by Elizabeth Woodworth
David Ray Griffin is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology and a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories that implicate members of the US government in the attacks. His just-released book is Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Interlink Publishing). Griffin’s 9/11 books include The New Pearl Harbor (2003) and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2004).
New testimony from on-the-job first responders provides proof positive that 9/11 was an inside job. Eminent, world-renowned, Whitehead philosopher Dr. David Ray Griffin has been dogging the steps of the 9/11 official theory since colleagues first pointed out discrepancies in 2003.
Griffin, whose bottom line is the ecological crisis, believes the 911-spawned “War on Terror” is keeping ecology on the back burner. Along with Griffin, hundreds of scholars, pilots, veterans, first responders and CIA, government and military officials, had, by May 2006, convinced a polled 42 percent of Americans that a new independent 9/11 investigation was needed. (See www.patriotsquestion911.com)
Disturbed by the poll, in August of 2006, proponents of the official theory launched a four-pronged attack on the evidence that wouldn’t go away. They overhauled the official theory with revisions presented through a NIST (National Institutes of Standards and Technology) factsheet with information from Without Precedent, written by 9/11 commissioners Kean and Hamilton and material from Popular Mechanics’ Debunking 9/11 Myths, endorsed by Condoleezza Rice.
To buttress these revisions, the government handed previously unreleased NORAD tapes to… Continue reading
The Unearthing: An Awakening Has Arrived
With Truth Comes Awakening
By Manuel Valenzuela
The suppression of truth has long been among the highest priorities for the
upper echelons of power and authority. For a minority elite that clings to power
by the manipulation of the masses using an omnipresent cocktail of lies, deception,
mass-produced ignorance and ingrained propaganda, the destruction of truth is
an essential method of control. It is a formula that has worked to unmitigated
success for the elite throughout history, whether the shadows of power stretch
from ancient pyramids, marble temples, castles, mansions or halls of governance.
Those holding the levers of power and control understand, better than most,
that the dissemination of truths to a blind majority could spell the end of
their reign, for truth brings sight to the blind.
These entities understand that truth is like a massive breath of fresh mountain
air, pure and energizing, refreshing and invigorating, and that once inhaled
by the masses, the balance of control can easily be disturbed and seriously
threatened. Revolution of the many against the few oftentimes results, mostly
to the enormous detriment of the powerful. They know that widespread circulation
of the truths of what they have done in the past and are at present doing to
the majority could light a flame onto a massive cauldron overflowing with dry
kindling, sparking an enormous inferno of anger. Truth, in short, could lead
to an awakening of hundreds of millions of human beings who for too long have
had their minds held captive by the instruments of control used by those in
April 18, 2007
Scholars debate 9/11 findings
By JOHN GLEESON
An unbiased observer doesn’t need to look beyond what’s happening on the ground
today in Iraq and Afghanistan to conclude the War on Terror has been a brutal,
manipulative means to a transparently self-serving end.
None of this is news, however, to proponents of “9/11 Truth,” a worldwide
movement that seems to keep growing despite an unofficial media blackout on
their questions and investigations. So what are these “Truthers” saying?
Many people were quick to declare 9/11 a possible “inside job” based
on the visible facts themselves, in particular the blanket failure of air defence,
which even former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura said defied all logic and
precedent. They also seized on the history (largely unknown in North America)
of Pentagon-linked “false-flag” terrorist attacks in Europe during
the Cold War, and CIA involvement with al-Qaida operations.
With the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it was seen that 9/11 was amazingly
fortuitous to the Bush administration, elements of which had been looking for
excuses to invade both countries — for purely strategic-commercial reasons
— in the months and years prior to the attacks.
But it was the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004 that breathed
full life into the 9/11 Truth Movement — because it was now apparent to many
that the “official story” relied on massive distortion and evasion.
The most dramatically disputed aspect of 9/11 is the question of what the world
really saw that day in New York City, when three steel-frame high-rises — the
110-storey Twin Towers and the 47-storey WTC 7 — collapsed at near free-fall
speed neatly into their own footprints.…
9/11 Family Members File Petition with NIST
Posted 4/11/07 at GeorgeWashingtonBlogspot.com
Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine today filed a petition with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seeking correction of inaccurate factual statements and analysis in NIST‘s reports on the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Mr. Doyle is the representative of the largest group of 9/11 families, the Coalition of 9/11 Families*, and lost his own son Joey in the collapse of the twin towers.
Mr. McIlvaine, an outspoken 9/11 truth activist, lost his son Bobby when the World Trade Centers were destroyed.
Another prominent 9/11 family member supports the petition, but decided for personal reasons not to sign.
Also signing the petition are:
The petition can be read here . It is very strong and solid, and well worth a read.
If you are not sure why the 9/11 families needed to file a petition, I invite you to read this 9/11 Fact Sheet .
The family members’ petition was mainly drafted by attorney James… Continue reading
DEBATE: The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory; A Reply to Alexander Cockburn (Translated from French)
[12.03.07] Alexander Cockburn’s “US: The Conspiracy That Wasn’t,” which is an attack on the 9/11 truth movement, is faulty in virtually every respect. He calls me one of the movement’s “high priests,” as if it were a religious movement, rather than a fact-based movement that involves scientists, engineers, pilots, war veterans, politicians, philosophers, former air traffic controllers, former defense ministers, and former CIA analysts. 1 by Dr. David Ray Griffin March 12, 2007
He calls us “conspiracists,” ignoring the fact that in defending the government’s account, he is defending the original 9/11 conspiracy theory. In claiming that the Bush administration and the military are too incompetent to have organized the 9/11 attacks, he gives an argument that could equally well be used to prove that they could not have organized the military assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq.
In claiming that bin Laden took credit for the attacks, Cockburn appears not to be aware that in the video on which this claim is primarily based, the man playing Osama bin Laden is heavier and darker than the bin Laden of all undoubtedly authentic videos, 2 or that the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorist” page on bin Laden does not mention 9/11—because, an FBI spokesman explained, “the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” 3
Although Cockburn says that members of our movement are “immune to reality check,” he endorses the official theory… Continue reading
WTC7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11: Video/audio clips relating to the collapse, in controlled demolition style, of the 47-story WTC Building 7. Includes interviews with people who were told the building would fall, BBC’s early reporting of the collapse, much more. Originally Posted by “Arie,” March 10, 2007.
16 min 24 sec.
March 5, 2007
by Sherwood Ross
The trouble with thinking 9/11 was an inside job staged by George W. Bush &
Co. is that it defies belief any president might be capable of such an iniquitous
crime against his own people.
Yet, subsequent Bush actions, such as lying the nation into war, makes one
wonder if the man didn’t earlier create the 9/11 massacres to justify
his aggressions. After all, his record reveals him to be a serial liar, warmonger,
tyrant, torturer, and usurper of civil liberties. Here are a few illegal actions
that betray what Bush is really about.
# Bush lied the U.S. into what former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called
an “illegal” war on Iraq. This conflict has killed 650,000 civilians,
wounded over a million more, drove nearly 2-million from their country, and
turned life into a living hell for the rest. The death toll there is already
equal to about 240 WTC massacres, yet Bush persists in waging the war.
# Bush okayed $1.5-trillion for new weapons’ research including grisly weapons
that would thrill mad scientists, such as sound waves that crush a victim’s
internal organs. Another gem is "rods from god" to hurl tungsten poles
down from Earth orbit down upon its victims at 7,200 miles an hour, striking
with the atomic fury. He is illegally militarizing space. These are not the
actions of a humanist.
# Bush has allowed illegal radioactive ammunition fired in Afghanistan and
Iraq that poison civilian populations and U.S.… Continue reading
by Nicholas Levis
BBC World News started reporting that 7 World Trade Center had collapsed about 23 minutes before the building actually came down, as video of the news network’s live broadcast on September 11th shows.
The skyscraper also known as the Salomon Brothers Building was still standing and clearly visible over the shoulder of a BBC reporter in New York, even as the network provided accurate, past- tense details of its collapse. Jane Standley’s live report was interrupted about five minutes before WTC 7 actually came down at 5:20pm EDT. A video clip establishing this anomaly was discovered on the archive.org news service and first pointed out to the public Monday by the blog writer 911veritas at 911blogger.com .
The ensuing controversy has prompted a swift, unusually angry response from the BBC, which however has failed to address the substantive issue: Apparently the network’s personnel were unfamiliar with WTC 7, which is excusable. They were however reporting information culled from a source with advance knowledge of the building’s collapse. Who was that source?
The answer may be essential to settling the long-standing… Continue reading
Garcia’s avoidance of the demolition scenario may also explain his resorting to what Ryan calls “creative guesswork” in attempting to explain the collapse of WTC 7. Whatever the best explanation is for the still-unsatisfactorily explained collapse of WTC 7, Garcia does not advance our understanding in his three-part bit of speculation.
Another Opportunity to Understand Our Predicament
Over the years we’ve heard from a few educated people who claim to understand and support the latest story given by the US government for the unprecedented destruction of the WTC buildings. Unfortunately, those folks usually turn out to either work for the Bush Administration directly, like FEMA and NIST, or are in some other way profiting from the War on Terror. Some people accept what these Bush scientists say because they have PhDs in scientific fields, or because certain media sources promote the official myths. In a way, the curious behavior of these scientists and media sources allows us to better see the predicament we… Continue reading
Several years ago, the terms “LIHOP” and “MIHOP” were coined
to describe two camps of the 9/11 truth movement.
“LIHOP”, for those who don’t know, stands for the theory that elements
of the U.S. government Let It Happen On Purpose. “It”, of course,
is 9/11. People who believe in LIHOP stress that the intelligence services had
been tracking the alleged hijackers and had ample warning of the attacks in
advance, standard air defense procedures would have stopped any hijacked jets
from crashing into both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the anomolies in the
funding of the attacks, the people involved, the interference with investigations
and prosecutions which could have stopped the attacks, and the cover-up by the
government all point to the conclusion that elements of the U.S. government
intentionally allowed the attacks to happen on purpose in order to promote the
imperial agenda laid out previously by the Project for a New American Century
“MIHOP”, on the other hand, stands for the theory that the U.S. government
Made It Happen On Purpose. People who believe in MIHOP stress physical evidence
which tends to contradict the official theory about 9/11, such as the strange
“collapses” of the Twin Towers and WTC7, and may stress anomolies
in the attack on the Pentagon, the way that Flight 93 crashed (or was shot down?),
and perhaps even the impact of the airplanes on the Twin Towers. MIHOPs believe
that the physical evidence is the “smoking gun” which is so irrefutable
that it will convict the perpetrators.…
by Michael Keefer
December 4, 2006
The first thing to say by way of preliminaries (and I’d better get it in quickly before someone suggests that I’ve turned up late or over-weight for a pre-match weighing-in) is that I’m not overjoyed with the pugilistic metaphor of my title.
But some sort of response to the volley of attacks on 9/11 researchers and activists with which the Counterpunch website marked the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 seems called for.
Michael Keefer strikes just the right tone in responding to Alexander Cockburn’s attempt to banish “conspiracy nuts” from the kingdom of the left.Keefer accounts for Cockburn’s hostility to conspiracy by locating him in the “class of academics and public intellectuals, for whom a migration of power into military, deep-political, and corporate-media hands may…. be difficult to acknowledge.” We’d add that when those intellectuals are wedded to a brand of analysis that cannot satisfactorily account for what they see transpiring before their eyes, that difficulty is only magnified.
Slowly but surely, the academic left is coming to understand that the deep politics paradigm offers the most promising analytic tools for understanding the dynamics of geopolitical struggle. Don’t be surprised by the discomfort associated with the paradigm shift to continue to produce rhetorically overheated, but substantively lacking, complaints like Cockburn’s for quite some time. But really, that’s his problem.
Counterpunch co-editor Alexander Cockburn set the tone of these pieces with an article describing theologian and ethicist David Ray Griffin, the author of The New Pearl Harbor (2004) and of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), as a “high priest” of the “conspiracy nuts”"whom Cockburn denounces as cultists who “disdain all answers but their own,” who “seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant,” and who “pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, [".] contemptuously brush[ing] aside” evidence that contradicts their own “whimsical” treatment of “eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence.”
It’s a characteristically forceful performance, if at times slipshod. One small sign of carelessness may be the manner in which Cockburn slides from calling 9/11 skeptics a “coven” to comparing them, a few sentences later, to “mad Inquisitors” torturing the data (as the old joke goes about economists) until the data confess.” Readers brought up to think that the victims and perpetrators of witch-crazes have not customarily been the same people may find this unintentionally amusing.
Despite the sometimes distinctly nasty tone of this polemic, the idea of exchanging even metaphorical blows with Cockburn and his colleagues is unappealing. The overall quality of the essays that he and Jeffrey St. Clair publish in Counterpunch makes it easy on most days of the week to agree with Out of Bounds Magazine‘s description of it (trumpeted on Counterpunch‘s masthead) as “America’s best political newsletter.” And I’ve admired Cockburn’s own political essays for many years: he’s written movingly, sometimes brilliantly, on a wide range of subjects1 even if his flashes of brilliance sometimes alternate with breathtaking pratfalls: among them his dismissal, as recently as March 2001, of the evidence for global warming; his scoffing, in November 2004, at the rapidly gathering indications that the US presidential election of 2004 had been stolen; and a year later, his mockery of the well-established theory of peak oil and his adherence to the genuinely daft notion that the earth produces limitless quantities of abiotic oil.2 One can forgive a journalist’s slender grasp of the rudiments of scientific understanding. But given his self-appointed role as defender of the progressive left against a horde of fools, It’s dismaying to find him sliding as frequently as he does into positions that seem not just quirky but (dare I say it) unprogressive. Continue reading
Manchester Union Leader
August 27, 2006
A tenured professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire believes an “elite” group within the federal government orchestrated the September 11th attacks on America.
William Woodward has already raised that possibility in his classroom and later this year hopes to teach a class that would explore Sept. 11th “in psychological terms — terms like belief, conspiracy, fear, truth, courage, group dynamics.”
He may not get the chance. Several state leaders yesterday criticized Woodward for bringing the radical theories into the classroom.
“In my view, there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech,” said U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.
“I believe it is inappropriate for someone at a public university which is supported with taxpayer dollars to take positions that are generally an affront to the sensibility of most all Americans,” Gregg said.
Others were equally blunt.
New Hampshire Senate President Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester, a UNH alum, said, “I would think the board of trustees and the acting president (of UNH) would take a long, hard look at someone who advocates that kind of nonsense.”
Sen. Jack Barnes, R-Raymond, said he’s embarrassed the professor works at his alma mater.
“I compare this guy with the idiots out there who say the Holocaust never occurred,” Barnes said.
“Maybe we’d better check the UNH budget very closely next year if they have guys like that teaching our kids,” Barnes said.
Woodward, an acknowledged member of several leftwing political action groups, belongs to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.…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
By Russ Wellen
August 3, 2006
– In his Washington Post article, “9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon,” Dan Eggen reported, “Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public. . .”
“We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us,” Commission Chair Thomas H. Kean said. “It was just so far from the truth.”
– According to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll, “More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.”
Still more surprising, 16 percent think the collapse of the World Trade Towers was expedited by controlled demolition while 12 percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a missile, not Flight 77.
Eye-opening as these results are, they’re not unprecedented. According to Scripps/Howard, “The level of suspicion of U.S. official involvement in a 9/11 conspiracy was only slightly behind the 40 percent who suspect ‘officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.’”
Kean’s colleague, 9/11 Commission vice chair Lee Hamilton, conceded the results of the poll. “A lot… Continue reading
Was September 11th an Inside Job?
Le Monde Diplomatique, Norway
July 1, 2006
(Rough translation by “Seabhcan”)
9/11TRUTH: More and more people in the USA are convinced that the American authorities are concealing their involvement in the September 11th tragedy. Statements from witnesses, marked confidential for several years, now show that controlled demolition may have taken place. The US government had long anticipated such an incident – as the Republican document from 2000 Rebuilding America’s defenses indicates. The 9/11Truth organisation believes that the USA probably orchestrated an incident of this type in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the curtailing of civil liberties within the US through the introduction of The Patriot Act. It has now emerged that the America’s most senior military leader in 1962 devised a plan for a premeditated attack on Americans, which would have involved shooting down a passenger plane, so that the blame could be cast on Cuba. So why should this be excluded today? Many also believe that Pakistani intelligence cooperated with the CIA and Al-Qaida because the former transferred significant sums of money to the hijacker Mohammed Atta in the days leading up to the 11th of September. They even had Bin Laden under surveillance during the time of his treatment in a military hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan in September 2001.
Journalist for Le Monde Diplomatique.
Most of us would think it strange if the impact of a passenger plane wasn’t sufficient to cause… 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 – 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.