April 12, 2010
by Marc Hansen
Des Moines Register Editorials
David Ray Griffin comes to Drake University on April 23 to tell us why the official explanation for the 9/11 attack on the United States doesn’t hold water.
A theologian, philosopher of religion and professor emeritus at California’s Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, Griffin has been at it for about seven years now and says he won’t stop until the government conducts a new, impartial, independent investigation.
As opposed to the 9/11 Commission probe. He calls that exercise a charade.
Griffin has written eight books on the subject with another on the way: “Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.”
The appointee, a former Harvard professor named Cass Sunstein who now heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, co-wrote an academic paper saying government should undermine conspiracy theory groups by infiltrating their chat rooms, social networks and group meetings.
Griffin believes “cognitive infiltration” is the wrong term. “It’s more like fascism,” he says.
He also believes the real conspiracy theorists are people who believe the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were hatched by Osama bin Laden and carried out by al-Qaida. In Griffin’s mind, it’s also an excuse for every extreme military action we’ve taken since.
He can produce a long list of scientists and other scholars who endorse his views. Detractors like Matt Taibbi, author of “The Great Derangement,” say he’s “an idiot.”
At first, Griffin went along with… Continue reading
by Tori Sutton
A small group of activists hit the streets of downtown Stratford on Saturday to spread the word about perceived inconsistencies in the Sept. 11 World Trade Centre collapse.
Stratford resident Mike Bondi was joined by members of the Kitchener 9/11 Truth group in Market Square, where they handed out flyers and DVDs to passersby.
In an interview last week, Bondi — an engineer who began researching the collapse of the towers a few years ago — said he hoped to share evidence about the buildings’ demise with the public.
“We’re just really looking from a scientific and physical perspective,” Bondi said.
“There’s more than enough evidence to create reasonable doubt that the official story is not consistent with the evidence (presented).”
Bravo to the Stratford Gazette (“Stratford, which is known for its cultural contributions, is located between Kitchener and London in the heart of southwestern Ontario.”), which is “delivered free on Fridays to 19,700 households and dealers within the community” for publishing this objective news piece authored by journalist Tori Sutton.
Though the matter is highly technical, Bondi said the DVD the group hands out does a good job of presenting the evidence. The DVD runs just over two hours, and all information is presented by Richard Gage of California, who founded the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It looks at the collapse of the two major towers, along with a smaller building that collapsed around 5… Continue reading
by Elizabeth Woodworth
February 15, 2010
In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account.
Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a “conspiracy theory” ignoring science and common sense.
This essay presents these media analyses in the form of 18 case studies.
Eight countries — Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Russia — have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.
This more open approach taken in the international media — I could also have included the Japanese media — might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks — a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country’s foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge.
BBC Conspiracy Files: Osama Bin Laden Dead or Alive Complete in Six Parts on Youtube
Posted January 12, 2010
Part 1 of 4
Stephen C. Webster
December 12th, 2009
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has seen some stuff that will blow your mind.
Or, at least that’s the tagline to “Conspiracy Theory,” his new show on US cable station TruTV. In episode two, the one-time wrestler and movie star goes after one of America’s greatest sacred cows: the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
It is, as far as this reporter can tell, the first time a syndicated program on U.S. cable has given a serious look at arguments made by members of the 9/11 truth movement.
In the show, Ventura speaks to key 9/11 truth figures such as former BYU professor Steven Jones and William Rodriguez, a nationally-acclaimed hero credited with saving dozens as he tried to escape from the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11.
Ventura explores theories ranging from the missing black box recorders to the possibility that previously-planted explosives brought down the WTC towers.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which investigated the WTC tower collapses, maintains there was no recovered evidence of explosive materials. An electronic FAQ to the government’s theory is available online.
Almost without saying, the program leans heavily toward the conspiratorial-minded. Yet for many viewers, this may be their first exposure to such claims.
According to a TruTV press release, “Conspiracy Theory” hit the airwaves with the brunt of 1.6 million viewers, driving an 82% increase in the network’s viewership over 2008. In only its second week, “Conspiracy Theory” is TruTV’s most… Continue reading
by Prof. Peter Dale Scott
October 21, 2009
The New York Times, on October 17, published a page-one story by Scott Shane about the CIA’s defiance of a court order to release documents pertaining to the John F. Kennedy assassination, in its so-called Joannides file. George Joannides was the CIA case officer for a Cuban exile group that made headlines in 1963 by its public engagements with Lee Harvey Oswald, just a few weeks before Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy. For over six years a former Washington Post reporter, Jefferson Morley, has been suing the CIA for the release of these documents.1
Sometimes the way that a news item is reported can be more newsworthy than the item itself. A notorious example was the 1971 publication of the Pentagon Papers (documents far too detailed for most people to read) on the front page of the New York Times.
The October 17 Times story was another such example. It revealed, perhaps for the first time in any major U.S. newspaper, that the CIA has been deceiving the public about its own relationship to the JFK assassination.
On the Kennedy assassination, the deceptions began in 1964 with the Warren Commission. The C.I.A. hid its schemes to kill Fidel Castro and its ties to the anti-Castro Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil, or Cuban Student Directorate, which received $50,000 a month in C.I.A. support during 1963.
In August 1963, Oswald visited a New Orleans shop owned by a directorate official, feigning sympathy with… Continue reading
Thursday, September 17, 2009
By Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie
The Santa Barbara Independent
In Print Cover Story
One of the crucial technical disputes in American history, perhaps second only to global warming, is underway. It pits hundreds of government technicians who say the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by airplane impact against hundreds of professional architects and building engineers who insist that the Twin Towers could never have collapsed solely due to the planes and are calling for a new independent investigation. It is a fight that is not going away and is likely to get louder as more building trade professionals sign on to one side or the other.
Better than anyone, David Ray Griffin understands the “enormous importance” of Richard Gage, the Bay Area architect and staunch Republican who founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911 Truth).
By Tim Hjersted
Lawrence Journal-World Blogs
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, President Bush asked the American public to “never entertain outrageous conspiracy theories.” The irony of his statement is easily lost. Most people consider themselves reasonable, thoughtful individuals that don’t believe in crazy conspiracy theories, but the Official story of 9/11 — that 19 radical terrorists conspired for several years to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings — is, in fact, a conspiracy theory. It just happens that this theory has the official endorsement of the U.S. government. So, believe our conspiracy theory, not theirs, Mr. Bush asks us. Don’t look at the facts. Don’t investigate for yourself. Just believe what you’re told.
This is, in effect, what the government and the mainstream media is asking us when it labels any idea a “conspiracy theory,” and we can see how incredibly effective this tool has been in stunting rational debate.
Over the decades, the term “conspiracy theory” has gained an increasingly negative stigma. People associate conspiracy theorists with kooks and wackos, paranoid rabble-rousers and self-proclaimed prophets with delusions of grandeur.
Long story short, the term has a whole long list of negative connotations, and most reasonable folks who value their reputation will avoid any conspiracy topics like the plague once it’s clear that the topic is now deemed ultra hazardous “conspiracy” territory.
Because of this, the term has become an incredibly effective propaganda tool for those who would prefer to silence dissenting opinions rather than debate… Continue reading
from Barrie Zwicker
July 14, 2009
Canadian-born James Douglass of Birmingham, Alabama is a Christian pacifist, a 9/11Truther and author of JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis Books).
The book rose to number 31 on Amazon’s best seller list two weeks after Oliver Stone appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on June 26th last holding a copy of the 2008 book, which was shown on camera. Stone said it is a “great book.”
The question “why” that Douglass’s book addresses in the case of JFK’s assassination arguably is also the most important question concerning 9/11. Douglass recently has been added under “Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth” on http://PatriotsQuestion911.com
Douglass’s book deserves wide readership. It’s a tremendously well-researched work, one of the best of the 400+ books on JFK’s assassination. Douglass conducted original interviews with people now able and willing to talk after decades of silence. He also drew on thousands of recently released US government documents to reveal the logic of the plot to kill Kennedy. The plot’s purpose was not only to assassinate a president who was turning toward peace but also to implicate the Soviet Union and Cuba in his murder so as to justify pre-emptive attacks upon them. The parallels with 9/11 are highly educative.
Douglass’s editor, Robert Ellsberg, feels the Stone endorsation is a peg upon which to “re-promote” the book. I agree and commend it thoroughly to all frequenters of 911blogger.com. For the Stone interview, go to… Continue reading
How to Destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement: Excellent 9.5 minute video about disinfo, focus, apparently from someone at AE911truth.org. Description states “Spread the word – or in the future the regime will do MUCH worse.”
by Kevin Ryan
Learning about self-deception is important for all people today. That’s because many of our problems, both as individuals and as a society, are rooted in self-deception, and many of the ways in which others abuse us relate to our inherent tendency to self-deceive. We can overcome these problems, and have a decent chance at long-term survival as a species, only if we learn about such limitations, and strive to control them. One great way to rapidly learn about self-deception, and other forms of deception, is to learn about the events of September 11th.
It’s easy to see widespread self-deception with regard to 9/11. For one thing, most people don’t know the actual official story, given by the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This is despite the fact that everyone, at least in the US, has invested essentially their entire future in that story, whether they know it or not.
Some have gone beyond simple avoidance of the facts, in an attempt to prevent themselves and others from looking closely at 9/11. These folks have gone to the extent of changing the definitions of common words, engaging in wild speculation and exaggerations, and suggesting that long strings of unprecedented events, including violations of the laws of nature, were possible on just that one day. These painful self-deceptions help some people dodge the emotional stress that accompanies careful examination of the events of 9/11.
In order to understand the extreme self-deception surrounding… Continue reading
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
September 19, 2008
According to the official account of 9/11, Wedge 1 of the Pentagon was struck by Flight 77, which was a Boeing 757. If so, there surely would have been debris from the plane to support this claim. But, it appears, there was not. People who inspected Wedge 1 shortly after the attack almost universally reported an absence of the kind of debris that would have been left by the crash of a large airliner. I will give several examples.
F-16 pilot Dean Eckmann, who was asked to fly over the Pentagon and report on the extent of the damage, said that he suspected that the damage had been caused by “a big fuel tanker truck because of the amount of smoke and flames coming up and … there was no airplane wreckage off to the side.”1
I knew it was a crash site before we got there, and I didn’t know what it was going to look like. I couldn’t imagine because the building is like rock solid. I expected to see the airplane, so I guess my initial impression was, “Where’s the plane? How come there’s not a plane?” I would have thought the building would have stopped it and somehow we would have seen something like part of, or half of the plane, or the lower part, or the back of the plane. So it was just a… Continue reading
British Broadcasting contorts itself again to blast 9/11 conspiracy advocates
(“The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower,” BBC 2, July 6, 2008)
If you want to kill a dangerous animal, you go for the jugular. If you want to demolish a building, you destroy its main supports. If you want to marginalize the burgeoning 9/11 truth movement, you attack its most popular points. This isn’t brain surgery.
In a recently broadcast documentary, The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower, the BBC presents the second of two programs confronting claims made by a growing activist movement comprised of people who doubt the official story of 9/11. This time the BBC looks into one of the most compelling areas of 9/11 research, the theory that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
The perfect vertical implosion of this enormous building—the last of seven WTC buildings to be completely destroyed on 9/11—was filmed from several excellent angles and is further supported by aerial photos (fig. 1). Those theorists who claim that the Twin Towers as well were brought down with explosives have enjoyed an exponential boost in credence from strong evidence supporting the intentional demolition of WTC 7.
Besides giving the green light to plans on paper since the GHW Bush administration to add Iraq and Afghanistan to the U.S.’s portfolio, many 9/11 truth researchers believe that the destruction of the entire WTC was the ultimate ground breaking, the first step in an epic municipal makeover; the total… Continue reading
Conspiracy theorists insist the U.S. government, not terrorists, staged the devastating attacks
by Jonathan Curiel, Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
Dylan Avery has a theory that he says casts doubts on Mark Bingham’s actions on Sept. 11, 2001. According to Avery, the San Francisco public relations executive never called his mom on a cell phone from the cabin of Flight 93, and never told her that “some of us here are going to try to do something.” Instead, says Avery, someone using a voice synthesizer — possibly a government official — called Alice Hoglan on the morning that Flight 93 — and Bingham — became part of Sept. 11 lore.
“The cell phone calls were fake — no ifs, ands or buts,” Avery says in “Loose Change,” a film he wrote and directed that’s one of the most-watched movies on the Internet, with 10 million viewers in the past year. “Until the government can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that al Qaeda was behind Sept. 11, the American people have every reason to believe otherwise.”
Avery is one of perhaps millions of Americans who believe the U.S. government — or rogue elements within it — either orchestrated the attacks or tacitly supported them for nefarious reasons.
As the five-year anniversary of the attacks approaches, the clamor of Avery and other conspiracy theorists has gotten stronger — and more widely accepted. According to a poll by Ohio University and Scripps Howard News Service, 36 percent of Americans believe that government officials “either assisted in the 9/ 11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.” Twelve percent of Americans believe a cruise missile fired by the U.S.…Continue reading
By Paul Craig Roberts
“Information Clearing House” — — I received a number of intelligent responses from readers of my August 14 column, “Gullible Americans,” The letters deserve a reply. Moreover, some contain important points that should be shared with a wider audience. Pundits such as myself are not the only people who have interesting things to say. Considering the number of letters and the time it would require to respond individually, I am replying instead in this column.
Most readers from whom I heard understand the difference between loyalty to country and loyalty to a government. They understand that to support a political party or a government that is destroying the US Constitution and America’s reputation in the world is, in fact, an act of treason. Therefore, I did not have to read the usual drivel about how doubting “our government” is un-American.
Among the issues raised are:
How could the complicity of the US government, or some part of it, in the events of 9/11 be kept a secret? For the most part, this question comes from Americans who believe the government must have been, to some extent, complicit in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.
How can we differentiate between the real facts, the 9/11 Commission’s reporting of the facts, and “conspiracy theories”?
What about the role of suicide flyers led by M. Atta?
What about the Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary that debunk the skeptics and support… Continue reading
Controversial Instructor Speaks About His 9/11 Views, UW Course
Kevin Barrett Appears On ‘For The Record’
By Adam Malecek, Staff Writer
MADISON, Wis. — Controversial University of Wisconsin-Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett appeared on WISC-TV’s “For The Record,” discussing his views on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Islamic studies and the class he is teaching this fall at UW-Madison.
Recently, 61 state legislators signed a resolution calling for UW-Madison to fire Barrett over his outspoken views that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell reviewed Barrett’s record and decided he was qualified to teach an introductory course on Islam as scheduled in the fall. Farrell said that the university doesn’t endorse Barrett’s theories, but he said that his review found Barrett has a record of quality teaching.
On “For The Record,” Barrett said his views are always evolving but explained how his current thoughts on 9/11 developed.
This article is quite fine, but watch the absolutely splendid interview video! Barrett’s lengthy, warm and compelling tour de force should be seen and studied by anyone facing civil questioning of their 9/11 beliefs. Like Dr. Stephen Jones, Kevin brings an extremely sympathetic and human voice to what are essentially horrific conversations and gives listeners both courage and hope in the process. The video can be downloaded for podcasting and other forms of sharing, and we urge you to share it widely.
He said that immediately after the attacks, he… Continue reading
NINE-ONE-ONE — This three number combination is etched into the public psyche and instantly conjures up images of America’s most recent Day of Infamy. The images of chaos and terror were speedily delivered via satellite to anyone near a television set. At first, these images burst into the minds of the TV audience without context, but television viewers were not left long to worry their beautiful minds with troublesome questions like: “Who perpetrated these crimes?”
The narrative vacuum was quickly filled by the “official” story. This version of the events of 9/11 is forever enshrined in the volume known as The 9/11 Commission Report.
Proceeding apace with the development of the official story was an entire universe of unofficial stories. These alternative points of view were helpfully framed by President George Walker Bush on November 10th, 2001:
“We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.” (1)
More than a few watching the President address the UN that day were puzzled by the phrase “outrageous conspiracy theories” regarding 9/11. As they logged on to their dial-up Internet connections that evening, trying to understand what the President was talking about, they were privy to the nascent chatter that over time has morphed into a kaleidoscope of alternative narratives, fueled by 9/11 skepticism.
As new… Continue reading
REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
… An outline in simple talking points …
We are continuing to compile the best documentation links for every single point on this page, and intend to post the updated version as soon as possible, and create teaching tools and more from the info. This is a significant and time-consuming process–if you have useful links, please send them to janice[at]911truth[dot]org. Thanks for your help!
If you use the search function with title key words, you will discover that 911Truth.org is home to articles backing virtually every point made below. Much of the basic research is available at the Complete 9/11 Timeline (hosted by cooperativeresearch.org), the 9/11 Reading Room (
911readingroom.org), and the NY Attorney General Spitzer petition and complaint (Justicefor911.org). For physical evidence discussion, see Point 7.
THE DAY ITSELF – EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY
1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack – George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield, Ralph Eberhart – all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.… Continue reading