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 Les Jamieson
January 7, 2006
The beginning of the new year affords us the opportunity to look back through 2005 and see the successes vs. failures and breakthroughs vs. challenges that have occurred in the 9/11 truth movement.
More importantly, here we are at a fresh beginning where we can look into the future of 2006 and see what must be accomplished.
As a full time activist and researcher, it is obvious, from my perspective, that we as a movement still have serious work to do to inform millions of people. The government, media and so-called progressive organizations have resisted even seriously considering the overwhelming evidence of official lies. We still must find a way to break through the silence–and we cannot fail.
The obvious task is to distill the analysis down to simple, powerful messages. Then we must realize that any one of the points is enough to pierce and shatter the official deception of 9/11. This may be the most difficult thing to realize for a movement filled with intellectuals who have engaged in the process of analyzing the broad spectrum of issues, including the important factor of historical context. However, nothing can match the importance of arriving at a succinct, powerful, and compelling strategy to expose the reality behind 9/11 because each day that passes brings more death and destruction, and worsening of social, economic, environmental and political conditions on the planet. Getting mired in complexity is an unfortunate risk we face. So here is a… Continue reading
Good morning, class… today we’re going to discuss the events of 9/11. Please take out your copies of “The Terror Timeline,” and turn to page 560.
You’ll see at the bottom half of the page, an entry entitled, “May 2004: Previously Public Information About FBI Whistleblower Is Now Classified.”
I’m going to read it out loud for everyone to hear…
“The Justice Department retroactively classifies information it gave to Congress in 2002 regarding FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. Senator Charles Grassley (R) says, “What the FBI is up to here is ludicrous. To classify something that’s already been out in the public domain, what do you accomplish? … This is about as close to a gag order as you can get.” The New York Times reports that some of the information discussed is “so potentially damaging if released publicly” that it has to be classified. Topics like what languages Edmonds translated, what types of cases she handled, and where she worked is now classified, even though much of this has been widely reported on shows like CBS’s 60 Minutes. [NEW YORK TIMES, 5/20/04] In late 2002, the Justice Department invoked the rarely used “state secrets privilege” to limit what she could say. [Salon, 3/26/04]”
Ok… just to clarify what took place here, someone who worked for the FBI found out some information pertaining to 9/11 that was “damaging” in nature. She then tried to make that information public by what’s known as “whistleblowing.” For those of you… Continue reading
Posted By Jon Gold
In a recent interview on Lou Dobbs Tonight, Representative Curt Weldon made the following statement:
“We’ve received assurances that the hearings will go forward.
But the other thing that we have to look at, Lou, and you have had another guest on your show recently, why did the 9/11 Commission pick 1996 and not go back beyond that? There is some very interesting material that needs to be tied in. The ’93 attack on the Trade Center. The blind Sheik’s trial. None of that was looked at by the 9/11 Commission, and the American people need to ask the question why.
We will be asking that question during the Able Danger hearings.”
It will be interesting to see what information Rep. Weldon is referring to. Given the fact that there are many similarities between the ’93 bombing and 9/11, one can only hope he is referring to the truth in its entirety.
In October 1993, in an article entitled, “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast” the New York Times reported that, “Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.”
“The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by… Continue reading
August 2005: An annotated, comprehensive archive of articles on admissions that Mohamed Atta and three of the other alleged 9/11 hijacking ringleaders were under surveillance by military intelligence a year before September 2001. More proof that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash; and why there is far more to the story than The New York Times has reported…
Sep 3, 2005:
Mohamed Atta and three other alleged ringleaders of the 9/11 hijacking team were under surveillance by an elite US military intelligence program in the summer of 2000, a New York Times story of Aug. 9, 2005 revealed.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) broke the story to the Times after officers with knowledge of the Able Danger program contacted him. Two officers have since gone on record to say they once had Mohamed Atta in their sights. They claim a recommendation to round up Atta and what they termed his “Brooklyn Cell” (!) was rejected in the fall of 2000 by commanders at MacDill Air Force Base, supposedly on the advice of Defense Department lawyers. As of Sept. 2, the Pentagon says three additional people with knowledge of Able Danger have corroborated the story.
This dossier by Nicholas Levis rounds up Able Danger news reports to date, as well as analyses by various authors. The views expressed herein are the writers’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org.
(1) Oxford group plans a march and rally on Sept. 10th to culminate its 9/11 Truth Week. On Aug. 6, the Daily Mail printed the biggest article ever in the UK mainstream press to reject the official mythology of September 11th. Following the horrible London bombings of July 7, the official story has unraveled in record time. A new 7/7 truth movement is underway. And the sudden Aug. 6 death of Robin Cook spotlights his final column in The Guardian , in which he wrote that “al-Qaeda” (the base) originated as a CIA database…
SF art contest winner announced
(2) Northern California 9/11 Truth to hold Sept. 10 truth rally and march. Colorado 9/11 Visibility calls for Sept. 11 rally in Boulder. A week-long series of films in Toronto. And the winner of the International Art Contest is….
McKinney Hearings to Air on C-SPAN, Aug 31 and Sep 2
(3) Here’s a chance for those who missed last month’s landmark hearings on Capitol Hill to judge their value for themselves. Get your video recorders ready…
Update: Broadcast moved to C-SPAN 1 8 pm to 11:30 pm Wed., Aug 31
(4) August 2005: An annotated, comprehensive archive of articles on admissions that Mohamed Atta and three of the other alleged 9/11 hijacking ringleaders were under surveillance by military intelligence a year before September 2001. More proof that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash; and… Continue reading
“You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw.”
This month the New York Times published a vast online archive of emergency-call tapes, radio transcripts and first responders’ oral histories of September 11th at the World Trade Center. The Times waged a long legal battle with the City of New York to gain the records’ release under the Freedom of Information Act.?
New York Times: The 9/11 Records (front page)
The Sept. 11 Records The complete set of the oral histories of rescue workers and audio of dispatch transmissions from Sept. 11.?
9/11 researchers combing through the new documents are discovering a surprising number of witnesses who said they saw or heard bombs going off at the WTC, among other anomalies, in some cases long before the buildings came down. One anonymous researcher has compiled many such passages from firefighters’ testimonies . A discussion thread at a 9/11 forum includes a few more, plus a number of seemingly outlandish statements as well as counter-arguments from debunkers.?
We’re not sure where this line of inquiry is heading, but it’s hard not to be impressed by items like the following:
Gregory Stephen, Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) p 14
A. No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for… Continue reading
Announcement from NY 9/11 Truth and the L.E.S./WTC Truth Movement
On Sunday September 11, 2005 we will march from the offices of the New
York Times (near Times Square), passing other major media headquarters on
the way to a rally and concert at the United Nations. We will demand that the
International Criminal Court (ICC) open an immediate investigation into the
unsolved crimes of 9/11.
mark your calendars if you can make it to NYC that weekend. We ask you to send
the announcement below (starting below at “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE”) to
everyone you can — especially anyone you may know in the New York area, your
media contacts, and any Internet boards or lists you frequent.
If you can’t join a caravan of like-minded people and travel to New York for
the march, please consider holding a linked event in your own town. (Let us know
and we’ll announce it at 911Truth.org and other venues.)
Since last year’s “Summer of Truth,” NY 9/11 Truth and 911Truth.org
have drawn thousands of individual New Yorkers to dozens of speaking events.
This summer, with the mood among City residents more skeptical of the official
story than ever before, we want to get 10,000 people to one single public event
to finally show that we skeptics of the government’s Official 9/11 Conspiracy
Theory are legion. Together, we can do it!
The march may or may not result in an article in the New York Times,
but that is hardly the point.… Continue reading
A US military intelligence team code-named “Able Danger” identified Mohamed Atta and three other alleged 9/11 hijackers as potential terrorists in the summer of 2000, at a time when Atta was living in Florida, according to yesterday’s New York Times .
But the Times story obscures at least as much as it reveals.
The 9/11 Commission was made aware of the Able Danger program in 2003, but failed to mention it in its 2004 report.
The Times calls yesterday’s revelation “the first assertion that Mr. Atta… was identified by any American government agency as a potential threat before the Sept. 11 attacks.” In fact, such assertions date back to German press reports of September 2001 and October 2002, when several German newspapers reported that the CIA had Atta under observation during the first six months of 2000, while he was still living in Germany.
According to the German reports of Sept. 2001, the CIA in 2000 watched as Atta “bought chemicals” in Frankfurt and later tracked him to Berlin, where he received an entry visa from the US consulate in May 2000.
(According to official US timelines of his activities, Atta entered the United States for the first time in June 2000, although witness accounts reported in local papers after 9/11 place him in Florida months earlier.)
The CIA did not inform German authorities about its surveillance of Atta on their soil in 2000, and the Germans learned about it only after the 9/11/01 attacks. The German authorities themselves also… Continue reading
by 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.…Continue reading
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.
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.” 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
By Eric Lichtblau,
New York Times
WASHINGTON (Feb. 9) – 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, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.
But aviation officials were “lulled into a false sense of security,” and “intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures,” the commission report concluded.
The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 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.”
Ask yourself how the 9/11 Commission could find that the FAA was “lulled into a false sense of security” after receiving 52 terrorist warnings including statements that domestic hijackings were preferable if the intent was “to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion.” Next watch the media talking heads endlessly repeat the official mantra of complacency, distraction and miscommunications. Then it may be clear how far the Commission and the spin doctors will go to protect the “official story” – and how cowed or stupid they all believe we are. See also the Voices of September 11th’s hard-hitting Feb. 10 response at the end.… Continue reading
According to the NY Times of July 29, an internal DoJ report has found Sibel Edmonds was at least “in part” fired because of her whistleblower activities in accusing the FBI of incompetence and a co-worker of suppressing documents relating to Sept. 11.
New York Times, July 29
Whistle-Blowing Said to Be Factor in an F.B.I. Firing
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, July 28 – A classified Justice Department investigation has concluded that a former F.B.I. translator at the center of a growing controversy was dismissed in part because she accused the bureau of ineptitude, and it found that the F.B.I. did not aggressively investigate her claims of espionage against a co-worker.
The Justice Department’s inspector general concluded that the allegations by the translator, Sibel Edmonds, “were at least a contributing factor in why the F.B.I. terminated her services,” and the F.B.I. is considering disciplinary action against some employees as a result, Robert S. Mueller III, director of the bureau, said in a letter last week to lawmakers. A copy of the letter was obtained by The New York Times.
Ms. Edmonds worked as a contract linguist for the F.B.I. for about six months, translating material in Turkish, Persian and Azerbaijani. She was dismissed in 2002 after she complained repeatedly that bureau linguists had produced slipshod and incomplete translations of important terrorism intelligence before and after the Sept. 11 attacks. She also accused a fellow Turkish linguist in the bureau’s Washington field office of blocking the translation of material involving acquaintances… Continue reading