VIEW Recent Articles
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

Lies and misrepresentations

ABLE DANGER and the 9/11 Whitewash

by reprehensor

Source: DailyKos

On Wednesday, February 15th, 2006, LTC Anthony Shaffer submitted an amazing written statement detailing his involvement with ABLE DANGER to Congress. You can download a PDF of the statement here , and I have made an HTML version here . For those people who are new to the ABLE DANGER (AD), story, I can’t think of a better starting point.

The idea was to take the ‘best and brightest’ military operators, intelligence officers, technicians and planners from the Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the U.S. Army and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in an entrepreneurial endeavor, much like bringing the best minds and capabilities from Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Daimler-Chrysler to focus on a single challenge. In the case of ABLE DANGER, the challenge was to discover the global ‘body’ of Al Qaeda – then, with this knowledge, prepare military and intelligence “options” that would be supported by the “actionable information” that was being produced by the project. – Prepared Statement Of LTC Shaffer, 2/15/06.

That was the idea.

reprehensor’s diary :: :: And they had successes. Most notoriously identifying a threat in Yemen that may have saved lives in the USS Cole bombing, and identifying Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11; this once again reiterated in the February 15th Congressional hearing by a contractor, James D. Smith, who worked at Orion Scientific Systems in Viginia;

During the Orion support (on or about 25 October 1999 to 04 August 2000), James Smith delivered multiple… 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

Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission?

By Dave Lindorff

A CounterPunch Special Report

9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI

One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center towers. Now it appears that they may not be missing at all.

Counterpunch has learned that the FBI has them.

Image of flight data recorderFlight recorders (commonly known as black boxes, though these days they are generally bright orange) are required on all passenger planes. There are always two-a flight data recorder that keeps track of a plane’s speed, altitude, course and maneuvers, and a cockpit voice recorder which keeps a continuous record of the last 30 minutes of conversation inside a plane’s cockpit. These devices are constructed to be extremely durable, and are installed in a plane’s tail section, where they are least likely suffer damaged on impact. They are designed to withstand up to 30 minutes of 1800-degree heat (more than they would have faced in the twin towers crashes), and to survive a crash at full speed into the ground.

All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery.…

Continue reading

The King’s Red Herring

by Kristen Breitweiser

Huffingtonpost.com
December 19, 2005

Recently, President Bush has admitted to carrying out surveillance on U.S. citizens in the interest of national security. He unabashedly admits to doing it. He offers no apologies. With his bellicose swagger, he once again uses 9/11 as his justification for breaking our constitutional laws. The President’s justification of 9/11 to carry out such surveillance begs a closer examination.

President Bush should be stopped in his tracks with regard to his use of 9/11 scare tactics to circumvent constitutional laws that are meant to protect U.S. citizens. His justification for doing so — the inability to conduct surveillance on the 9/11 hijackers — is a red herring. History will bear out the truth — our intelligence agencies held a treasure trove of intelligence on the 9/11 hijackers, intelligence that was gathered through their initially unencumbered surveillance. President Bush should busy himself by investigating why that information was then stymied and not capitalized upon to stop the 9/11 attacks.

MOUSSAOUI, FISA, and FBI SURVEILLANCE — MISUNDERSTANDING #1:

When it comes to the FBI and Zaccarias Moussaoui, one must understand that the FBI met all evidentiary standards to both apply for and be granted a FISA warrant. The information the FBI had to support their FISA request was two files on Moussaoui that were given to the FBI by the French and British intelligence services. Inexplicably, FBI lawyers and supervisors at FBI HQ “misunderstood” the evidentiary standards needed to apply for and receive a FISA… Continue reading

Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93: The 9/11 Commission’s Incredible Tales

by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.

This latest article from Dr. Griffin follows up on his lecture, “Truth and Politics of 9/11: Omissions and Distortions of The 9/11 Commission Report”, in which he summarized the first half of his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions. He completes that summary here, with his thorough review of the second half, particularly, the inability of the US military to intercept anyof the hijacked planes on 9/11.

At the end of 2004, I published The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions1. Shortly before that book appeared, I delivered a lecture in which I set out to summarize its major points. (That lecture is now available in both print and DVD form.)2 Unfortunately, The 9/11 Commission Report itself3 contains so many omissions and distortions that I was able to summarize only the first half of my book in that lecture. The present lecture summarizes the second half of the book, which deals with the Commission’s explanation as to why the US military was unable to intercept any of the hijacked airplanes.

This explanation was provided in the first chapter of The 9/11 Commission Report. Although that chapter is only 45 pages long, the issues involved are so complex that my analysis of it required six chapters. One of the complexities is the fact that the 9/11 Commission’s account of why the military could not intercept the hijacked airliners is the third version of the official account… Continue reading

New Enhanced Version Of The Tucker Carlson/Prof. Jones Interview Now Available

Thanks to www.911busters.com, we now have new footage of the Tucker Carlson/Prof. Steven E. Jones interview. This new version points out the tactics used by Tucker to discredit Prof. Jones. It also includes the footage that Tucker refused to show. The collapse of WTC7, NASA’s findings regarding the heat signatures left in the foot of the buildings, and a few other surprises.

 

The Wargames of September 11th (beta)

The Complete 9/11 Timeline hosted by The Center for Cooperative Research recently published a revised set of entries on the military exercises of September 11 , providing a goldmine of well-sourced information. Compiled by Paul Thompson, the 9/11 Timeline long ago became the leading resource of mainstream news reports about September 11. Available in book form as The Terror Timeline (2004), it continues to evolve online.

The latest material for the first time casts light on what may have been the day’s master wargame: Global Guardian, run out of Offutt Air Force Base by the US Strategic Command (Stratcom) under Admiral Richard Mies ( official bio ). He has since retired and taken up a gig as the CEO of Hicks & Associates, a “strategic consultant” to the federal government dealing in “military transformation.”

Our New York correspondent, Nicholas Levis, has written a review.

UPDATE: Filmed in January 2000, and aired on 3/4/2001, the makers of “The Lone Gunmen” show that the idea of crashing planes into buildings isn’t anything new. As a matter of fact, their representation is eerily familiar given what we know today about the Wargames taking place on September 11th, 2001. (The Lone Gunmen Clip: Click Here )
 

 
Aug. 2005:

As the day dawns over the East Coast on September 11th, 2001, the US Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska is on full alert, busily dispatching warplanes around North America in a rehearsal for Armageddon.

Stratcom directs the US nuclear arsenal.…

Continue reading

The Mineta Testimony: 9/11 Commission Exposed

9/11 Commission Report – one year later… By Gregor Holland 911truthmovement.org

Editor’s Note: Among the hundred-plus lies and omissions now documented in the Commission’s cover-up, some are big enough to drive a Halliburton oil truck through. One of the most dramatic has always been Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s direct contradiction of the official story timeline in his testimony to the Commission. Mr. Holland nails this story perfectly below and has even dug up the scrubbed video of Mineta’s incriminating testimony.


One year after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, serious questions that were raised before and during the Commission proceedings remain unanswered. For many, the Commission Report raised more questions than it answered. Not the least of these has been posed by honorable Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. McKinney recently questioned Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers “about the four war games that were taking place on September 11 and how they may have impaired our ability to respond to those attacks.” McKinney got a partial answer a week later. In the first on-the-record acknowledgement that there were four war games underway on 9/11/01, Myers told her that all battle positions were manned because of the drills…

“..so it was an easy transition from an exercise into a real world situation. It actually enhanced the response.”

This answer echoed one provided by General Ralph Eberhard during the final 9/11 Commission hearing. The question to Eberhard, posed by Commissioner Roemer, was coerced by hearing attendees who interrupted the hearing, forcing the issue by yelling “What about the war games?” The failure of air defenses to respond on that morning does not support the given answer by Myers and Eberhard.…

Continue reading

McKinney vs DOD

 

Hijacking the Facts

- FBI worked hard to cover up a 9-11 cover-up–and then hide it some more

by James Ridgeway

The Village Voice

June 14, 2005

WASHINGTON, D.C. — It’s no secret the FBI let at least two 9-11 hijackers–Hazmi and Mihdhar–slip through its fingers when they landed in California in 2000 and proceeded to live openly under their own names in San Diego before moving into position for the attack. What makes the situation especially ludicrous is that one of these hijackers rented a room from a San Diego landlord who was an FBI informant on the Muslim community.

That’s bad enough. But after 9-11, when the Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee found out what had been going on, the FBI refused to allow the informant to be interviewed by the committee staff or to testify.

The FBI actually took steps to hide this man so Congress could not find him. All this is described at some length in former senator Bob Graham’s book Intelligence Matters–the one book on this entire affair written by an actual participant in the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing over what was permitted to come into public view about 9-11. Graham was chairman of the joint congressional investigation.

To resolve the informant question, Graham writes, he met with Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI director Robert Mueller, and other top officials. But when he tried to serve a subpoena on one top FBI official, the man shrank away and would not take the piece of paper. In the end,… Continue reading

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

by Dr. David Ray Griffin

Photo of Dr. David Ray GriffinIn discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.” (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique’s subtitle, “Omissions and Distortions.” It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated “distortions” can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed.…

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

Important “Open Letter to Norman Mineta” concerning his 9/11 Commission-censored testimony – Please help distribute widely…

 

Editor’s Note:
An open letter to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta regarding the omission of his 5/23/03 testimony to the 9/11 Commission from the Commission’s Final Report. That testimony included eye witness accounting of events that occurred in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) the morning of 9/11/01. Additionally, as of the time of this letter, it appears that an effort has been made to conceal Secretary Mineta’s testimony from the public by editing it from video archives of the 5/23/03 hearing on the 9/11 Commission website (the testimony is not deleted from the .pdf and .html archive).

Dear Secretary Mineta

Portrait of Norman Mineta

 

On May 23, 2003 you testified before the 9/11 Commission in public hearing as to your experience on the morning of 9/11/01. During your testimony you stated that you arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) underneath the East Wing of the White House “at about 9:20 a.m.”, at which time Vice President Richard Cheney and other staff was already present in the center, with Mr. Cheney clearly in command. You also state in your testimony that you had believed based on a conversation that took place between Mr. Cheney and an unnamed “young man” that a shoot down order had been given by the Vice President prior to your arrival, because, in your words…

“There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out, “the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand.

Continue reading

Threshold Fears and Unanswered Questions about 9/11

By Peter Phillips
commondreams.org

For many Americans, there is a deep psychological desire for the 9/11 tragedy to be over. The shock of the day is well remembered and terrorist alerts from Homeland Security serve to maintain lasting tensions and fears. The 9/11 Commission report gave many a sense of partial healing and completion – especially given the corporate media’s high praise of the report. There is a natural resistance to naysayers who continue to question the US government’s version of what happened on September 11, 2001. This resistance is rooted in our tendency towards the inability to conceive of people we know as evil; instead evil ones must be others, very unlike ourselves.

We all remember, as young children, scary locations that created deep fears. We might imagine monsters in the closet, dangers in a nighttime backyard, and creepy people in some abandoned house down the street. As we get older we build up the courage to open the closet, or walk out into the backyard to smell the night air. As adults there are still dark closets in our socio-cultural consciousness that make it impossible to even consider the possibility of the truthfulness of certain ideas. These fearful ideas might be described as threshold concepts in that they may be on the borders of discoverability, yet we deny even the potentiality of implied veracity – something is so evil it is completely unimaginable.

A threshold concept facing Americans is the possibility that the 9/11 Commission Report was on… Continue reading

Open Letter to Richard A. Clarke regarding War Games, 9/11 Timeline and Myers/Rumsfeld Testimony

Editor’s Note:
There has been so little journalistic attention to 9/11 truth that glaring factual contradictions in the “official narrative” can go unremarked in the media for months if not years. In the following letter, 911truth.org co-founder Kyle Hence urges Richard Clarke (former counter-terrorism ‘czar’ for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Author, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror) to deal with the fundamental inconsistencies between his writing and testimony regarding 9/11 and the version released as gospel by the 9/11 Commission. Clarke has yet to respond but Kyle’s letter is an education in itself.

Open Letter to Richard A. Clarke
From: Kyle Hence
February 23, 2005

Subject: Pertaining to accounts in Clarke’s book Against All Enemies, neither retracted or refuted, regarding 9/11 war games and the participation of General Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld in a video conference managed from the White House Situation Room by Richard Clarke with the assistance of his Deputy, Roger Cressey.

Note of Explanation: This letter/email was presented (via email or in person) to Mr. Clarke on four occasions without a response of any kind to the specific questions raised regarding the actions (or lack of) from our military and top officials in positions of responsibility on 9/11. Given no response, and Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s attempt to raise the issue at February 16th Armed Services Committee hearing, CitizensWatch is taking the step of making this letter public.

This letter (see below) with questions pertaining to 9/11 (wargames, sworn testimony by Rumsfeld & Myers) was first sent as an email in June of 2004 to Mr. Clarke via his consulting company, Good Harbor. This note and these questions were presented personally to Mr. Clarke a second time on October 6, 2004 – and via email (3rd attempt) directly to his personal email box on October 15. When presented with a second opportunity in person (4th attempt) to respond to these queries backstage at a December 7th function at the Institute for Ethical Culture in New York City, Mr. Clarke refused to acknowledge the author and instead quickly left the room.

Receiving no response despite repeated attempts I am now releasing this to the public as an ‘open letter’ in the hopes responsible members of the press, family members and/or dedicated investigators will follow up publicly and personally with Mr. Clarke and the Commissioners who failed to examine the glaring discrepancies between Clarke’s accounts and those offered in public statements and in sworn testimony by Chairman Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld.

It should be noted that Richard Clarke is the only member of the Bush Administration to publicly apologize to the 9/11 families. While generating controversy at the time, his testimony before the 9/11 Commission regarding the warnings and plan for dealing with Al-Qaeda that he presented to Condi Rice and the Bush Administration in January of 2001 has been recently bolstered by the release of an unclassified version of his January memo to then National Security Advisor Rice.

This controversy could pale in comparison, however, to what could be revealed in sworn testimonies before the appropriate Committee regarding Sept. 11th war games (including “Vigilant Warrior” mentioned by Gen. Myers on the morning of Sept. 11th), changing NORAD timelines and the testimony already offered by Chairman Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld regarding their whereabouts and actions taken in the first and most critical minutes immediately following the attack on the World Trade Center. {see pages 1-7; Against All Enemies)

This is being made public now in an effort to force this issue into the public’s eye and ultimately to see full accountability and disclosure. Another 9/11 commemoration must not pass without these issues being addressed forthrightly and honestly before the American people; either in Manhattan before an AG Spitzer or DA Morganthau-convened Grand Jury or public hearings, in Albany before the appropriate Committee or on Capitol Hill. We offer this in hope that those with integrity in a position of responsibility will rise to this challenge. In this case above all others we must not allow the truth to continue to be veiled or obfuscated.

Kyle F. Hence

Co-founder, 9/11 CitizensWatch

February 23, 2005

kfh@911citizenswatch.org

Continue reading

Must Read Texts

From the unknown history we’re doomed to repeat, onward…

 

  •  War is a Racket — Gen. Smedley Butler’s classic confession and repudiation of his life as a corporate hitman.
  •  The Pearl Harbor Deception — A 12/2/02 response to critics by premier Pearl Harbor historian, Robert B. Stinnett, of the Independent Institute.
  • THE PEARL HARBOR DECEPTION: The Bombing of Pearl Harbor — Same title but this time a libertarian team tackles the history.
    Despite one of the authors obvious passionate distaste for FDR’s Masonic affiliation and supposed World Gov dreams, the overall research and sourcing for the compilation is impeccable.

Reps. Waxman and Maloney Call for Hearings on FAA Warnings & Rice Veracity

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FEBRUARY 10, 2005

CONTACT: Rep. Henry A. Waxman

Karen Lightfoot, 202-225-5051

WASHINGTON — February 10 — Today Rep. Waxman and Rep. Maloney ask for hearings on whether political considerations caused the Administration to delay release of findings by the 9/11 Commission about pre-attack warnings. The text of the letter follows:

The Honorable Tom Davis Chairman

Committee on Government Reform

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We are writing to request that our Committee hold hearings to investigate two extremely serious questions raised by an article that appeared in this morning’s New York Times. The first question is whether the Administration misused the classification process to withhold, for political reasons, official 9/11 Commission staff findings detailing how federal aviation officials received multiple intelligence reports warning of airline hijackings and suicide attacks before September 11. The second question relates to the veracity of statements, briefings, and testimony by then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding this issue.

Background

This morning’s New York Times reported that in “the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations.”[1] The article explained that the Federal Aviation Administration “received 52 intelligence reports” that mentioned Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001, and that the FAA warned airports that if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but… Continue reading

September 11th Advocates Statement on the 9/11 Commission’s Declassified Monograph on FAA Failures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 11, 2005

September 11th was neither an intelligence failure nor was it a failure of imagination. It was nonfeasance on behalf of a whole host of government agencies, including the FAA.

Of the 105 warnings issued, 52 warnings regarding al Qaeda were given to the FAA by the intelligence community in a six month period from April 2001 to September 2001. According to the 9/11 Commission’s final report, there were eight information circulars put out by the FAA between July 2, and September 10, 2001. Five of these information circulars targeted overseas threats, while the remaining three targeted domestic threats.

The 52 threats regarding al Qaeda were not received by the FAA in a vacuum. From March 2001 to September 2001, according to the Joint Inquiry of Congress, our Intelligence Community received at least 41 specific threats of a possible domestic attack by al Qaeda. Additionally, the FAA was also made aware of the August 16, 2001 arrest of Zacarias Moussouai. Finally, the FAA attended a high level meeting on July 5, 2001 where the domestic threat posed by al Qaeda was discussed by all relevant intelligence agencies.

According to the newly released FAA monograph, in the spring of 2001 the FAA knew that if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable.”

The aforementioned statement is yet another indicator of how widely known it was in… Continue reading