By Michael Kane, March 27, 2004
Case study: How the Commission went easy on Rumsfeld, Myers and Wolfowitz
“I had no idea hijacked airliners would be used as weapons.”
So said Rumsfeld, in his opening remarks to the Kean Commission on March 23, 2004. His final statement on the topic while under oath was, “I plead ignorance.”
Officials at NORAD have said that when the hijackings first occurred, they initially thought it was part of the Vigilant Guardian drills running that morning. Despite some confusion, once Flight 11 struck the World Trade Center at 8:45 AM, everyone should have known this was not a test.
Former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke’s testimony, one day later, was interesting, but amounted to little more than a distraction. There were more cameras on Clarke than on anyone else during the two-day national broadcast of the commission hearings. In reality, his testimony was nowhere near as interesting as the joint appearance by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Myers the day before. I do not question Clarke’s sincerity at this time, just the timing, which he did not choose. His book was released at a time chosen by the White House, and the testimony depended on the book. He had finished it well over 6 months before, but it was held up by the White House security clearance.
As a result, the book came out on the eve of Rumsfeld’s sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission. Very clever if intentional, because it distracted everyone from two issues completely ignored by the commissioners, and overshadowed by Clarke and his book when they questioned Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:
ISSUE #1 On the morning of September 11, 2001, NORAD was running war games involving the scenario of hijacked airliners, while the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) was running a drill for the scenario of an errant aircraft crashing into a government building, at the exact same time as an identical scenario was perpetrated in reality.…Continue reading
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
In 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
by Paul de Burgh-Day
Attention: Victor Thorn,
I bought a copy of 9-11 On Trial from you guys. Very useful, well presented, even if I found the style of presentation a bit repetitive. Clearly written to try and reach folks who don’t think much – which is a lot of the audience. Here in Australia too.
My primary reason for writing is to deplore the internecine warfare between people and groups who should be on the same side! I have little doubt that some agence provocateur have done an impressive job of setting 9-11 groups at tearing each other apart. This is a tragedy!
I have done a lot homework on 9-11 and its place in a global strategy. Maybe sitting in Australia helps one to be a bit more objective. Right from the start, my wife and I reckoned 9-11 was an inside job. At that point, pure conspiracy theory. But as the days went by, and as I started to dig into online reports (forget the mainstream media), some hard facts started to emerge. Besides, the ever changing official version began to look utterly implausible.
As we near the 4th anniversary, I have no doubt that what happened in the global sense was according to the PNAC plan, and that Mike Ruppert’s case in Crossing the Rubicon is pretty good. I have the opinion that the moment the first solid evidence showed that the official line was bullshit, we were no longer dealing with Conspiracy Theories.… Continue reading
On This Page:
Call to Action – Write to Newsday
One of these men is not on the cover…
Pentagon prevents Anthony Shaffer from testifying and accuses him of stealing pens
Intikab Habib, incoming FDNY
Both are subject to intimidation for speaking out about
Which is the bigger story?
Let Newsday know what you think!
Newsday Shields Long Island Readers From 9/11
By Nicholas Levis
911Truth.org New York Correspondent
Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2005
Our previous story on the Intikab Habib case was premature.
We reported early Saturday morning that New York Newsday published an article about people who reject the US government’s account of the September 11 events.
The story by Newsday Staff Writer Patricia Hurtado had already appeared on the newsday.com website. But we later discovered that the editors kept it out of the newspaper itself. (That applies to the Long Island Saturday and “Early… Continue reading
The birth and life of the ’9-11 Truth movement’
by Jarrett Murphy
February 21st, 2006 11:48 AM
Essentially, it’s all about physics and common sense. Cut steel, and buildings fall. Crash a plane, and the Earth gets scarred. Fire a missile; see a hole. What’s up must come down, cause makes effect, and for the truth to set you free, it must be freed itself.
It’s dark in the basement of St. Mark’s Church and dark outside on a mid-December Sunday night, but inside they have seen the light. Among the 100 or so people in the room, many wear buttons that read “9/11 Was An Inside Job.” Others grip the vital texts in their hands — Crossing the Rubicon, The New Pearl Harbor, or 9/11 Synthetic Terror. Most in the largely (but not exclusively) white and male crowd can quote you the important passages from “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” or The 9/11 Commission Report. A few can guide you through the details of concepts like “peak oil” and pyroclastic flow. All of them suspect–and a few simply know–that their government was somehow complicit in the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans four Septembers ago.
They are watching the new edition of Loose Change, a slick, witty documentary featuring a hip soundtrack and a rapid-fire assault on nearly every aspect of the “official” story of 9-11. The work of 22-year-old filmmaker Dylan Avery, Loose Change came out last year to take its… Continue reading
Sheen calls for truly independent investigation, joins growing ranks of prominent credible whistleblowers
Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | March 20 2006
“I was up early and we were gonna do a pre-shoot on Spin City, the show I used to do, I was watching the news and the north tower was burning. I saw the south tower hit live, that famous wide shot where it disappears behind the building and then we see the tremendous fireball.”
“There was a feeling, it just didn’t look any commercial jetliner I’ve flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother ‘call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition’?”
Sheen said that most people’s gut instinct, that the buildings had been deliberately imploded, was washed away by the incessant flood of the official version of events from day one.
Sheen questioned the plausibility of a fireballs traveling 110 feet down an elevator shaft and causing damage to the lobbies of the towers as seen in video footage, especially when contrasted with eyewitness accounts of bombs and explosions in the basement levels of the buildings.
Regarding building 7, which wasn’t hit by a plane, Sheen highlighted the use of the term “pull,” a demolition industry term for pulling the outer walls of the building towards the center in an implosion, as was used by Larry Silverstein in a September… Continue reading
March 31, 2006
by John Albanese
I never much cared for Tucker Carlson. His generic brand of silly bowtie journalism
led to his dismissal from CNN (yes, he was fired), and his nightly broadcast
on MSNBC hardly warrants much attention. Frankly, the man is an intellectual
lightweight with limited talents, and I suspect his career will ultimately fade
Sadly, America has become all too accustomed to so-called cable “news”
pundits who use their national platform to foist lies, distortions, misquotes
and smear tactics on the American public. I do not care to waste time here documenting
examples of Mr. Carlson’s many egregious lies. For those interested, a
good rundown of Mr. Carlson’s professional career and ethical lapses can
be found here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200406170002
But, it does appear that Tucker Carlson, as of late, has been engaging in drive-by-shooting-type
swipes at the 9/11 Truth Movement. Many in the 9/11 Truth community were encouraged
by Mr. Carlson’s invitation to Brigham Young University physics professor
Steven E. Jones to appear on his show, to discuss his recent paper on the collapse
of the WTC Towers and Building 7 on September 11th.
Unfortunately, the interview itself was a perfect example of Mr. Carlson’s
signature grandstanding, as he regularly interrupted and derailed any real debate
on the facts and substance of Dr. Jones’ work, refusing to even air the
video evidence Dr. Young provided to the network, while constraining the entire
interview to under six minutes.
In the days that followed, Mr. Carlson aired heavily… Continue reading
A Call for Unity in the 9/11 Truth Community
By: John J. Albanese
Stand with me. Today’s editorial is a shameless plea for unity and support. Time is short. Today’s headlines relentlessly warn us of a pending nuclear crisis, and the deafening drumbeats of war, and the inevitable clash of civilizations that threatens to devour us whole. Never mind that the rhetoric swirling around the Iran crisis mimics the rhetoric that swirled around the debacle in Iraq. Never mind that the facts are being skewed once again. American foreign policy appears to be executing a full-court press to conflict and oblivion.
And at the bottom of this rubble-heap of American foreign policy lies the all but forgotten truth and hidden history behind the worst terrorist attacks in American history.
“We will never forget,” we all vowed after 9/11. And we meant it. But sadly, 4 ? years after the fact, 9/11 has already become commercialized, dramatized and fictionalized by such Hollywood confections as Universal Studio’s “United 93″ and Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center.” And while we can debate endlessly the degree of historical accuracy of these films, Hollywood has, for all intents and purposes, turned the tragedy of 9/11 into entertainment for the masses, and has tread upon our sacred vows.
But there are those among us who know that something is seriously wrong. From the start, there are those among us who were not satisfied to simply put their trust in the ‘official story.’ There are those among… Continue reading
by David Ray Griffin
This essay was originally delivered as a lecture at Trinity Episcopal Church of Santa Barbara, Saturday, March 25, 2006.
In this essay, I offer a Christian critique of the American empire in light of 9/11, and of 9/11 in light of the American empire. Such a critique, of course, presupposes a discussion of 9/11 itself, especially the question of who was responsible for the attacks. The official theory is that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by Arab Muslims. The main alternative theory is that 9/11 was a “false flag” operation, orchestrated by forces within the US government who made it appear to be the work of Arab Muslims. …
I will argue that the attacks of 9/11 were false flag attacks, orchestrated to marshal support for a so-called war on terror against Muslim and Arab states as the next stage in creating a global Pax Americana, an all-inclusive empire. I will conclude this essay with its main question: How should Christians in America respond to the realization that we are living in an empire similar to the Roman empire at the time of Jesus, which put him to death for resistance against it.
by David Ray Griffin
April 28, 2006
Note: This essay was originally delivered as a lecture at Trinity Episcopal Church of Santa Barbara,… Continue reading
By: KEITH PHUCAS, Times Herald Staff
While the 9/11 Commission Report inquiry has its share of critics, Jonathan
Gold’s misgivings about the official findings go far beyond skepticism. In fact,
the 33-year-old Plymouth Meeting resident is convinced the report is covering
up Bush administration complicity in the deadly terrorist attacks.
Gold’s unorthodox view has caused many jaws to drop and heads to shake. When
asked for proof, he calmly rattles off a long list of like-minded people, and
what he called a growing body of “evidence” that the government orchestrated
the attacks as a pretext for the global war on terror.
“There’s so much evidence out there,” he said.
For those who scoff at him, he recommends comparing the official Sept. 11 account
to the Cooperative Research Center’s Sept. 11 times lines, reading David Griffin’s
“The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” and entries
on 911Truth.org just for starters.
A quick glance at the Internet’s voluminous material critical of the 9/11 Commission
Report published in 2004 could be this generation’s Warren Report.
Gold was not always a skeptic, admitting his conversion to Sept. 11 truth seeker
was a gradual process. But by 2002, he was convinced the official story was
a monumental cover-up.
His suspicion grew with the Bush administration’s initial reluctance to cooperate
with a probe into the Sept. 11 attacks, and when former Sen. Tom Daschle was
asked to limit the scope of the investigation.
Considering nearly 3,000 people had been killed, Gold was irked it took… Continue reading
By Bernard Weiner, Co-Editor The Crisis Papers
August 29, 2006
The imminent fifth anniversary of 9/11 provides the proper moment for a good, ol’-fashioned sum-up of the past half-decade under CheneyBush, especially because so much has happened in the past 12-months:
The Bush Administration’s Katrina debacle, Iraq being sucked deeper into the civil-war vortex, Afghanistan turning once again into a major war theater, more and more military leaders speaking out about the disaster that is CheneyBush foreign policy, the defection of so many moderate conservatives from their GOP home, the plummeting of Bush’s popularity to not much more than his fundamentalist base, the revelation that Bush&Co. have been spying on citizens’ phone calls and emails without court warrants, the indictment of CheneyBush’s chief aide Scooter Libby for obstruction of justice in the case of the White House’s outing of a covert CIA agent, the “rendering” of detainees abroad for extreme torturing, etc. etc.
I’ll get to the annual list in a moment. But first let’s step back and take a deeper overview. Buckle your seat belts, here we go.
WHAT 9/11 PERMITTED BUSH TO DO
Whatever you may think of 9/11, and the extent of involvement of Bush&Co., it’s crystal-clear that the events of that tragic day were and continue to be used as an excuse for a wide variety of immoral and illegal actions by the CheneyBush Administration. The radical agenda that was barely on the public’s horizon five years ago has since become all too evident, both domestically and in terms of foreign/military policy, which is why so many traditional conservatives are abandoning the extremism of the Republican Party.…Continue reading
Conspiracy theorists insist the U.S. government, not terrorists, staged the devastating attacks
by Jonathan Curiel, Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
Dylan Avery has a theory that he says casts doubts on Mark Bingham’s actions on Sept. 11, 2001. According to Avery, the San Francisco public relations executive never called his mom on a cell phone from the cabin of Flight 93, and never told her that “some of us here are going to try to do something.” Instead, says Avery, someone using a voice synthesizer — possibly a government official — called Alice Hoglan on the morning that Flight 93 — and Bingham — became part of Sept. 11 lore.
“The cell phone calls were fake — no ifs, ands or buts,” Avery says in “Loose Change,” a film he wrote and directed that’s one of the most-watched movies on the Internet, with 10 million viewers in the past year. “Until the government can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that al Qaeda was behind Sept. 11, the American people have every reason to believe otherwise.”
Avery is one of perhaps millions of Americans who believe the U.S. government — or rogue elements within it — either orchestrated the attacks or tacitly supported them for nefarious reasons.
As the five-year anniversary of the attacks approaches, the clamor of Avery and other conspiracy theorists has gotten stronger — and more widely accepted. According to a poll by Ohio University and Scripps Howard News Service, 36 percent of Americans believe that government officials “either assisted in the 9/ 11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.” Twelve percent of Americans believe a cruise missile fired by the U.S.…Continue reading
by Michael Keefer
December 4, 2006
The first thing to say by way of preliminaries (and I’d better get it in quickly before someone suggests that I’ve turned up late or over-weight for a pre-match weighing-in) is that I’m not overjoyed with the pugilistic metaphor of my title.
But some sort of response to the volley of attacks on 9/11 researchers and activists with which the Counterpunch website marked the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 seems called for.
Michael Keefer strikes just the right tone in responding to Alexander Cockburn’s attempt to banish “conspiracy nuts” from the kingdom of the left.Keefer accounts for Cockburn’s hostility to conspiracy by locating him in the “class of academics and public intellectuals, for whom a migration of power into military, deep-political, and corporate-media hands may…. be difficult to acknowledge.” We’d add that when those intellectuals are wedded to a brand of analysis that cannot satisfactorily account for what they see transpiring before their eyes, that difficulty is only magnified.
Slowly but surely, the academic left is coming to understand that the deep politics paradigm offers the most promising analytic tools for understanding the dynamics of geopolitical struggle. Don’t be surprised by the discomfort associated with the paradigm shift to continue to produce rhetorically overheated, but substantively lacking, complaints like Cockburn’s for quite some time. But really, that’s his problem.
Counterpunch co-editor Alexander Cockburn set the tone of these pieces with an article describing theologian and ethicist David Ray Griffin, the author of The New Pearl Harbor (2004) and of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), as a “high priest” of the “conspiracy nuts”"whom Cockburn denounces as cultists who “disdain all answers but their own,” who “seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant,” and who “pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, [".] contemptuously brush[ing] aside” evidence that contradicts their own “whimsical” treatment of “eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence.”
It’s a characteristically forceful performance, if at times slipshod. One small sign of carelessness may be the manner in which Cockburn slides from calling 9/11 skeptics a “coven” to comparing them, a few sentences later, to “mad Inquisitors” torturing the data (as the old joke goes about economists) until the data confess.” Readers brought up to think that the victims and perpetrators of witch-crazes have not customarily been the same people may find this unintentionally amusing.
Despite the sometimes distinctly nasty tone of this polemic, the idea of exchanging even metaphorical blows with Cockburn and his colleagues is unappealing. The overall quality of the essays that he and Jeffrey St. Clair publish in Counterpunch makes it easy on most days of the week to agree with Out of Bounds Magazine‘s description of it (trumpeted on Counterpunch‘s masthead) as “America’s best political newsletter.” And I’ve admired Cockburn’s own political essays for many years: he’s written movingly, sometimes brilliantly, on a wide range of subjects1 even if his flashes of brilliance sometimes alternate with breathtaking pratfalls: among them his dismissal, as recently as March 2001, of the evidence for global warming; his scoffing, in November 2004, at the rapidly gathering indications that the US presidential election of 2004 had been stolen; and a year later, his mockery of the well-established theory of peak oil and his adherence to the genuinely daft notion that the earth produces limitless quantities of abiotic oil.2 One can forgive a journalist’s slender grasp of the rudiments of scientific understanding. But given his self-appointed role as defender of the progressive left against a horde of fools, It’s dismaying to find him sliding as frequently as he does into positions that seem not just quirky but (dare I say it) unprogressive. Continue reading
Several years ago, the terms “LIHOP” and “MIHOP” were coined
to describe two camps of the 9/11 truth movement.
“LIHOP”, for those who don’t know, stands for the theory that elements
of the U.S. government Let It Happen On Purpose. “It”, of course,
is 9/11. People who believe in LIHOP stress that the intelligence services had
been tracking the alleged hijackers and had ample warning of the attacks in
advance, standard air defense procedures would have stopped any hijacked jets
from crashing into both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the anomolies in the
funding of the attacks, the people involved, the interference with investigations
and prosecutions which could have stopped the attacks, and the cover-up by the
government all point to the conclusion that elements of the U.S. government
intentionally allowed the attacks to happen on purpose in order to promote the
imperial agenda laid out previously by the Project for a New American Century
“MIHOP”, on the other hand, stands for the theory that the U.S. government
Made It Happen On Purpose. People who believe in MIHOP stress physical evidence
which tends to contradict the official theory about 9/11, such as the strange
“collapses” of the Twin Towers and WTC7, and may stress anomolies
in the attack on the Pentagon, the way that Flight 93 crashed (or was shot down?),
and perhaps even the impact of the airplanes on the Twin Towers. MIHOPs believe
that the physical evidence is the “smoking gun” which is so irrefutable
that it will convict the perpetrators.…
By David Ray Griffin
My purpose in publishing this essay is to introduce a perspective, relevant to the debates about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, that thus far has not been part of the public discussion.
One way to understand the effect of 9/11, in most general terms, is to see that it allowed the agenda developed in the 1990s by neoconservatives—often called simply “neocons”—to be implemented. There is agreement on this point across the political spectrum. From the right, for example, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke say that 9/11 allowed the “preexisting ideological agenda” of the neoconservatives to be “taken off the shelf . . . and relabeled as the response to terror.”1 Stephen Sniegoski, writing from the left, says that “it was only the traumatic effects of the 9/11 terrorism that enabled the agenda of the neocons to become the policy of the United States of America.”2
What was this agenda? It was, in essence, that the United States should use its military supremacy to establish an empire that includes the whole world–a global Pax Americana. Three major means to this end were suggested. One of these was to make U.S. military supremacy over other nations even greater, so that it would be completely beyond challenge. This goal was to be achieved by increasing the money devoted to military purposes, then using this money to complete the “revolution in military affairs” made possible by… Continue reading
by John J. Albanese
March 15, 2007
I must profess embarrassment. After 5 years of 9/11 activism KSM’s confession
today has brought my world crashing down. After years of paranoid conspiracy
theories I must now accept the government’s word that this confession
is the genuine bona fide article – the final smoking gun behind 9/11.
It is therefore out of respect for our legal system that I will reproduce KSM’s
I, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, being of sound mind and body, un-coerced by torture,
and fully enjoying the legal representation and due process afforded me under
the Constitution of the United States of America, hereby confess to the following
crimes associated with 9/11:
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.…
While the morning rain and the threat of afternoon rain prevented “Annie and the Vets” from providing music at the 4/11/2007 Impeach Bush/Cheney rally, a substantial crowd gathered in the last-minute sunshine on Lytton Plaza in downtown Palo Alto, amidst a giant replica of the flawed 9/11 Commission Report, two smoking towers labeled Constitution and Bill of Rights, many colorful banners calling for impeachment, and a huge “Deception Dollar” banner.
The first marches demanding a Congressional Investigation into 9/11 were held in Palo Alto in January 2002, followed by further marches in January of 2003 demanding “Pre-Emptive Impeachment.” Marches for impeachment are now a monthly occurrence and converged yesterday with a monthly 9/11 Truth action. The rally began with a bit of history and Congresswoman Eshoo’s response to the previous rally on March 14th. Eshoo wrote:
“I’ve lived through an impeachment process and witnessed firsthand how it tears the country apart. The election in November was a resounding rejection of the President’s policies and the policies of his party. I think it’s time to bring the country together and move forward. In my view, impeachment will heavily distract from the important work of reversing the disastrous course this Administration has set and will virtually bring to a halt progress on important issues including healthcare and global warming.”
The primary organizer of the rally, Carol Brouillet, read her response to Eshoo:
There is a tremendous difference between the charges leveled against Bill Clinton and those that are being directed towards Bush… Continue reading