by Sam Vaknin
An Interview with David Ray Griffin
On September 11, I entertained a couple of house guests, senior journalists from Scandinavia. I remember watching in horror and disbelief the unfolding drama, as the United States was being subjected to multiple deadly attacks on-screen. I turned to the international affairs editor of a major Danish paper and told her “This could not have been done by al-Qaida.” I am an Israeli and, as such, I have a fair “sixth sense” as to the capabilities of terrorists and their potential reach.
Enter David Ray Griffin. I was introduced to him by a mutual acquaintance. He is emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He has published over 30 books, including eight about 9/11, the best known of which is “The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé.”
On the face of it, his credentials with regards to intelligence analysis are hardly relevant, let alone impressive. But, to underestimate him would be a grave error. Being a philosopher, he is highly trained and utterly qualified to assess the credibility of data; the validity and consistency of theories (including conspiracy theories); and the rationality and logic of hypotheses. These qualifications made him arguably the most visible and senior member of what came to be known as the 9/11 Truth Movement.
In our exchange, he proved to be tolerant of dissenting views, open to debate, and invariably possessed of… Continue reading
by P. Devlin Buckley
September 5, 2008
The American Monitor
Law firms representing victims of the 9/11 attacks in an ongoing legal dispute with wealthy Saudis suspected of financing al-Qaeda have recently turned their attention to two individuals with unique ties to the U.S. government.
Lawyers for victims of the attacks, as well as insurance companies of property owners in New York, have filed a motion of discovery in federal district court in Manhattan targeting the Saudi-owned National Commercial Bank (NCB) and two of its former executives, Khalid bin Mahfouz and Yassin al-Qadi.
Both Mahfouz and al-Qadi have a murky history that includes alleged ties to the CIA, the White House, the Bush family, al-Qaeda, and organized crime on a global scale.
The discovery motion, if granted, would advance the case by requiring both sides to disclose and exchange all available pertinent facts regarding the defendants. The motion comes just days after a circuit court ruled members of the Saudi government are immune from terrorism lawsuits in the United States, a setback in the plaintiffs’ case against Saudis suspected of financing al-Qaeda in the years leading up to 9/11. There are some defendants, however, the ruling does not protect, including Khalid bin Mahfouz, Yassin al-Qadi, and the NCB.
Government documents, expert testimony, and media reports dating back several years suggest Mahfouz and al-Qadi have raised millions of dollars for al-Qaeda and other militant groups. Evidence indicates some of the defendants’ activities were sanctioned by the U.S. government.
During the late… Continue reading
BY DEAN M. JACKSON
The NORAD Papers
June 4, 2008
Testifying before the 9/11 Commission General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the commission in response to a question on NORAD’s failure to anticipate the 9/11 attacks, “I can’t answer the hypothetical. It’s more – it’s the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward.”(1) This is utterly false. As we will see below NORAD, since its inception in 1958, was tasked to monitor and intercept aircraft flying over American and Canadian air space seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement found General Myers’ testimony on the capabilities of NORAD on 9/11 to be surprising, since it was long assumed that NORAD’s mission was more than “looking outward”. However, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been negligent in producing any documents that would confirm their suspicion that NORAD was tasked with watching over and intercepting errant aircraft in American skies before 9/11; that NORAD’s mission was more robust than “looking outward”. The following pre-9/11 citations conclusively documents the true capabilities of NORAD on the morning of 9/11.
The article NORAD: Air National Guard manning stations across the country (National Guard Association of the United States, Sep. 1997) explains how NORAD’s six battle management and command centers identify commercial aircraft as these aircraft are being monitored flying through our air space, “Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a… Continue reading
Tim Russert, Dick Cheney, and 9/11
by Prof. David Ray Griffin
Information Clearing House
While we are remembering Tim Russert and his years as moderator of “Meet the Press,” we would do well to recall his interview with Vice President Dick Cheney at Camp David on September 16, 2001, just five days after the 9/11 attacks. 1 In fact, Cheney himself, during an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer the morning after Russert died, reminded us of that Camp David interview, saying: “I always, when I think of Tim and think of ‘Meet the Press,’ that’s the show that always comes to mind. . . . It was a remarkable moment in American history.” 2
Commenting that he himself “remember[ed] that interview vividly,” Lauer asked: “Anything stand out from that interview?” In his reply, Cheney said: “We went back and reminisced to some extent about what had actually happened on the morning of 9/11. So it was—it was a remarkable moment in my career.” 3
It was indeed. In reminiscing about his movements that morning, Cheney contradicted what was to become a crucial element of the account that the 9/11 Commission would give of those movements.
In praising Russert’s tenure on “Meet the Press,” Cheney said: “He would ask you tough questions, he would remind you of quotes you made previously in other settings or on earlier shows, so you never got away with anything going up vis-à-vis Tim.” 4
Given Cheney’s appraisal of his interview with Russert as… Continue reading
For Immediate Release:
Hundreds of victim family members have been demanding answers to questions about the deaths of loved ones ever since the horrific events of September 11, 2001 – to no avail. Dozens of witnesses who offered to testify to the 9/11 Commission were ignored; many others found their testimony omitted. According to a group of Keene State College students, without a clear accounting of the facts, no reform can be effective in protecting national security. The students have organized a one-day symposium, on Saturday, May 17 — “This symposium has been put together by undergraduate student scholars — a group of young people committed to the pursuit of truth in a country that so often substitutes the comfortable life and easy paths over the rocky roads of ethical personhood,” states Donna Marsh O’Connor, mother of Vanessa Lang Langer, who died escaping the South Tower.
Keene, NH May 12, 2008 — New Hampshire College students and local activists have organized a one-day symposium, entitled, “Family Members, Researchers and Whistleblowers Speak Out”, to be held at Keene High School on Saturday, May 17 from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. “This symposium has been put together by undergraduate student scholars — a group of young people committed to the pursuit of truth in a country that so often substitutes the comfortable life and easy paths over the rocky roads of ethical personhood,” says O’Connor, who along with Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son Bobby, and Michele Little, who lost her firefighter brother David, will be making presentations at the symposium.…Continue reading
by Aidan Monaghan
The following is a response from the U.S. Secret Service to a Freedom of Information Act request for the arrival time of U.S. vice president Richard Cheney at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) on September 11, 2001, as well as the names of all those granted entry there that day.
Reference is made to your Freedom of InformationlPrivacy Acts requests originally received by the United States Secret Service on April 17, 2008, for information pertaining to the following:
File no. 20080330: copies of documentation pertaining to the names of persons admitted entry into the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) located within the White House on September 11, 2001 ;
File no. 20080331: copies of documentation which reveal the time on September 11, 2001, Vice President of the United States Richard Cheney entered the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) located within the White House.
A review of the Secret Service’s systems of records indicated that there are no records or documents pertaining to your requests in Secret Service files. Enclosed is a copy of your original request.
If you disagree with our determination, you have the right of administrative appeal within 35 days by writing to Freedom of Information Appeal, Deputy Director, U. S. Secret Service, Communications Center, 245 Murray Lane, SW, Building T-5, Washington, D.C. 20223. If you choose to file an administrative appeal, please explain the basis of your appeal and reference the case number listed above.
Craig W. Ulmer Special Agent In… Continue reading
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 1, 2008
NEW YORK: Aviation companies sued by the families of Sept. 11 victims for failing to safeguard air travel are in turn blaming federal investigators — arguing the Federal Aviation Administration was not alerted that al-Qaida was poised to launch terrorist attacks.
In court documents filed this week in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, aviation companies are seeking to force five FBI employees to provide testimony that may help defend against claims the companies share blame in the attacks.
“The aviation parties anticipate that the FBI witnesses’ testimony will demonstrate that the FBI had information before Sept. 11 indicating that al-Qaida may have been about to launch terrorist attacks on civil aviation, which it did not timely pass along to the Federal Aviation Administration,” lawyers wrote.
The airlines and aviation companies are defending themselves against lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages for injuries, fatalities, property damage and business losses related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack.
The companies in turn filed separate lawsuits against the CIA and the FBI last August to force terrorism investigators to tell whether the aviation industry was to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks.
The latest documents filed by the airlines, airport authorities, security companies and an aircraft manufacturer argue that if the FAA had known about an FBI investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, it could have amended security measures to guard against the type of terrorist attack Moussaoui was planning.
The… Continue reading
by Bill Douglas
Last Monday, March 31st, a historic event occurred. A conference call was held that involved a list of great American heroes, who have put everything on the line to protect their nation’s democracy. It was meaningful this occurred the same month as HBO’s release of John Adams.
A decision was made — April 16-22nd will be a WEEK of TRUTH !!
All are invited to get involved, by spreading the word on this event, as well as participating in the national “buy-in for truth week,” to finally break thru the corporate media blockade of 9/11 questions, at www.WeekofTruth.org
“. . . they [the majority of Americans] shall come to realize what I now realize… that the 9/11 Truth Movement are the real patriots in 21st century America!”
— Steve Alten, New York Times Best Selling author of “The Shell Game”
“Alone we can do so little . . . together . . . so much.”
— Helen Keller
This auspicious group came together to strategize how to collect the many powerful aspects of the growing movement pushing for answers to the endless unanswered questions around 9/11’s attacks, into one mass focused week of action. The goal . . . to break through the years of frustration with the (media) fourth estate’s betrayal of American democracy through their ongoing censoring of the questions regarding the increasingly obvious official myth of 9/11, which defies physics, logic, and FAA/DOD protocol.
As I sat in on this historic… Continue reading
Popular Mechanics Book Alleges FAA Source For Statistical Data; FAA Concedes No Such Data Records Exist.
Beginning on page 22 of a Popular Mechanics 2006 book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths, containing a forward comment by Republican presidential candidate John McCain, an attempt is made to clarify the role played by potential military aircraft intercepts during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Citing unnamed sources, part of this section reads as follows:
When contacted by Popular Mechanics, spokesmen for NORAD and the FAA clarified their remarks by noting that scrambles were routine, but intercepts were not – especially over the continental United States.
However, according to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Freedom of Information Act response dated March 3, 2008, the FAA concedes that records for the information alleged in part by Popular Mechanics’ unnamed FAA source, do not exist.
BRUSSELS, European Parliament, 26th February 2008.
Mark Dermul (www.911belgium) reporting.
On Tuesday 26th February, Europarliamentarian Guilietto Chiesa invited his colleagues and the press to attend the screening and debate of the Italian-produced documentary named ‘ZERO, an investigation into the events of 9/11′. Object of the screening was to create political awareness of the faulty official investigation into the events by the 9/11 Commission.
Besides Mr Chiesa, the panel consisted of Japanese parliamentarian Fujita, Dr David Ray Griffin, film distributor Tim Sparke & the director and producers of the film.
After his opening statements, Mr Chiesa welcomed his guest speakers. Then he pointed out that he was unable to find any distributor in his native country of Italy and was happy to find a company in the UK, led by Mr Tim Sparke, to handle worldwide distribution of this important film. ‘It is important to realize,’ he emphasized ‘that the movie was made thanks to contribution and donations of hundreds of citizens who feel a new investigation is more than warranted.’ No less than 450 people worked on this documentary on a voluntary basis. They never received any kind of payment. Their reward is the movie itself, which they feel is an instrument to create awareness and a means to provoke a political debate in Europe.
Since the movie projector didn’t work, Mr Chiesa invited the public to ask questions until the technical problems were solved and we could start watching the movie.
Rudy Giuliani and Air Quality After 9/11
by Andrea Bernstein
NEW YORK, NY January 23, 2008 —In his run for President, Mayor Rudy
Giuliani has showcased his leadership on 9/11 and in the days, weeks, and months
that followed. His actions in those days have been widely hailed. But far less
understood is how he responded to early concerns about the air quality in Lower
Manhattan. WNYC’s Andrea Bernstein has the first of two reports.
REPORTER: After the initial shock of the attacks, it took less than 24 hours
for reporters to start raising questions.
REPORTER: How about asbestos, because the buildings had a lot of asbestos?
GIULIANI: There are concerns about asbestos and at this point it does not appear
as if there is an undue amount of asbestos in the atmosphere but those are very
REPORTER: Very early on, both the city and the federal environmental protection
agency had data that showed spikes in the levels of asbestos in Lower Manhattan.
The official interpretation was that those levels were anomalies. All information
was coming through daily briefings held by Mayor Giuliani.
That week, the pressure to reopen Wall Street was immense. Kathryn Wylde, head
of the New York City partnership, was in on early meetings.
WYLDE: There was talk by the banking regulators of having business and financial
services institutions moving their operations 300 miles outside New York so
they would be a quote nuclear distance away.
REPORTER: By September 17 the New York Stock… Continue reading
The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th
Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon speaks out on 9/11, NORAD and what should have happened on 9/11.
By Jeremy Baker
Within three hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Robin Hordon knew it was an inside job. He had been an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) for eleven years before Reagan fired him and hundreds of his colleagues after they went on strike in the eighties. Having handled in-flight emergencies and two actual hijackings in his career, he is well qualified to comment on what NORAD should have been able to achieve in its response to the near simultaneous hijacking of four domestic passenger carriers on the morning of September 11th, 2001.
“There had to be something huge to explain why those aircraft weren’t shot down out of the sky. We have fighters on the ready to handle these situations twenty-four-seven. We have NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) monitors monitoring our skies twenty-four-seven. We have a lot of human beings, civilian and military, who care about doing their jobs.”
I spoke to Mr. Hordon one afternoon at a coffee shop in Bremerton, Washington.
“You have to understand the emotions, the duty, the job of an ATC. We are paid to watch aircraft go across the country.”
It’s clear that Hordon is passionate about the subject. A lot of people are. The dark questions that the attacks have left lingering in the national psyche have been recorded. 49% of New Yorkers believe that the government had something to do with 9/11. Following an interview with Charlie Sheen, a CNN poll revealed that 82% of respondents believed that there was “a government cover-up of 9/11.” Jay Leno asked Bill Maher on The Tonight Show about the fact that 37% of Americans (according to Scribbs-Howard) believe that the government was involved in some way with the attacks (Maher was definitely not one of them).
As far as the “emotions, the duty, the job” of an ATC is concerned, Hordon puts it this way:
“Imagine yourself at a circus, a fair, a crowded sports event. You have in your hand your little child of five or six, you’re amongst hundreds of people and you turn around and see that your child is gone. How do you feel at that moment? You feel panicked. You feel that this is the worst thing possible, so what you do is you engage. When ATCs lose an aircraft, all hell breaks loose. They flip right into motion. We take action and do not wait for other things to happen.”
As a former member of the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization), Hordon’s years as an ATC are particularly relevant to 9/11 researchers.
“I was a certified ATC in Boston west-bound departures, the routing that AA11 and UA175 followed on 9/11. I know it like the back of my hand.”
He even received a letter of commendation for his role in dealing with an actual hijacking. When it became clear that there hadn’t been a systems failure of any kind on the morning of September 11th, Hordon was certain that something had gone terribly wrong within the upper echelons of authority. A pilot (third level air carrier) as well as an ATC, he is well versed on in-flight emergency protocol. He is also adamant that if these procedures had been followed on 9/11 not one of the hijacked planes would have reached their targets. Continue reading
U.S. officials have long retaliated against employees who speak out, burying the dangers they expose. Now, Congress wants to give whistle-blowers greater protection — but President Bush vows to stop it.
By James Sandler
Nov. 01, 2007 | If there is any doubt about how the Bush administration treats government whistle-blowers, consider the case of Teresa Chambers. She was hired in early 2002, with impeccable law enforcement credentials, to become chief of the United States Park Police. But after Chambers raised concerns publicly that crime was up in the nation’s parks, she was rebuked by superiors and fired. When Chambers fought to regain her job through the legal system meant to protect whistle-blowers, government lawyers fought back, and associated her with terrorists. Despite a multiyear legal struggle, she is still fighting for her job.
Whistle-blowers have faced hostility not only under Republican administrations. During President Clinton’s tenure, Bogdan Dzakovic, an undercover security agent with the Federal Aviation Administration, suffered retribution for speaking out about weak airport security — three years before Sept. 11, 2001. Dzakovic was passed up for promotion time and again, and today, he says, he remains consigned to data entry duties for the Transportation Security Administration.
Every year, hundreds of federal workers sound the alarm about corruption, fraud or dangers to public safety that are caused or overlooked — or even covered up — by U.S. government agencies. These whistle-blowers are supposed to be guaranteed protection by law from retaliation for speaking out in the public’s interest.… Continue reading
September 24, 2007
by Alan Miller
Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up”
September 23, 2007 — Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.
During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.
In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present… Continue reading
by Drew Noftle
Some might say that 9/11 has changed Canada’s foreign policies in such a way that Canada is no longer regarded on the world stage as a peace-loving country, but a country willing to use its military preemptively based on nothing more than the trust we hold in the word of our southern neighbour.
Not only are we participating in the NATO occupation of Afghanistan, but we are also supplying the British and American troops in Iraq with their most deadly weapon – munitions made from Canadian mined depleted uranium.
Already, millions of Canadians do not support our war effort. But what if the official story of 9/11 was a lie? What if 9/11, as the evidence now suggests, was a self inflicted wound? How many of us would /then /support the War on Terror?
The last six months have seen a massive resurgence of interest in 9/11, and the official story of what really happened that day is being attacked on all fronts. Groups denouncing the official story have popped up all over North America. Organizations such as the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and Veterans for 9/11 Truth — are all composed of well respected people from all walks of life who share a common goal of exposing the truth behind 9/11, and ending this so called “War on Terror”.
In Canada, a network of “9/11 Truth Groups” has spread like wildfire. Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Victoria, and even the Kootenays have formed coalitions dedicated to showing us all that the official story does not stand up.…Continue reading
by Tod Fletcher
Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a monumental accomplishment by David Ray Griffin. He exhaustively and definitively destroys the pretensions of four major “9/11 debunking” publications published in 2006, shortly before the fifth anniversary of the events. Although the book is organized into chapters dealing with each one of the four publications in turn, Griffin has such a broad knowledge of all the evidence pertaining to the events, and such command of logic and argument, that the book is thoroughly cohesive and progressively builds an integrated critique of all dimensions of the official theory. Debunking 9/11 Debunking will effectively serve as a veritable encyclopedia of not just the facts of 9/11, but of the best arguments to debunk the official (and semi-official) lies about the facts. Griffin, as usual, avoids speculation and focuses on showing that the official story of what happened that day cannot be true.
Before the four central chapters, Griffin provides an Introduction (“Conspiracy Theories and Evidence”) in which he distinguishes between rational and irrational conspiracy theories and discusses the “double standard” used by the mainstream and left-leaning press, i.e., the confused (or self-serving) way in which they fail to make this distinction and then assert that critiques of the official account are “conspiracy theories” while completely obfuscating the fact that the official story is itself a conspiracy theory. He deals in detail with tendencies of human thought that make it difficult for people to look at unfamiliar and threatening evidence (“paradigmatic thinking” and “wishful-and-fearful thinking”),… Continue reading
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
by David Slesinger
(March 1, 2007)
The war on terror is being used to open the door to serious threats to our civil liberties. Exposition of any lies supporting such threats could be helpful to the protection of our Constitution.
If the current regime lies about so much, why shy away from asking the hardest questions about 9/11?
The lies which brought about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution were a landmark lesson for American anti-imperialists. Why is Operation Northwoods unworthy of our concern?
It is said that the first casualty of war is the truth. If both major parties and the leaders of the antiwar movement have no interest in researching lies used to justify our current war, who deserves the most criticism?
Ultimately, we don’t have to prove who did what. All we have to prove is that the government is lying. The fact that we still need the power of subpoena means we shouldn’t be charged with the responsibility of already having answered all the hardest questions.
The burden of proof for “debunkers” is not the preponderance of the evidence. Their burden of proof is to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a thorough investigation could disprove our case. This also means than if a debunker makes a good case about some aspect of our case, they still face the burden of making just as strong a case against ALL of our arguments. David Ray Griffin lists 115 different omissions and distortions of the Kean/Zelikow Commission. View it here.…Continue reading