By Tim Hjersted
Lawrence Journal-World Blogs
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, President Bush asked the American public to “never entertain outrageous conspiracy theories.” The irony of his statement is easily lost. Most people consider themselves reasonable, thoughtful individuals that don’t believe in crazy conspiracy theories, but the Official story of 9/11 — that 19 radical terrorists conspired for several years to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings — is, in fact, a conspiracy theory. It just happens that this theory has the official endorsement of the U.S. government. So, believe our conspiracy theory, not theirs, Mr. Bush asks us. Don’t look at the facts. Don’t investigate for yourself. Just believe what you’re told.
This is, in effect, what the government and the mainstream media is asking us when it labels any idea a “conspiracy theory,” and we can see how incredibly effective this tool has been in stunting rational debate.
Over the decades, the term “conspiracy theory” has gained an increasingly negative stigma. People associate conspiracy theorists with kooks and wackos, paranoid rabble-rousers and self-proclaimed prophets with delusions of grandeur.
Long story short, the term has a whole long list of negative connotations, and most reasonable folks who value their reputation will avoid any conspiracy topics like the plague once it’s clear that the topic is now deemed ultra hazardous “conspiracy” territory.
Because of this, the term has become an incredibly effective propaganda tool for those who would prefer to silence dissenting opinions rather than debate… Continue reading
Issued September 4, 2009
Numerous media outlets have contacted 911truth.org, asking us to “make
sense” of Van Jones’ “strange” behavior. We have issued the following
As the eighth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, what doesn’t make sense to
us is that media outlets choose to impugn the character of the signatories
rather than carry out your responsibility as watchdogs to call attention to
the as yet unanswered questions raised in the 2004 statement. Five years later,
we challenge you to finally print those same unanswered questions and pursue
their answers with the same vigor with which you pursue the signatories.
We are overwhelmed by all the messages of support that we have received in the last 24 hours. We apologize that we can not possibly respond to each individual message, but please know we do read each one and are grateful for your support. For those of you asking what you can do to help, we encourage you to use the questions of this 2004 Statement as talking points for calls to your local media outlets and national call-in programs, and letters to the editors. Perhaps with your help, we can finally get answers to these lingering questions. Thank you.
For readers’ convenience, following is the actual Truth Statement signed onto
by Van Jones in 2004, currently being discussed in the media.
We Want Real Answers About 9/11
On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found… Continue reading
April 21, 2009
by George Washington
5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld said “my interest is to hit Saddam”.
And at 2:40 p.m. on September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top administration officials, several lines below the statement “judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same time”, is the statement “Hard to get a good case.” In other words, top officials knew that there wasn’t a good case that Hussein was behind 9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify war with Iraq anyway.
And yet, the government knew that Al Qaeda and Iraq were not linked. For example, “Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the [9/11] attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda”.
And a Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy.
by Stephen C. Webster
The President of Mexico has an unfortunate message for Americans still ignorant of the Drug War’s cold realities: Some of your politicians are involved.
Yes folks, it is long-past time to start thinking about alternative strategies for combating both the harmful effects of drug addiction and the deadly effects of forcing an economy outside of the law.
“It is impossible to pass tons of drugs and cocaine to U.S. without some great complicity of some American authorities,” said Mexican President Felipe Calderone.
“There is traffic in Mexico because there is corruption in Mexico. And that is true. But with the same argument, if there is traffic in United States, it is because there is some corruption in United States.”
Calderone’s comments come at 3:01 in the following video.
For MUCH more excellent reporting about drug running in and out of US/Mexico, see investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker’s site, Mad Morning News, at www.madcowprod.com . Hopsicker’s latest film is “New American Druglords” .
A few recent story headlines –
Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire whose $250 million cash infusion bailed the New York Times out of a tight cash crunch last week, has long-standing business ties with wealthy Mexican businessmen suspected of involvement in Mexico’s so-called “Cartel of the Southeast,” the drug trafficking organization (DTO) based in Cancun which came to light two years ago with the crash on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula of an American-registered (N987SA) Gulfstream jet… Continue reading
February 7, 2009
George Washington’s Blog
Counter-terrorism experts presumably have some insight into terrorism, right?
In fact, numerous high-level counter-terrorism experts question the government’s investigation of – and explanation for – 9/11.
“The best I could say about it is they really botched the job by not really going into the real failures. … At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous.”
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantánamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a “life-threatening condition.”
“We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.
Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantánamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.
Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani’s health led to her conclusion. “The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his… Continue reading
January 14, 2009
Posted at History Commons Groups
The National Archives today released a set of records the 9/11 Commission gave it. It did so today because the commission told it it had to wait until 2009 to do so, presumably on the off chance that people would have forgotten about it all by then. The records are in two groups, Memorandums for the Record (MFR), which are available online, and other
records, which are not available online.
Editor’s Note: The National Archives 9/11 Commission Records URL’s have been updated.
Kevin Fenton, who wrote this blog entry today, is one of the great researchers working with Paul Thompson and so many other fine people at HistoryCommons.org (formerly known to most of us as CooperativeResearch.org) to document our history. Not just about 9/11, but about aspects of our lives so appallingly rewritten by media and textbooks. The work underway at HistoryCommons is absolutely invaluable, and we encourage readers to get involved and otherwise support that work.
I have been trawling through the ones that are available online and I have learned a few things of interest.
(1) Stacks of the MFR are not actually available. Either they have not been reviewed yet (pending), or have been withdrawn because they are very classified, or they have been made available, but have had the bejesus redacted out of them.
October 17, 2008
by Peter Dale Scott
For over two years now I have been speaking and writing about what I call deep events. I mean by deep events the traumatic and unexpected episodes that recur periodically in US history and alter it, nearly always for the worse. These deep events can never be properly analyzed or understood, because of an intelligence dimension which results in a socially imposed veil of silence, both in the government and in the Mainstream Media.
The more that I look at these deep events comparatively, ranging over the past five decades, the more similarities I see between them, and the more I understand them in the light of each other. I hope in this paper to use analogies from the murder of JFK and 9/11 to cast new light on the murders of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy.1
I began this analysis in 2006 by comparing the JFK assassination with 9/11. I drew attention to over a dozen similarities, of which today I will be focusing on only four:
1) the remarkable and puzzling speed with which those in power identified what I call the designated culprits (Lee Harvey Oswald and the 19 alleged hijackers),
2) the self-incriminating trail allegedly left by the culprits themselves — such as the bundle that James Earl Ray is said to have conveniently left in a doorway on his way to his car. Oswald was said to have carried a flagrantly falsified draft card identifying… Continue reading
By Matt Taibbi and David Ray Griffin
October 6, 2008
A poll of 17 countries that came out September of this year revealed that majorities in only nine of them “believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.” A Zogby poll from 2006 found that in America, 42% of respondents believed the US government and 9/11 Commission “covered up” the events of 9/11. It’s safe to say that at least tens of millions of Americans don’t believe anything close to the official account offered by the 9/11 Commission, and that much of the outside world remains skeptical.
Over the years, AlterNet has run dozens of stories , mostly critical, of the 9/11 Movement. Matt Taibbi has taken on the 9/11 Truth Movement head on in a series of articles, and most recently in his new book, The Great Derangement .
In April, I asked Taibbi if he would be interested in interviewing David Ray Griffin, a leading member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice , Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University and author of seven of books on 9/11 , about his recent book, 9/11 Contradictions . After months of back and forths between them and some editorial delays, I’m pleased to share their written exchange — all 24,000 words of it. What we have here are the preeminent writers on both sides of the 9/11 Truth argument; a one-of-a-kind debate.… Continue reading
by Sam Vaknin TheConservativeVoice.com
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 Mark H. Gaffney
The following is an excerpt from Mark H. Gaffney’s forthcoming book, THE 911 MYSTERY PLANE AND THE VANISHING OF AMERICA, to be released in September 2008.
15/08/08 “ICH” — Regrettably, there is considerable evidence that elements of the Bush administration were complicit in the 9/11 attack, and may even have helped stage it. Let us now examine some of what I regard as the most compelling evidence. However, the following discussion makes no claim to be comprehensive.
We know that within minutes of the “worst terrorist attack” in US history, even before the collapse of WTC-2 at 9:59 am, US officials knew the names of several of the alleged hijackers. CBS reported that a flight attendant on AA Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office and reveal the seat numbers of the hijackers who had seized the plane. FBI Director Robert Mueller later said, “This was the first piece of hard evidence.” In his memoirs CIA Director George Tenet emphasizes the importance of the passenger manifests, as does counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke. All of which is very strange because the manifests later released by the airlines do not include the names of any of the alleged hijackers. Nor has this discrepancy ever been explained.
According to MSNBC, the plan to invade Afghanistan and “remove Al Qaeda from the face of he earth” was already sitting on G.W. Bush’s desk on the morning of 9/11 awaiting his signature. The plan, in the form of a presidential directive, had been developed by the CIA and according to Richard Clarke called for “arming the Northern Alliance…to go on the offensive against the Taliban [and] pressing the CIA to…go after bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership.”
A former Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, tells virtually the same story.…Continue reading
By Jack Blood
For almost a year and a half I have been in the loop on a most fantastic story involving the Herculean investigative reporting of Chris Emery, Holland Van den Nieuwenhof and crew from www.okcbombing.net
As hard as it was, I kept quiet and off the record, as the team investigated an angle of the 911 terrorist attack of 2001 which had Mohamed Atta (pictured right) and five of his alleged hijackers in Oklahoma City just days before 911, drunk, boisterous and brawling — Not a Koran, or prayer rug in site.
Last week – July 2008, they had reached the end of their investigation, and impenetrable walls of resistance prohibited them from going any further. Last Friday July 19th 2008 the Emery team decided to go public on my syndicated radio show, DEADLINE LIVE w/ Jack Blood. The result of which has sent shockwaves throughout the 911 truth community.
For the safety of all involved, the witnesses wish to remain anonymous until such time they can be guaranteed protection. All of the witnesses have given signed affidavits to Chris Emery. Documentation of the facts and evidence has been tucked away in safe houses in the USA and Canada. The evidence will later be released to Network Media, and the proper authorities.
The story started as the team was continuing their exhaustive research into the OKC Bombings of 1995. Almost accidentally they ran into witness after witness wanting to report that… Continue reading
From: Jack Blood
Date: Jul 18, 2008 1:24 PM
Please forward this around…
After over a year of investigations, my sources are ready to speak out publicly on one on of the most important Sept 11th puzzle pieces ever to come my way.
It seems that Mohamed Atta and at least 4 other 911 (alleged) hijackers were in Oklahoma City just before 9.11.2001.
My sources accidentally ran into several witnesses while investigating leads in the OKC Bombing case.
What did they find?
According to eyewitnesses (none of whom knew each other) Atta and the boys were in OKC just 3 days before 911.
ONE OF THEM, TWO WEEKS AFTER 911!
My sources (who will remain nameless until today’s radio broadcast) also have credit card receipts from an Atta and crew drinking session at a local OKC bar, where they nearly got in a brawl with 2 other patrons.
The CC numbers used by Atta seem to show that the Cards were GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED!
This could be the most damning evidence to date that the alleged hijackers of 911 were indeed intelligence assets and NOT “terrorists”
It gets better….
OR go to www.jackblood.com to find out how to listen.
LATE BREAKING NEWS – OKC / 911 PERPS
From Chris Emery:
This story has now been updated with new information from Symposium organizers.
The New England 9/11 Symposium, held this past Saturday (5/17/08) in Keene, NH, was a tremendous success. We had a great turn out and received local and, of course, independent media coverage.
First, the morning began at 9:45 a.m. with Bob McIlvaine’s heartfelt speech, which is a reminder that, as Jon Gold put it, what we feel is nothing compared to what family members like McIlvaine feel. The part of his remarks that stuck out to me the most was when McIlvaine detailed his experiences researching 9/11 on his own and described his utter disgust with the 9/11 Commission. While speaking about the Commission he mentioned the day that Condoleeza Rice testified about the August 6th, 2001 PDB. To him it was obvious that Rice was spinning, lying, and not directly answering any questions posed to her by the Commissioners, who’s questions were light as it was. He talked of how outraged he was when, after Rice testified, family members were rushing to shake her hand. The deception was so blatant how could the others not see it? I, as well as many others, believe that Bob is very strong and very brave.
Next up was acclaimed Canadian media critic and author, Barrie Zwicker. Zwicker offered his excellent take on the media’s unwillingness to cover this issue. I had seen his presentation before in 2006 but it was watching Zwicker take the editor of The Keene Sentinel (a… Continue reading
11.9- The truth movement is often laughed at for criticizing the Bush government’s answer to what happened on 11th September 2001. Now however, the recognized historian, Daniele Ganser gives legitimacy to the skeptics.
by Kristin Aalen
CONSPIRACY: Ganser has caused debate following the presentation of his view in an interview with the Swiss TV-channel, U1. There he repeated his arguments from an article he wrote in the Swiss newspaper, Tages-Anzeiger in Zürich in September 2006.
Ganser’s premise is that conspiracies are nothing unusual or new in the field of historical research. At least since the assassination of Julius Caesar in classical Rome more than 2000 years ago, conspiracies have been an element of the political fight for influence and power.
He defines a conspiracy as, “a secret agreement between two or more persons to engage in a criminal act.”
He continues: “As 9/11 was a criminal act which was definitively not planned and carried out by one single person alone but by at least two or more persons who agreed on the plan before it was implemented, 9/11 must be classified as a conspiracy.”
MOST CORRECT? “It is important to stress that all theories about 9/11 are conspiracy theories. Once we realize that none of the theories can be dismissed on the grounds that it is a ‘conspiracy theory’, the real question becomes: Which conspiracy theory correctly describes the 9/11 conspiracy?” asks Ganser.
The historian thereby is in disagreement with the many who laugh at the critics… Continue reading
by Tod Fletcher
March 15, 2008
9/11 CONTRADICTIONS by David Ray Griffin is the fifth of his books to examine
the official account of the events of September 11, 2001. This brilliant and highly
readable book takes a new yet simple approach to the truth about 9/11. It focuses
entirely on contradictory statements made by members of the Bush administration,
government departments and agencies, and official bodies such as the 9/11 Commission.
All the statements that Griffin examines are official claims in direct conflict
with other official claims. How could this be? Why would the government keep changing
“the official story”? The public, of course, is expected to take all
the statements as incontrovertibly true, yet they directly conflict with one another.
And why, if the government pronouncements are contradictory, haven’t members
of Congress and the mainstream media launched investigations to determine which
are true and which are false, and to ask why are obvious falsehoods about the
events of 9/11 being promulgated by the government? I say “obvious falsehoods”
because, as Griffin explains in the Preface, “If [Transportation Secretary
Norman] Mineta said “P,” that is a fact. If the 9/11 Commission said
“not P,” that is a fact. And it is a fact that “P” and “not
P” cannot both be true” (p. viii). The subtitle, “An Open Letter
to Congress and the Press,” indicates Griffin’s hope that the juxtaposition
of the contradictory claims the book provides will stimulate such investigations.
But the book is really intended for the public at large, and its clear focus
makes it the easiest to read of all Griffin’s books on 9/11.…
By Bill Locey
Sunday, April 6, 2008
There is an increasing number of Americans who believe that George Bush, Dick
Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and several of their toadies should be in prison, this
writer included. But to suggest that the Bush administration is somehow involved
in the 9/11 attacks seems to be a jaw-dropping and frightening stretch, but
not to the scores of interested folks who turned out to hear David Ray Griffin’s
talk March 28 at the Poinsettia Pavilion in Ventura. For those who get their
information from Fox News, such a charge is blasphemy, treason and worthy of
a perpetual Blackwater firing squad on YouTube. Griffin settled for frequents
bursts of applause.
The 9/11 tragedy is certainly not the first event in American history surrounded
by controversy and conspiracy theories, just merely the latest.
But as the pages blow off the calendar, witnesses die off, the trail grows
cold and interest wanes, assisted by the fact the American people have the attention
span of a butterfly sneeze.
But 9/11 is still fresh in everyone’s memory, partly because Bush can’t go
three minutes without playing the fear card and invoking the images of airplanes
flying into tall buildings. That memorable Tuesday morning happened less than
seven years ago and not only is it an annual school assignment, but many of
the participants and survivors are still alive with plenty of contradictory
stories to tell.
The new Pearl Harbor
Griffin has heard all of them. A retired theology and philosophy… Continue reading
Latest Findings Raise New Questions about Hijackers and Suggest Incomplete Investigation
A contributor to the History Commons has obtained a 298-page document entitled Hijackers Timeline (Redacted) from the FBI, subsequent to a Freedom of Information Act request. The document was a major source of information for the 9/11 Commission’s final report. Though the commission cited the timeline 52 times in its report, it failed to include some of the document’s most important material.
The printed document is dated November 14, 2003, but appears to have been compiled in mid-October 2001 (the most recent date mentioned in it is October 22, 2001), when the FBI was just starting to understand the backgrounds of the hijackers, and it contains almost no information from the CIA, NSA, or other agencies. This raises questions as to why the 9/11 Commission relied so heavily on such an early draft for their information about the hijackers.
CooperativeTimeline.org has posted new information from the “Hijackers Timeline,” recently released by the FBI. Links to the full FBI documents are at the end of the article, (which also contains many links to other Timeline entries in the original announcement, at the source).
In addition, the 90-page “Charge Sheet” (see also press release 2/11/08, “Sept. 11 Co-Conspirators Charged”) conveys an enormous amount of information relating to the hijackers for a significant period of time before, and on, September 11th.
For an event this government has said “no one could have… Continue reading