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 dispute over… 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
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, 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
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
“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
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
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
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
Source: The Miami Herald
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
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
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). 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
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
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):
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