Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

Controlled Demolition

1 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 10 Last

Dan Rather Describes Collapse of Building 7

Just minutes later, Dan Rather describes the collapse of Building 7:

“…the collapse of this building … amazing, incredible… pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.”

Bush, Rice and the Genoa Warning: Documenting a demonstrable falsehood

White House photo of Condoleezza Rice

“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.”
–Condoleezza Rice, May 16, 2002

 

Late 1980s, throughout the 1990s:

  • The idea of using hijacked planes as weapons against buildings becomes common. There are attempted kamikaze attacks involving hijacked planes in Israel (1986), Turkey (1993) and France (1994). A suicide Cessna pilot hits the White House on Sept. 12, 1994. Tom Clancy publishes a novel in which the villain crashes an airliner into the Capitol (1994). Pentagon scenario planners bring up the possibility of a kamikaze-hijacking in a variety of reports (twice in 1993; 1999; 2000).

Mid-1990s:

  • News reports and trial cases reveal that Ramzi Yussef (convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) devised “Project Bojinka,” a plot including the idea of crashing hijacked airliners into American targets. Foreign and U.S. intelligence and defense agencies issue warnings and devise defense scenarios relating to the possibility that something like “Project Bojinka” can be attempted anywhere, at any time.

October 2000:

  • The Department of Defense responds competently to these developments, by rehearsing a MASCAL (mass casualty) exercise based on the scenario of a plane crashing into the Pentagon. The live exercise of Oct. 24, 2000 involves rescue crews directed from a command center. A paper plane is set aflame within a scale model of the building.
Continue reading

The New Pearl Harbor

September Song

A Review of “The New Pearl Harbor”

By Marc Estrin
counterpunch.org

The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11
David Ray Griffin
Olive Branch Press, 2004
Paper, 214 pp, $15.00

The official story goes something like this:

With no actionable warning from intelligence agencies, four planes were hijacked by terrorists on the morning of September 11, 2001. Two crashed into the Word Trade Center, which then collapsed, and shortly thereafter, the third into the Pentagon. The last plane went down in Pennsylvania after a struggle between passengers and hijackers. Air defense arrived too late to stop the catastrophes. Responding to this attack on the homeland, the president declared a global war on terror which may last for generations until evil is finally eradicated, the security of America firmly established, and the world made safe for freedom and democracy.

In The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin compiles the evidence that every single assertion in the official story is implausible or impossible, and that something other must explain the inconsistencies and contra-factual assertions.

The implications of the accumulated evidence is that the Bush administration was complicit in the events of September 11th, and not merely a victim of structural problems or incompetence on the part of the intelligence establishment. In a nuanced discussion of “complicity”, Griffin distinguishes eight possible levels, from the lying about events to maximize political ends, through intentionally allowing expected attacks, to actual involvement in the planning of them.

Griffin does not make specific accusations, nor does he hypothesize a “true” version of what happened. But he does demand unflinching investigations of all the contradictions, clear reporting of the results, and most difficult, a courageous drawing of conclusions, no matter how “unthinkable” or outrageous they may appear.

Show Editor’s Note »

Excellent review of Griffin’s tour de force by the intrepid Counterpunch crew, one of the few lefty journals willing to even look at that day.

In the months since the book was published, we have been swamped with news from the 9/11 Commission concerning both domestic and foreign intelligence which indicated a large and imminent attack on the United States. But the Commission, its members appointed by President Bush, is focusing on the future. According to Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton, “We’re not interested in trying to assess blame…” Their goal is to understand what happened so as to restructure intelligence so that such “a breakdown” may not happen again. Given this limited mandate, almost none of the contradictions Griffin raises is likely to be discussed, or its ramifications analyzed before the case is closed.

The first part of The New Pearl Harbor looks in detail at the timeline and events of 9/11 itself. How is it, Griffin asks, that even the first airplane was not intercepted — given standard procedures, operating normally many times a year, for off-course or otherwise anomalous aircraft? The FAA, NORAD, and the NMCC (National Military Command Center at the Pentagon) have a clear and working set of standard operating procedures which on September 11th, and on that day only, failed to operate. Griffin lays them out, along with the strange, and changing official excuses for their “failure”. Continue reading

Ryan’s Hometown Paper Reports on Letter and Firing

AREA MAN STIRS DEBATE ON WTC COLLAPSE — South Bend firm’s lab director fired after questioning federal probe.

By JOHN DOBBERSTEIN Tribune Staff Writer

SOUTH BEND — The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center’s twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

Kevin R. Ryan was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing giant.

On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology — the agency probing the collapse — challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., according to Ryan, “was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.”

Ryan wrote that last year, while “requesting information,” UL’s chief executive officer and fire protection business manager disagreed about key issues surrounding the collapse, “except for one thing — that the samples we certified met all requirements.”

UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is conducting a $16 million, two-year investigation of the collapse of the twin towers. The agency expects to issue a draft report in January, and UL has played a limited role in the investigation.

Ryan wrote that the institute’s preliminary reports suggest the WTC’s supports were probably… Continue reading

Popular Mechanics Attacks Its “9/11 LIES” Straw Man

by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, February 7, 2005

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, Nascar paraphenelia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

The article’s approach is to identify the 9/11 skeptics movement with a series of mostly physical-evidence issues, while entirely ignoring vast bodies of evidence that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.

The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the “most prevalent” among “conspiracy theorists.” The claims are grouped into themes which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each theme, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers’ demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers’ Demolition.

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom… Continue reading

Significant Pattern to 9/11 Report’s Omissions & Distortions

by David Ray Griffin

 

 

NOTE: This is a transcrpit of testimony delivered by theologian David Ray Griffin to the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference on September 23, 2005.

Testimony at the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference 2005 (September 21-24, Washington Convention Center, Washington, DC) for the session, ‘The 9/11 Omission: What the Commission Got Wrong,’ September 23, 2005, sponsored by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA):

 

Introduction

There have been two main theories about 9/11, each of which is a conspiracy theory. The official conspiracy theory says that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by al-Qaeda. The alternative theory says that the attacks could not have succeeded without the involvement of forces within our own government.

In examining The 9/11 Commission Report , I have focused on how it dealt with evidence supportive of the alternative theory. I have found that it did so by distorting or simply ignoring this evidence. This is no surprise, because the man running the Commission, Philip Zelikow, was essentially a member of the Bush-Cheney administration. But it is a fact that needs to be brought to light.

Because there are so many omissions and distortions—in my book I identified at least 115—I can point to a significant percentage of them only by moving through my representative list quite quickly.…

Continue reading

9/11 and the Public’s Right to Know

by Will Bunch

Philadelphia Daily News

March 25, 2005

It has been more than three and a half years since the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The main perpetrators have been ID’d by the government and died in the suicide assault, and key planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is also in custody.

Yet both the federal government and New York officials continue to block the public’s right to know more about what really happened that day — even though it’s the family members of the victims of the tragic attack now pleading for a fuller public account.

In blocking the free exchange of information, public officials are heavily damaging one of the key democratic values that the terrorists themselves so badly wanted to knock down on 9/11/01. The latest blow came yesterday from a New York courtroom:

The emergency phone calls made by people trapped inside the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, need not be released to the public, a New York court ruled Thursday.

The New York State Court of Appeals declined to grant the wish of September 11 families who joined in a lawsuit seeking release of all tapes and transcripts of calls made from inside the Twin Towers to 9-1-1 operators.

“We are not persuaded that such disclosure is required by the public interest,” the judges said in their ruling.

Instead, it agreed only to the release of calls from any relatives of the eight families who joined a lawsuit, originally filed by The New York… Continue reading

The 9/11 Commission v. 19 Named Muslims: A Trial in Absentia

The 9/11 Commission v. 19 Named Muslims:

A Trial in Absentia

By

Gary Wenkle Smith1

[This article first appeared in The Warrior, the official journal of the Trial Lawyers College (www.triallawyerscollege.com) and is reprinted here with permission.]

Within a few hours after the 9/11 attacks, our government named a group of 19 Muslim men as the principal players in the most devastating attack on this country–even more so than Pearl Harbor, as it was mostly civilians who were murdered on 9/11, unlike the mass murder of our sailors by another military power. Further, in addition to approximately 3,000 murders, there could easily be many counts of attempted murder2 charged, as well. Assuming an indictment is issued, there will undoubtedly be dozens of kidnapping charges, some major theft counts, destruction of public and private property, and sundry other charges arising out of the death and destruction of that day’s events. Of course, the principal charge will be the conspiracy to commit these crimes. The 9/11 Commission Report, frequently referred to as the Kean-Zelikow Report3, has concluded that the 19 named Muslims were the operatives of Osama bin Laden, and that they conspired to hijack airliners and commit the atrocities of 9/11.
 

Editor’s Note:
A brilliant lawyerly sketch of what a factual 9/11 defense might look like, and why no one in power would want to see this day in court.

 

I will proceed with this article as though I had… Continue reading

Hustler asks ‘What if Everything You Know about 9/11 is Wrong?’

by Bruce David and Carolyn Sinclair

Hustler magazine – August 2005

We all know what happened on September 11, 2001 – Osama bin Laden inspired 19 Muslim extremists to hijack commercial airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. But what if it didn’t happen that way at all?

David Ray Griffin is a professor of theology, a well-respected scholar and author of more than 20 books, including The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions and The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Griffin maintains that the evidence contradicts the government’s official story and that, so far, nobody’s come up with a theory that can account for all of the facts.

At HUSTLER we believe the murder of 2,987 innocent people demands hard questions and digging deeper. We’re especially troubled by the collapse of Building 7, but we’re determined to keep an open mind. As such, we sit down with Griffin to discuss what appear to be disturbing inconsistencies with the government’s story.
 

Show Editor’s Note: »

Imagining Dr. G’s national magazine debut in Hustler may cause a bit of cognitive  dissonance, but his truths will now go out to a huge audience among our troops. While many may find the surrounding XXX scenery outrageously raw or offensive, the presentation of Griffin’s interview is extremely sympathetic, lengthy and well done.
Larry Flynt has been both edgy and successful with his earlier campaigns targeting J. Edgar Hoover, rightwing censors,… Continue reading

Researchers Comb Through First Responders’ Tapes and Testimonies

(Aug. 2005)?

“You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw.”

This month the New York Times published a vast online archive of emergency-call tapes, radio transcripts and first responders’ oral histories of September 11th at the World Trade Center. The Times waged a long legal battle with the City of New York to gain the records’ release under the Freedom of Information Act.?

New York Times: The 9/11 Records (front page)

The Sept. 11 Records The complete set of the oral histories of rescue workers and audio of dispatch transmissions from Sept. 11.?

Audio Dispatches

9/11 researchers combing through the new documents are discovering a surprising number of witnesses who said they saw or heard bombs going off at the WTC, among other anomalies, in some cases long before the buildings came down. One anonymous researcher has compiled many such passages from firefighters’ testimonies . A discussion thread at a 9/11 forum includes a few more, plus a number of seemingly outlandish statements as well as counter-arguments from debunkers.?

We’re not sure where this line of inquiry is heading, but it’s hard not to be impressed by items like the following:

Gregory Stephen, Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) p 14

A. No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for… Continue reading

Significant Pattern to 9/11 Report’s Omissions & Distortions

by Dr. David Ray Griffin

Testimony at the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference 2005 (September 21-24, Washington Convention Center, Washington, DC) for the session, ?The 9/11 Omission: What the Commission Got Wrong,? September 23, 2005, sponsored by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA):

Introduction

There have been two main theories about 9/11, each of which is a conspiracy theory. The official conspiracy theory says that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by al-Qaeda. The alternative theory says that the attacks could not have succeeded without the involvement of forces within our own government.

In examining The 9/11 Commission Report, I have focused on how it dealt with evidence supportive of the alternative theory. I have found that it did so by distorting or simply ignoring this evidence. This is no surprise, because the man running the Commission, Philip Zelikow, was essentially a member of the Bush-Cheney administration. But it is a fact that needs to be brought to light.

Because there are so many omissions and distortions—in my book I identified at least 115—I can point to a significant percentage of them only by moving through my representative list quite quickly.

Flights 11 and 175

I will begin with the question of how hijacked airliners could have struck the Twin Towers.

The Commission?s answer was the third answer we have been given to that question. The first answer, given by military leaders the first few days after 9/11, was that no fighter jets were sent up until after… Continue reading

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

by David Ray Griffin

“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”

–Firefighter Richard Banaciski

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”

–Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.”

–Paramedic Daniel Rivera

 

The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of 2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date, very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact that they existed.

Why have we not known about them until recently? Part of the answer is that the city of New York would not release them until it was forced to do so. Early in 2002, the New York Times requested copies under the freedom of information act, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration refused. So the Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit. After a long process, the city was finally ordered by the New York Court of Appeals to release the records (with some exceptions and redactions allowed). Included were oral histories, in interview form, provided… Continue reading

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

In The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.

But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.

In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded… Continue reading

BYU professor’s group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11

They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush’s first term. Most of the members are less well-known.

The group’s Web site ([url]www.ST911.org[/url]) includes an updated version of Jones’s paper about the collapse of the Twin Towers and a paper by Fetzer that looks at conspiracy theories. The government’s version of the events of 9/11, that the plane’s hijackers were tied to Osama bin Laden, is its own conspiracy theory, says Fetzer, who has studied the John F. Kennedy assassination since 1992.

“Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers,” charges a paper written collectively by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group plans to write more papers, and present lectures and conferences.

“We have very limited resources and no subpoena powers,” Fetzer said. “What you have is a bunch of serious scholars taking a look at this and discovering it didn’t add up. We don’t have a political ax to grind.”

Fetzer has doctorates in the history and philosophy of science. “One of the roles I can play here,” he said, “is to explain why a certain line of argument is correct or not.”

In his original message to potential members last month, Fetzer warned that joining the group might make them the… Continue reading

Editorial in Miami Herald Questions Official 9/11 Story

Source: The Miami Herald

ROBERT STEINBACK

1/31/2006

I was 8 years old when President John Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas in 1963. If grace favors me, I’ll be 62 when documents related to the assassination are released to the public, and 84 when the Warren Commission’s investigative files into the tragedy are finally opened.

That’s a long time to wait for a chance to evaluate the purported truth.

It’s a blot on the presumed sophistication of the people of the United States that any aspect of an event so dramatic and shocking should be kept from us. Perhaps it’s true, to abuse the line from A Few Good Men yet again, that we can’t handle the truth. But there cannot be genuine resolution as long as such critical information remains concealed.

Transformed by 9/11

Since Kennedy’s assassination, Americans have lurched between demanding to know and plugging their ears: The Pentagon Papers, My Lai, the King assassination, Watergate, Iran-contra, the savings-and-loan debacle, Monicagate. Lately, however, it would seem the public’s verdict is in: Don’t tell us. Keep us in the dark. We don’t want to know.

This is the worst possible time for probe-ophobia to grip us. Our nation was irretrievably transformed by 9/11 — and yet there remain troubling questions about what really happened before, during and after that day. Rather than demanding a full and fearless vetting to hone in on the truth and silence the conjecture about 9/11, many Americans remain unwilling to peer into the… Continue reading

New ‘Scholars for 911 Truth’ Group – Update – Steven E. Jones’ Lecture, 2/1/2006, Video Now Available

UPCOMING EVENT:

February 1, 2006

Seminar: “9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions,” by Prof. Steven E. Jones

7:00 – 8:30 p.m., at CS 404 at Utah Valley State College in Orem, Utah

Thanks to www.911truthseekers.org for the original version, and www.911blogger.com for hosting the video: Click Here

Thanks to dz from www.911blogger.com for making Professor Jones’ slides available for download: Click Here

Sponsored by the Center for the Study of Ethics and the School of Science and Health

Why, Indeed, Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? by Steven E. Jones

* * * * *

Press Release posted at YahooNews: Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

* * * * *

BYU professor’s group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11

By Elaine Jarvik

Deseret Morning News

1/28/2006

Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of “pre-positioned explosives.” Now, along with a group that calls itself “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” he’s upping the ante.

“We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11,” the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. “We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad.”

Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others.

They include… Continue reading

Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

March 28,2006

“Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led
to the collapse of the World Trade Center.”–Shankar Nair, as quoted in the
Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001

Turn on C-Span, or “Meet The Press,” or any other media program presenting federal
officials. Whatever the issue, it always comes back to the same thing. Our government
really has nothing else to offer us but protection from another 9/11. It uses
this painful story to cut public services, eliminate our basic rights, and plunder
the national coffers. But for many of us, it is not entirely clear from whom
we most need protection.1 As our debt explodes and our freedoms diminish, it
would be wise to maintain focus on the origins of our War on Terror. No matter
where this war leads us, we will need to keep the beginning in mind if we ever
hope to see an end.


The Point of Origin: The Collapse of the WTC

Many have found that the 9/11 Commission not only failed to help us understand
what happened; it also omitted or distorted most of the facts.2 But if we really
want to zero in on the exact turning point around which we plunged into chaos,
we need to focus in particular on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.
This is where our hearts were wrenched and our minds were made ready for never-ending
war, torture, and apparently the end of everything that was American.… Continue reading

Physicist Says Heat Substance Felled WTC

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635198488,00.html

Extremely hot fires caused structures to fail, BYU expert says

By Suzanne Dean
For the Deseret Morning News

EPHRAIM — A Brigham Young University physicist said he now believes an incendiary substance called thermite, bolstered by sulfur, was used to generate exceptionally hot fires at the World Trade Center on 9/11, causing the structural steel to fail and the buildings to collapse.

“It looks like thermite with sulfur added, which really is a very clever idea,” Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, told a meeting of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters at Snow College Friday.

The government requires standard explosives to contain tag elements enabling them to be traced back to their manufacturers. But no tags are required in aluminum and iron oxide, the materials used to make thermite, he said. Nor, he said, are tags required in sulfur.

Jones is co-chairman, with James H. Fetzer, a distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group of college faculty members who believe conspirators other than pilots of the planes were directly involved in bringing down New York’s Trade Towers.

The group, which Jones said has 200 members, maintains a Web site at www.st911.org. A 40-page paper by Jones, along with other peer-reviewed and non-reviewed academic papers, are posted on the site.

Last year, Jones presented various arguments for his theory that explosives or incendiary devices were planted in the Trade Towers, and in WTC 7, a smaller building… Continue reading

1 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 10 Last