commission report.
• The hijackers easily eluded CIA surveillance. Two of them landed in California in 2000, where they were greeted by an FBI informant, who actually rented one of the hijackers an apartment. FBI agents, then under Louis Freeh, remained clueless—either the informant didn’t tell them what was going on or they didn’t act on what they were told. Efforts by the Joint Inquiry of Congress to interview the informant were blocked by the FBI, which actually hid the man from congressional investigators. Top… Continue reading
Thanks to www.911busters.com, we now have new footage of the Tucker Carlson/Prof. Steven E. Jones interview. This new version points out the tactics used by Tucker to discredit Prof. Jones. It also includes the footage that Tucker refused to show. The collapse of WTC7, NASA’s findings regarding the heat signatures left in the foot of the buildings, and a few other surprises.
Tucker Carlson is either as silly as his bow tie would indicate, or he’s looking for a way to expose the truth behind 9/11. Today he posted “9/11 Theorist Clearly Hits A Nerve,” regarding public response to his Monday night show with BYU Professor, Steven Jones.
Carlson first insinuates Jones is “insane,” then accuses him of being unable to articulate his hypothesis, calling him “an epically bad guest.” Apparently, Jones was expected to clearly articulate the hypothesis presented in a 26-page scientific paper in six minutes, minus Carlson’s repeated interruptions promoting the official line. (Let’s also not forget that ‘The Situation’ refused to show footage of the WTC7 collapse, which would have essentially made the case despite Carlson’s best attempts to prevent Jones from doing so.)
“We’ve never had an e-mail response like the one we got,” Carlson says, “…the overwhelming majority wrote to thank me for my ‘courage’ in putting him on, and to complain that we didn’t give him more time to explain the conspiracy. In other words, a lot of people seem to think it’s possible that the U.S. government had a hand in bringing down the World Trade Center buildings.”
Carlson then tones down his rant from what he originally said on the show last night, (video here) when he moves into his attack on 9/11 skeptics. “If you really…even considered it a possibility – how could you continue to live here? You couldn’t. You’d leave the United States on the next available flight… Continue reading
Watch Tucker Carlson of MSNBC “Interview” Prof. Jones
Several times during the interview, Professor Jones asked Carlson to run the footage of WTC7’s collapse, which he had supplied to MSNBC prior to the interview. Instead, MSNBC chose to show a picture of the building as it stood prior to the collapse, photos of rescue workers at the WTC site, including emotional footage of removal of a body, and photo of Tower 1 after the collapse.
It seems interesting that MSNBC would choose to allow Dr. Jones to speak, yet refuse to show this important video that would have shocked everyone watching with the visual evidence of what he was saying–the “implosion” of Building 7. Instead, they showed photos already seared into Americans’ minds of what we were told to believe, while allowing Jones to suggest ‘our memory is not accurate,’ so to speak. Subliminal has become an understatement in today’s world of corporate “mainstream” media.
While this may indicate our pressure is getting to them, we must continue to demand that media allow researchers to present the whole of the evidence. It seems more likely to be an indication that this scientific investigation, researched by someone with academic credentials, is potentially problematic enough to the official cover-up that they felt a need to immediately attempt to discredit Jones, before the truth can get traction with the broader public.
We have news for them–it’s too late!
If you would like to call Carlson and ask him to have Professor… Continue reading
Video From KUTV Interview: Click Here
By Elaine Jarvik
The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it’s likely that there were “pre-positioned explosives” in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones’ article is titled, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation “guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
“It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes ? which were actually a diversion tactic,” he writes. “Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all,” Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, “I don’t usually go there. There’s no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation.”
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to… Continue reading
By Greg Guma
Burlington– For more than four years, the public has repeatedly been urged to ignore “outrageous” conspiracies theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that set in motion the so-called “war on terrorism.” However, the official explanation that has been provided — and widely embraced — also requires the acceptance of a theory, one involving a massive intelligence failure, 19 Muslim hijackers under the sway of Osama bin Laden, and the inability of the world’s most advanced Air Force to intercept four commercial airplanes.
“A good theory explains most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted,” notes David Ray Griffin, who has been examining the available evidence for the past three years and has so far published two books on the subject. This month, Griffin summarized his findings for more than 1,000 people in four well-attended Vermont talks. The bottom line, he informed a packed house in Burlington on Oct. 12, is that “every aspect of the official story is problematic,” contradicting the available evidence and defying even the laws of physics.
You may well ask, how can this be true? And, if so, why haven’t we heard more about it? The answer to the second question is easy: Mainstream media outlets have consistently declined to examine the highly technical and exhaustively documented case Griffin has developed. That may also sound like a conspiracy theory, but the almost total news blackout of Griffin’s Vermont talks suggests that it’s an unfortunate fact.
Explaining why the… Continue reading
On This Page:
Call to Action – Write to Newsday
One of these men is not on the cover…
Pentagon prevents Anthony Shaffer from testifying and accuses him of stealing pens
Intikab Habib, incoming FDNY
Both are subject to intimidation for speaking out about
Which is the bigger story?
Let Newsday know what you think!
Newsday Shields Long Island Readers From 9/11
By Nicholas Levis
911Truth.org New York Correspondent
Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2005
Our previous story on the Intikab Habib case was premature.
We reported early Saturday morning that New York Newsday published an article about people who reject the US government’s account of the September 11 events.
The story by Newsday Staff Writer Patricia Hurtado had already appeared on the newsday.com website. But we later discovered that the editors kept it out of the newspaper itself. (That applies to the Long Island Saturday and “Early… Continue reading
911Truth.org covered in New York Newsday
By Nicholas Levis
911Truth.org New York Correspondent
Saturday, Oct. 1, 2005:
To the left is the front page of yesterday’s New York Newsday. The picture below the main headline (“I’m Not Sure Hijackers Did This”) shows the second World Trade Center tower being hit on the morning of September 11th, 2001.
Intikab Habib, a Muslim imam, was due to take an oath Friday morning as a new chaplain with the Fire Department of New York City.
Just a few hours after Newsday published Habib’s statements doubting the official story of the 9/11 attacks, he was forced instead to resign the appointment.
The Fire Department first learned about Habib’s 9/11 skepticism from the Newsday story. “We don’t ask new employees about their political views before we hire them,” a Fire Department spokesperson told Newsday.
Two weeks ago, Habib, who is originally from Guyana, participated in several Fire Department memorials observing the fourth September 11th anniversary. He did not bring up his views about the origins of the 9/11 events at that time, according to Newsday staff writer Carol Eisenberg.
The pressure apparently applied to force Habib’s immediate resignation thus came in direct reaction to the publicizing of his political views.
Habib joins the ranks of others who have been fired, demoted or forced to resign after voicing alternative views of September 11th, including FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, FBI Special Agent Robert Wright, US Air Force Colonel Steven Butler, and Underwriters Laboratories executive Kevin… Continue reading
Senators Accuse Pentagon of Obstructing Inquiry on Sept. 11 Plot
By DOUGLAS JEHL
September 22, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 – Senators from both parties accused the Defense Department on Wednesday of obstructing an investigation into whether a highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger did indeed identify Mohamed Atta and other future hijackers as potential threats well before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The complaints came after the Pentagon blocked several witnesses from testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a public hearing on Wednesday. The only testimony provided by the Defense Department came from a senior official who would say only that he did not know whether the claims were true.
But members of the panel, led by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said they regarded as credible assertions by current and former officers in the program. The officers have said they were prevented by the Pentagon from sharing information about Mr. Atta and others with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
A Pentagon spokesman had said the decision to limit testimony was based on concerns about disclosing classified information, but Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said he believed the reason was a concern “that they’ll just have egg on their face.”
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, accused the Pentagon of “a cover-up” and said, “I don’t get why people aren’t coming forward and saying, ‘Here’s the deal, here’s what happened.’ “
The Pentagon has acknowledged that at least five members… Continue reading
The following was published Friday, August 26, 2005 (dateline Aug. 28) by latimes.com.
METROPOLIS / SNAPSHOTS FROM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE
Getting Agnostic About 9/11
A society of nonbelievers questions the official version
Original at http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-crgriffin35aug28,1,3835884.story?coll=la-headlines-magazine&ctrack=1&cset=true.
Anyone who types the words “9/11″ and “conspiracy” into an online search engine soon learns that not everybody buys the official narrative of what took place on Sept. 11, 2001. As a professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, 66-year-old David Ray Griffin would seem to have more affinity for leather elbow patches than tin hats, yet after friends and colleagues prodded him into sifting through the evidence, he experienced a conversion. Now he’s spreading the bad news. Griffin compiled a summary of material arguing against the accepted story that 19 hijackers sent by Osama bin Laden took the aviation system and the U.S. military by surprise that awful day in his 2004 book
“The New Pearl Harbor” (published by Interlink, a Massachusetts-based independent publisher covering areas including travel, cooking, world fiction, current events, politics, children’s literature and other subjects). He recently followed up with the book
“The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” (Interlink), a critique of the Kean commission document in which he suggests that a chunk of the blame for the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil lies closer to home than the caves of Afghanistan. We contacted him at his Santa Barbara-area home for a report on his journey from mild-mannered scholar to… Continue reading
The "War on Terror" was launched because the "Pearl Harbor of
the 21st century happened today." That is what the White House tells us
George W. Bush wrote in his diary on the evening of September 11, 2001. However,
the "War on Terror" has now lasted longer than the United
States’ involvement in the Second World War, and there is no end in sight.
As everyone knows, Osama Bin Ladin is still on the loose. Or is it his
How serious is the US government about neutralizing or prosecuting the people
it says were responsible for 9/11?
What is the US government’s evidence for its version of what really happened
on September 11th, 2001?
The Motassadeq case raises these questions, but it is useful first to recall
a few past examples:
Several of Bin Ladin’s brothers and relatives were in the United States on
September 11th. They were spared the indignity of having the FBI question them
about his possible location or plans. Instead, they and dozens of other
high-status Saudis were immediately flown to big cities and allowed to leave for Saudi Arabia
special flights, starting in the days when the general "no fly" order
still applied to all other travelers.
In November 2001, the Pentagon ordered an air corridor cleared so that Bin
Ladin’s comrades-in-arms could
escape a siege at Kunduz. Pakistani intelligence agents and al-Qaeda operatives
were allowed to fly to Pakistan, as Seymour
Hersh reported soon after, citing military sources who… Continue reading
“All the News That Didn’t Fit”
The following was published in the September 2005 print edition, page one:
By Peter Phillips, Bonnie Faulkner, and Robin Lathan-Ponneck
Three Sonoma County activists joined hundreds of others in Washington
DC for the July 22-24 9/11 Emergency
Truth Convergence (see website). Bonnie Faulkner producer
of Guns and Butter on KPFA, Robin Lathan- Ponneck, member of 9/11 Truth and
board member of Sonoma County Peace and Justice Center, joined Peter Phillips
with Project Censored for the three-day event that included congressional
hearings, a press conference at the National Press Club, a rally in Lafayette
Park, workshops at American University and a Strategy Summit. The Convergence
was held on the anniversaries of two current icons of offi cial deceit: the fi
rst anniversary of the Kean/Zelikow 9/11 Commission Report and the third
anniversary of the Downing Street Memo. Speakers from a wide variety of
organizations and political perspectives gathered to address the offi cial lies
by the US Government and the complicity of the corporate media.
of Congress Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) hosted hearings in the Cannon Office
Building across the street for the Capital. The hearings held on July 22, were
entitled, “The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizen’s
Response – Did the Commission get it right?” Over 25 cameras including
C-span fi lmed the speakers. Moderator for the day was Verna Avery Brown, with
Pacifica Radio. Lead-off testimony came from families of 9/11 victims. Lorie
Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg… Continue reading
A US military intelligence team code-named “Able Danger” identified Mohamed Atta and three other alleged 9/11 hijackers as potential terrorists in the summer of 2000, at a time when Atta was living in Florida, according to yesterday’s New York Times .
But the Times story obscures at least as much as it reveals.
The 9/11 Commission was made aware of the Able Danger program in 2003, but failed to mention it in its 2004 report.
The Times calls yesterday’s revelation “the first assertion that Mr. Atta… was identified by any American government agency as a potential threat before the Sept. 11 attacks.” In fact, such assertions date back to German press reports of September 2001 and October 2002, when several German newspapers reported that the CIA had Atta under observation during the first six months of 2000, while he was still living in Germany.
According to the German reports of Sept. 2001, the CIA in 2000 watched as Atta “bought chemicals” in Frankfurt and later tracked him to Berlin, where he received an entry visa from the US consulate in May 2000.
(According to official US timelines of his activities, Atta entered the United States for the first time in June 2000, although witness accounts reported in local papers after 9/11 place him in Florida months earlier.)
The CIA did not inform German authorities about its surveillance of Atta on their soil in 2000, and the Germans learned about it only after the 9/11/01 attacks. The German authorities themselves also… Continue reading
On Saturday, July 30 at 8:00 pm and Sunday, July 31 at 1:00 pm and Monday, August 1 at 1:15 am:
The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism
by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Description: Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed outlines the relationship between the West and radical Muslim groups like the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria, and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in Serbia. Mr. Ahmed says that these groups, parts of which are now affiliated with Al Qaeda, were used by the United States and Britain to further Western political and economic goals. He argues that a more complete investigation of this relationship is necessary to understand what happened on 9/11. Mr. Ahmed also talks about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1996 British attempt to assassinate Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in this light. This talk, held at American University in Washington, DC, was organized by the DC Emergency Truth Convergence (www.truthemergency.us). Includes Q&A.
Author Bio: Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development (www.globalresearch.org) based in Brighton, UK. He is the author of “The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001.”
Publisher: Olive Branch Press 46 Crosby Street Northhampton, MA 01060
- Conspiracy theories implicating president aired at 8-hour hearing
By Bob Kemper
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Rep. Cynthia McKinney chairs Friday’s hearing, reopening the issue that brought her criticism and her 2002 ouster. Photo: Rick McKay/AJC
Washington ? Revisiting the issue that helped spur her ouster from Congress three years ago, Rep. Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The eight-hour hearing, timed to mark the first anniversary of the release of the Sept. 11 commission’s report on the attacks, drew dozens of contrarians and conspiracy theorists who suggest President Bush purposely ignored warnings or may even have had a hand in the attack ? claims participants said the commission ignored.
“The commission’s report was not a rush to judgment, it was a rush to exoneration,” said John Judge, a member of McKinney’s staff and a representative of a Web site dedicated to raising questions about the Sept. 11 commission’s report.
The White House and the commission have dismissed such questions as unfounded conspiracy theories.
McKinney first raised questions about Bush’s involvement shortly after the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, generating a furious response from fellow Democrats in Washington and voters in Georgia, who ousted her in 2002.
“What we are doing is asking the unanswered questions of the 9/11 families,” McKinney, a DeKalb County Democrat who won back her seat in 2004, said during the proceedings.
She rebuffed a reporter’s repeated attempts to ask her why she would so boldly embrace the same claims that led to her downfall.…Continue reading
- A 9/11 Team Report-back from the St. Louis Media Reform Conference By Les Jamieson
In a time of universal deceit by our mainstream media, the media watchdog group FreePress.net opened its annual Conference on Media Reform in St. Louis on May 13. The event sold out bringing in 2,500 alternative media workers from all 50 states. There were independent journalists, people with local cable access shows, alternative radio shows and alternative print publications. The stellar lineup of speakers included the likes of Phil Donahue, Jim Hightower, Bill Moyers, Amy Goodman, and Al Franken to name a few. A major highlight was an address given by the two FCC Commissioners, Michael Kopps and Jonathan Adelstein, who opposed chairman Michael Powell and the media giants move to broaden regional media ownership and increase their monopolies.
The workshops addressed a broad spectrum of issues and strategies for disseminating news that gets suppressed by the corporate media. The Downing St. Memo was a big topic of discussion. Robert McChesney and the leadership of FreePress did a phenomenal job organizing and managing the event throughout the weekend. Overall, there was a sense of alarm due to the political atmosphere that has engulfed the nation since the stolen election of 2000 and the media’s role in selling a war based on lies.
Several 9/11 activists attended with the goal of distributing 600 DVDs and audio CDs of the David Ray Griffin lecture at the University of Wisconsin which was broadcast on C-Span in April 30th… Continue reading
Opinion by Cathy Garger
June 29, 2005–In the latest display of political partisan grand showmanship, D.C. swamp mud is being slung in typical dirty fashion between W’s political strategist and alter ego, Karl Rove, and a virtual “Who’s Who” list of Democratic congressional characters.
While such mud-slinging is normally just “business as usual” in any given week in the nation’s capital, this time the mud’s being slung far lower than ever below the Belt-way.
In rare form at the New York Conservative Party’s Annual Dinner last Wednesday evening in New York City, behold Karl Rove’s newest attacks against Democrats: “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
Rove continued “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.” He went on to say, “No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals,” and added, “Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies.”
Politics being the dirty game it is, admittedly, we “liberals” are quite accustomed to being attacked with totally groundless, unsubstantiated “low blows.” Such discourse is actually Washington “par for the course,” all being fair in love and war in the typical back and forth banter that exists between the two frequently sparring political parties.
But this time the man often credited with actually being Bush’s brain has done the unprecedented, the unthinkable, the actually unspeakable because Mr.…Continue reading
“A 4-hour panel discussion investigating theories behind 9-11 was held featuring four guests, all of whom expressed the belief that there are holes in the official story. Peter Lance and Mike Levine leaned towards the view that the government was negligent but didn’t plan the attacks, while the other two panelists David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones suspect an “inside job” to varying extents.” Listen to it here.
“Alex Jones, a documentary filmmaker and political researcher, pointed towards a “shadow” government above Pres. Bush as orchestrating the attacks. The hijackers, he suggested, were government trained operatives, who believed they were part of a drill on September 11th and not on a suicide mission. The planes themselves, he continued, were flown by remote control into the WTC towers. Jones created a special page to accompany the discussion, which includes a video clip from his latest work Martial Law 9-11.
“Investigative reporter Peter Lance countered that Jones’ theories were preposterous, and that by blaming a “shadow government” the effectiveness of al Qaeda is underestimated. Lance does believe that the U.S. government was negligent in its failure to detect the plot, and criminally culpable in its subsequent cover up of the facts. He sent us the following related links to audio and articles.
“Mirroring some of Lance’s assertions, radio host Mike Levine said there is enough evidence to put people in front of a grand jury, to face charges related to the deceptions and ineptitudes perpetrated by governmental agencies. Specifically he… Continue reading