Thursday, May 14, 2009

Griffin: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers Did 9/11

According to the Trondheim University Newspaper «Universitetsavisa» for Thursday, May 14th 2009, professor emeritus David Ray Griffin told an auditorium of students and lecturers at the NTNU Technical University in Trondheim, Norway that
I've said before that I could not imagine that the Bush Administration was behind 9/11. Today I've changed my mind. I think that administration was cynical enough to do it.

- Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers are the three key persons I think were behind this, Griffin said.

He went on to say:
- Give me the power to grant people immunity from prosecution, and the opportunity to threaten people with prison, and I shall find the truth within weeks.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Physics 101

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Twin Tower Collapse Time

Simple question:
What medium would provide the most and the least resistance to the falling object?
A - water
B - steel/concrete
C - air

Tougher question:
Roughly how long would it take the object to fall from 400m through A, B and C?

Incredibly tough question:
How come only a few newspaper editors and journalists are willing to touch this issue? Are they all totally freaked out by conformity and authority?

Monday, December 31, 2007

True Lessons of 2007 – Confessions of a 9/11 Truther

Somewhat inspired by Richard D. Brinkman at 9/11 Blogger, I felt the urge to write a few words about what I learned from being a «truther» in 2007.

But first, a short summary. We do not know for sure why the mainstream media are so tight on the 9/11 issue, however we do know some of the effects of this. In short, even the very best evidence for an inside job – the collapse time, indicating with absolute certainty that the Twin Towers were blown apart – will not be printed or get a natural amount of media coverage. For «veteran» truthers like myself, this leads to immense frustration and anger.

In that frustration, some truthers seek the company of those who will listen, and they in turn listen to them, and after some time the honest truthers forget that they already found enough evidence to nail & jail the inside jobbers for life.

So the truthers start looking for the Absolute Truth™ about 9/11, meaning how exactly the towers were blown apart, by what/who, what type of aircraft hit them, how many aircraft, etc etc.

This is a trap. You do not need to go there, and you shouldn’t. Think about it: You already found sufficient evidence for putting the inside jobbers behind bars. What more do you need at this stage? Surely the full and absolute truth will be sought and found, once the full force of the mass media and the democratic institutions of society have woken up to the grim truth of the 9/11 inside job & subsequent cover-up.

For the purpose of waking people up, I can find no better tool than the final version of the 9/11 documentary film Loose Change, titled «Loose Change: Final Cut».

Sunday, October 29, 2006

when we neoconned you (a poem)


when we neoconned you on 11 september we knew you would listen and always remember the fear we brought to you and the mindfuck we put you through

and when you look at us now we just laugh our ass off cause in the afghan hills and iraq you pass out dying like flies for the lies we passed out

and when we tell you we neoconned you you just laugh right back at us never turn your back at us for the lies still stick like glue and you remember september the way we want you to

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Summary – The Path to 9/11 Truth Disclosure

Update: The 3 young guys behind Loose Change 2 - Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas - are really heroes in my view, and they are taking the message to vast new groups of 9/11 skeptics. They are in their early twenties and they made some mistakes in the first edition, but they are fighting the good battle. 2006-05-11

In respect of all those who died on 9/11 and their relatives, and of all who died or were tormented in their name. Although painful for both writer and reader, the following is an attempt to make a contribution to finding the guilty ones and to bring closure to the hunt for the real criminals, the real terrorists and mass murderers.

The Bush administration consciously uses secrecy in a broad spectrum to make skeptics speculate on a huge number of issues. It can also be shown that it has planted consciously distracting speculation on the web and in the media, to deceive and discredit the skeptics and investigators.

If we stick to the facts and refrain from speculation and irrelevant circumstances, we are left with this strong accusation: Two airplanes were allowed – unhindered – to crash into the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11. These caused holes in the walls and scattered fires, but firemen thought the limited fires could be put out. When the towers fell, it was after reported and documented explosions that had nothing to do with the airplane attacks, and after vibrations that registered as quakes of 2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale. About an hour after the first attack, came the attack on the Pentagon, and no matter how this occurred, it is unlikely (from enemies, that is) when the chiefs of defence knew that terrorists were on the loose.

What a true skeptic cannot know (due to dubious sources) is whether the planes that hit the WTC were hijacked, whether the 19 arabs hijacked them, whether these controlled the planes, whether they were al-Qaida types and whether al-Qaida in that case operated covertly within an American agenda. A true skeptic has a duty to be skeptic to evidence that is either destroyed or not shown to anyone.

What we however do know, is that the explosives that brought down the towers were planted with an intention that makes the crash holes in the facade of the soon to be pulverized skyscrapers almost anecdotic. If the landlord and/or the government has decided to pulverize the Twin Towers on 9/11, in other words, the deadly effect of the airplane attacks borders on unsignificance, no matter who were behind and/or in control of the planes.

Those who prepared the pulverizing of the towers planned to conduct the demolitions under cover of the plane attacks, and thus they also knew about the plan to crash airplanes into the towers. For the average American, then, it really shouldn’t matter much who were behind the plane crashes, as the planners of the controlled demolition both 1) could have stopped the plane attacks, and 2) are themselves guilty of far more deaths on 9/11 than the plane crashes.

The logical step would then be to go after those who planned to pulverize the Twin Towers. No enemy terrorists could count on being allowed to fly unhindered through the best guarded airspace in the world, so the likeliness that someone other than the government itself was behind also the plane attacks is therefore more or less non-existant.

So the fall of the towers is essential, and the responsibility of the government for these and for making the plane attacks possible, plus for the destruction of the south western part of the Pentagon, must be at the center of the investigation and the revelation of these crimes. Focus on and speculation about other issues will thus be counter-productive, and therefore bordering on sabotage of the aims of the Truth Movement.*

With this starting point we can then for instance accuse Webster Tarpley’s radio show on March 25, 2006 of sabotage, as Tarpley here invites Nico Haupt to go on about the no-planes theories of his. A laughable suggestion, that even if it was true, is insignificant and destructive for the aims of the movement. And this in turn reflects back on Webster Tarpley in general, and on his writing and his contribution to revealing (or concealing) the truth. In the same way the focus of «Loose Change» on the «pod» underneath the planes and a flash in the building are insignificant and destructive, and skeptics must therefore view the makers of the movie, Phil Jayhan and Korey Rowe, and those who recommend it, with much skepticism.

This may seem a bit harsh, as Webster Tarpley is currently running a weekly radio show – World Crisis Radio – and wants to be the agora for exchanging thoughts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Tarpley and his radio show must therefore be judged over time, and dismissed as sabotage only if he goes on inviting the most wacky theorists. But the same starting point can in any case also be used positively: Those authors and books that focus the most on the fall of the towers, the air defence and the foreknowledge, are the ones we should trust the most. The others may be out there with other agendas.

In this way Fetzer on the academic side and Siegel («9/11 Eyewitness») on the visual, auditory and emotional, are among the best supporters in the struggle for disclosure. (Fetzer does however recommend «Loose Change», even though the first edition of this documentary only gets to the explosives after 22 minutes of exploring the «pods», flashes and Florida flying lessons.)

In this post I have tried to show that we can almost eliminate al-Qaida, in much the same way that we can eliminate an unknown from a set of equations, by showing that their possible contribution was not the most essential, and that the attack that is attributed to this terrorist organization first of all served as camouflage for the much greater destruction and crime carried out by explosives and controlled demolition, most likely on behalf of the US government and/or its secret agencies.

And as the plane attack on the Twin Towers is almost unthinkable without extensive cooperation with various US authorities, and thus cannot represent a likely plan from a free and independent terrorist organization, simply because in this case the odds for succeeding were so microscopic, it is fairly safe to assume that the air attack was carried out by Americans or by foreigners with close ties to the US government. If al-Qaida played a role in this, they were in other words playing a role that was rehearsed in concert with the local authorities.

* Postscript: Upon writing this, I see that in the literature on 9/11, this debate is referred to as the Big Tent debate. I.e. whether to include all theories and all skeptics that go against the official saga of 9/11. The way I see it, the Big Tent option allows for all the wackiness, invites all the crackpot and/or sabotage conspiracists, the ones that will make most people laugh and turn away from the movement and its claims.

Moreover: The struggle for 9/11 Truth is a paradigm struggle. Meaning that one paradigm about a terrible attack on the United States is about to be replaced by a new paradigm, in which the US stages an attack on itself, in order to gain national and international support for a monumental war of conquest. In this way, the first aim for the 9/11 Truth Movement should be to replace the old paradigm with the new one. And following that, i.e. when the thought of a staged attack on 9/11 is commonplace and held by nearly everyone, the climate will be more ripe for discussing the nitty-gritty details of the staged attack. Once the new paradigm is in place, it will be business as usual to allow for minor modifications and further investigation of all the details.

But first we must all pull together to replace the old paradigm and arrest the real ciminals of 9/11.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Icelandic Greens call for independent, international inquiry of 9/11

Fellow 9/11 Truther Elias Davidsson is sharing some more good news from Iceland. The Biannual Congress of the Icelandic Green-Left Party just closed. About 400 delegates attended. The Congress passed a resolution on 9/11. It was passed by the General Assembly of the Congress by acclamation, without opposing votes.

Basically, what the resolution does, is to call on the Icelandic government to produce the evidence that persons in Afghanistan were responsible for the 9/11 attack on N.Y and the Pentagon. With Iceland being a NATO member, its government was given «evidence» back in fall 2001 that the USA was attacked by Afghan people. The Greens would like to see this evidence, as it formed the basis for the (still ongoing) NATO-wide attack on Afghanistan, as we all know by now.

This «evidence», seen only by the top brass of Iceland and other NATO countries, has of course been kept a secret for four years across the alliance and the world, probably because there is no real evidence. If Icelandic Greens succeed in having this so-called evidence made public, the 9/11 Truth Movement should quickly learn to read Icelandic, as this will most likely mean an immense embarrassment to a lot of politicians across NATO and the Coalition of the Willing.

Here’s Elias Davidsson’s rush translation of the Icelandic resolution. As you will see, it also calls for an independent, international inquiry on 9/11.

Resolution regarding the events of 9/11 by the Bi-Annual Congress of the Green-Left Party of Iceland

The Congress of the Green-Left Party held in Reykjavik, 21-23 October 2005 calls on the Goverment of Iceland to produce the evidence on alleged responsibility of persons in Afghanistan for the terrorist acts of 11 September 2001, on which the Government based its support of the U.S. aggression and occupation of that country. The Congress urges the Parliamentary faction to act on this matter.

The Congress highlights that four years have passed since the commission of the terrorist acts of 11 September 2001, acts which shattered the world. These terrorists acts were crimes against humanity which were used by the governments of certain countries to initiate wars, increased surveillance of the population, to justify torture and greatly increase military expenditures.

The Congress wishes to convey its solidarity with the struggle of victims' families for the truth and supports the demand for an independent, international inquiry on these terrorist acts.

Adopted on 23 October 2005 by acclamation.

Congratulations and messages urging the adoption of a Parliamentary Motion on the above lines, can and should be sent to
Mr. Steingrimur J Sigfusson, Chairman, Green-Left Party (
Mr. Ogmundur Jonasson, Leader of Parliamentary Fraction, Green-Left Party (
Ms. Kolbrún Halldórsdottir, MP,
Mr. Jon Bjarnason, MP,
Ms. Thuridur Backman, MP,

Please notify of such letters, as BCC:

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Truth Recovery and Post-Truth Recovery

At some point, I guess, most 9/11 Truth seekers will have gathered enough elements of the truth about 9/11. They are convinced that the owls are not what they seem, to borrow a popular phrase from FBI agent Dale Cooper from the famous David Lynch TV series Twin Peaks.

At this point they (or we) will seek or hope for a closure to this nightmare world of proving or arguing the points. They will start looking for «The Final Evidence», or the piece of evidence that will «open eveyone's eyes». But as we all know, there will most likely never be any such Ultimate Piece, and besides the multitude of existing evidence seen together should already be more than enough for others to realise what's gone down. If it weren't for the psy-ops and psycho-warfare being waged against us all.

Then comes the question of Post-Truth Recovery. How to deal with the fact that elements of our own governments took part in the planting of those bombs in New York, Madrid and London (to name but a few). How can we go on living in and being a part of such a society? How can we ever trust the media after they failed us so absolutely?

What do you think about this? Please share your thoughts...

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Monday, July 18, 2005

Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven

Press Release, July 11th, 2005

The Scientific Panel Investigating 911 is a large and growing organization of scientists, engineers, intelligence experts and other professionals devoted to the task of analysing the hard evidence that has become available since September 11, 2001.

We have found strong evidence that the "terrorist attacks" of that day were essentially staged events in which the main elements were aircraft substitution and the controlled demolition of the WTC towers. Our conclusions are now certain enough to be shared with the media — without fear of any meaningful contradictions. The evidence and its analysis are available at the Panel's website:

We have slowly and reluctantly come to understand that owners of the major media do not allow their television or newspaper outlets to publish or disseminate news of certain kinds, essentially anything that tends to contradict or undermine the military program undertaken by President Bush and his neoconservative advisors. This information is documented.

We nevertheless ask you to consider what possible harm there could be if individuals from the media examine the attacks of that day in a fresh light. If, in your opinion, the official story stands up to our scrutiny, so be it. If it doesn't, you have a clear duty. We will make ourselves available to answer any questions you may have. Please contact us through the website.


Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

DC Truth Convergence and More

There is an «Emergency Truth Convergence» coming up in Washington DC, 22-24 July 2005;

A historic convergence of truth groups, whistle-blowers, indie media and the foreign press to expose and counter the government's most lethal lies and mainstream media complicity. The event series includes informal congressional hearings, National Press Club presentations, a Lafayette Park 911/war deceit rally, and a strategy summit among truth movement leaders, independent media activists and international journalists.


1) Too many thousands have died and are dying from media abetment of administration deceit.
2) Too much evidence exists refuting the “official stories” on critical turns in recent history.
3) Too many instances of unchallenged treachery tempt corrupt officials and lead to worse crimes.
4) Too much power is now arising in independent media to excuse or endure this blackout anymore.
5) Activists working on 9/11, war, repression or media reform could all be far more effective if we collectively outed and disabled the government's most powerful lies.
Among the participants are: Nafeez Ahmed, Michael Badnarik, Robert Bowman, Catherine A. Fitts, David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, Charles Key, Ray McGovern, Leuren Moret, Jenna Orkin, Don Paul, Peter Philips and Morgan Reynolds.

Also, the 911 Truth Movement's hardest working man in Iceland, Mr Elías Davidsson, has started a campaign, an «International Petition on the Crime Against Humanity Committed on 11 September 2001»;
Recalling that almost 3,000 innocent people were murdered in cold blood on 11 September 2001 in the United States of America;

Denouncing the mass murder of 11 September 2001 as a crime against humanity for which all instigators, planners, abettors and participants are criminally responsible under international law;

Puzzled that the U.S. government refuses to treat the mass murder of 11 September 2001 as a criminal offence;

Noting that the U.S. government refuses to produce evidence proving that the crime of 11 September 2001 was instigated and planned outside its borders and committed by Muslim terrorists;

Shocked by the determination of the U.S. government to thwart criminal and other investigations into the mass murder committed on U.S. soil on 11 September 2001;

Dismayed that victims' families have not obtained evidence regarding the circumstances under which their beloved ones had died on 11 September 2001;

We urge the establishment of an International Truth Commission on the crime against humanity committed on U.S. soil on 11 September 2001.
You can endorse this petition by visiting Davidsson's to sign it.

A couple of interesting articles demand to be mentioned while we're at it. Have a look at «The Even Newer Pearl Harbor» from the Poisoned Keyboard blog, about the coming fake terror attack on America. Then there is Kurt Nimmo's blog piece «MI5 Agent: Nine Eleven a Violent Coup».

A great new video is out there, focusing on the free-fall demolitions of WTC 1, 2 and 7: Are the Criminals Frightened by Erich Hufschmid.

(And please tell me in the comments if you find these things helpful, or if you find any of the stuff not credible, please say so. I'm not trying to deceive anyone, but I may err from time to time.)

The final resource for this rather hectic summer post is an interview with Dr. Daniele Ganser of the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at the ETH Zürich university. The article «Secret Warfare: From Operation Gladio to 9/11» was printed in the April 2005 edition of EIR Investigation (Executive Intelligence Review), and focuses on Operation Gladio and Dr. Ganser's recent book NATO’s Secret Armies — Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe.

Excerpts from the EIR interview:
EIR: So, you are engaged in a research project on 9/11?

Ganser: Yes, I have agreed to teach a class on 9/11 at Zürich University. My students want to know what really happened on 9/11. They are in their 20s and they really want to know:
Is it true that the Pentagon staged the attack on itself? That sounds like a man shooting his own foot, only to say afterwards: Oh, somebody shot me and now I have to kill the «perpetrator». Or, was the Pentagon really surprised at being attacked by Osama bin Laden, who was so much smarter than anybody else, including the U.S. government with its vast capabilities?
tags: / /

Saturday, June 04, 2005

Hustler magazine on 9/11

We all know what happened on September 11, 2001 — Osama bin Laden inspired 19 Muslim extremists to hijack commercial airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. But what if it didn't happen that way at all?

David Ray Griffin is a professor of theology, a well-respected scholar and author of more than 20 books, including The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions and The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11.

Griffin maintains that the evidence contradicts the government's official story and that, so far, nobody's come up with a theory that can account for all the facts.

At HUSTLER we believe the murder of 2,986 innocent people demands hard questions and digging deeper. We're especially troubled by the collapse of Building 7, but we're determined to keep an open mind. As such, we sit down with Griffin to discuss what appear to be disturbing inconsistencies with the government's story.

From Bruce David and Carolyn Sinclair's 5 page Hustler interview with David Ray Griffin, entitled «What if Everything You Know About 9/11 is Wrong?»


Tuesday, May 24, 2005

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

by Dr. David Ray Griffin
9/11 Visibility Project
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Link to Original

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. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.” They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.

Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference---although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call “the Kean-Zelikow Report” by writing that it, “far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?” (291)

Thursday, May 12, 2005

What can I say? Other than that has been running the show lately, with news, analysis and even some fantastic video editing related to DR Griffin's Madison speech.

A big up for 911blogger! Read it every day.

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Griffin in Madison

Professor David Ray Griffin will appear on national television — C-Span2 — in a couple of days, but here's his Madison speech in mp3.

Friday, March 25, 2005

Parlez-vous Griffon?

With the upcoming launch of 11 Septembre — Omissions et manipulations de la commission d'enquête in Paris on April 7, this blog will try to make an exhaustive list of the editions of David Ray Griffin's books on the subject of 9/11 fraud thus far. We will then proceed to cover other books and blogs.

First of all, there was The New Pearl Harbor, in its US, foreword by Richard Falk, edition. Then there was an edition with new cover photos; the firemen at the World Trade Center and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

Then followed the UK edition, with its Michael Meacher foreword instead of Richard Falk, and with a different, orange, cover, as well as 11 settembre, la nuova Pearl Harbor, the Italian edition.

Here followed an updated edition with a new afterword, and Griffin's new book, The 9/11 Commission Report — Omissions And Distortions.

Finally, you have the UK edition of the same, with a different cover design, and the brand new Danish book entitled Det nye Pearl Harbor — Foruroligende spørgsmål om Bush administrationen og 11. september.

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Griffin suggests International Tribunal

The following is an email exchange between Emanuel Sferios, the webmaster of, and philosophy of religion professor David Ray Griffin. It was posted today to the newsgroup
A message from David Ray Griffin, March 19, 2005

Hi David,

What are your feelings about the 9/11 truth movement these days? How do you think we've done? Are you frustrated like so many others? (I'm not doing much these days. Just occasional action alerts.)


Response from Dr. Griffin:


I have been afraid that your response is widespread. It's certainly understandable. People like you (I was a Johnny Come Lately) worked so long and hard to try to expose the lies about 9/11 clearly and widely enough to make a difference in the election, and then all this work apparently went for nought. (I say "apparently" because it's quite possible that the exposure was great enough — as suggested by the Zogby poll — to tip the balance, but then the election was stolen through voting machines and other types of fraud.)

My own view, however, is that it is precisely at times of apparent failure that it is most important for a core group to keep working away and even intensify their efforts. I myself, at least, have not slowed down. I still do one or 2 radio interviews per week. I've agreed to do a couple lectures (which I hope will be good enough to be published). I will probably go to Europe for the publication of the French translation of my 2nd book. I am willing to do this, even though I don't enjoy travel, because I think the best hope is for an international tribunal and want to support this movement.

So my hope is that after a period in which people who were working so hard needed a rest, partly out of fatigue and partly because of the great disappointment, the movement will recover and even exceed its previous energy. For one thing, I agree with those who think that the hit pieces in the Washington Post and Popular Mechanics and on CNN are a good sign, because they suggest that at least part of the complicit establishment believes that the movement was generating enough steam that the strategy of simply ignoring it was no longer sufficient.

In terms of strategy, I think — and I hope I'm not just biased because I've written the major book on this thus far — that the best strategy now would be to focus the attack on The 9/11 Commission Report. I say this for three reasons: First, the news media and the general public (as witnessed by the overwhelming majority of the reviews on Amazon) have accepted this Report as definitive. As long as that impression stands, then all radical critiques of the official story will seem to have been disproved and thereby relegated to the category of "conspiracy theories." With the audience we need to reach, therefore, it does no good to continue to refine our accounts of what really happened (e.g., war games, what really hit the Pentagon). Before people will be ready to pay any attention, we need to show — not merely say — that The 9/11 Commission Report is basically false.

Second, it may be easier to get mainstream reporters to cover this angle, because the criticisms can less easily be dismissed as "conspiracy theories," since the focus, rather than being on the question of whether the Bush administration is responsible for mass murder to advance its agenda, is simply on the factual question of whether the Commission has written untrue things. For example, if a reporter focused on the question of whether the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of 47 massive steel columns or a "hollow steel shaft," he or she might be able to get it published. The same with the question of whether Cheney didn't go to the PEOC until 9:58, or whether he was already there, as all previous reports said and as Norman Mineta said to the Commission itself, by 9:20. Likewise why the Commission didn't probe the contradiction between Myers' account of his whereabouts that morning and Richard Clarke9s account. I would think we could get some reporter to point out these contradictions.

The 3rd reason I think this would be the best approach would be that, although this approach seems less threatening at first glance, its results could be very telling. That is, if it would become widely known that the Commission had told even a few such whoppers, this awareness would rather clearly suggest that they trying to cover up something. In this regard, I have been studying the way in which the public came to reject the official story about the JFK assassination. The main factor in the early years was the concerted attack on the Warren Report leveled by people such as Mark Lane, Vincent Salandria, and Sylvia Meagher. One can point out, of course, that even turning public opinion was to no avail. But the perpetrators of that crime and cover-up did a much better job, by quickly destroying and fabricating evidence (falsifying the autopsy report, photographs, and x-rays and replacing the brain), so that most of the physical evidence seemed to support the official story. The perpetrators of 9/11 were not nearly as clever and thorough. So the result might be quite different with this case.

Those are my thoughts, for what they are worth. Thanks for asking.


Tuesday, March 15, 2005

The 9/11 Meme War

A superb site, the is, and while I will definitely have to read this reveiling site more thoroughly and write a longer piece about it, I will start by just giving you a few quotes:
Trojan Horses

The 9/11/01 attack is a complex psychological operation carefully designed to conceal the truth, in spite of numerous obvious red flags in the fraudulent official story. As such it relies on the dissemination of memes that overpower rational consideration of the evidence. One of the most important memes is the idea that all people who question the basic tenets of the official story are loony conspiracy theorists, whose ideas are not worthy of consideration. Part of the construction of this meme was to make the attack so audacious that even a straightforward accounting of the basic facts sounds too outrageous to possibly be true.

The ideas that the Twin Towers were destroyed by explosive demolition and that top-level administration officials were involved in the planning and execution of the attack are so painful that most people reflexively reject them, even if that means ignoring mountains of evidence. Nevertheless the perpetrators run the risk that these ideas will gain currency and begin to be examined with some objectivity if the loony conspiracy theory meme fails to maintain its hold.

An effective tool for reinforcing this meme is the introduction of theories that that have no basis in evidence, such as the idea that no planes hit the towers. The association of these ideas with the careful research of investigators in the 9/11 Truth Movement stands to set back the cause of awakening the larger public to the facts of the attack.

With a rundown of 9/11 sites to trust or not, and some of the gravest errors, together with a closer look at the Left gatekeepers and both the Myth and what really happened, this site is a treasure trove.

But can it be trusted? :-)

Thursday, March 10, 2005

The Fear Factor

New York based quarterly Social Research writes that their decision to organize the conference «Fear: Its Political Uses and Abuses,» was motivated by «the painful recognition that we are living at a time, not the first, of collective fear — fear that is encouraged by our government and exacerbated by our media.»:

This sense of vulnerability, and the fear it engendered, quickly became the justification for so much that our government had done since in the name of protecting us. It has been the justification for two wars, and for «slashing away» our constitutional protections, all in the name of fighting terrorism. The Justice Department now claims the power to hold American citizens in prison indefinitely, without access to lawyers, simply because they have been labeled «enemy combatants.» Terrorism suspects have been held in secret detention for many months, some with no access to an attorney, while their hearings, when they occur, are closed to the public and the press. Treatment amounting to the torture of prisoners, both in Iraq and in Guantánamo, has been tolerated, if not authorized. Questioning the legitimacy of these actions, including the preemptive war on Iraq, is explicitly seen by many as un-American, as aiding and abetting the enemy. These actions, we are told, are necessary to combat and eliminate the very sources of our fears. How can we legitimately oppose them?

When using the weapon of public fear, you can get away with just about anything, as shown in the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares.

In fact, it is even possible that a government may have invented an enemy altogether: A non-existent enemy that will take ages to fight, and that will keep the home population in fear and check for as long as the rulers want.

Peter Phillips — a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and Director of Project Censored (a media research organization) — says in his recent essay Threshold Fears and Unanswered Questions About 9/11:
A threshold concept facing Americans is the possibility that the 9/11 Commission Report was on many levels a cover-up for the failure of the US government to prevent the tragedy. Deeper past the threshold is the idea that the report failed to address sources of external assistance to the terrorists. Investigations into this area might have lead to a conclusion that elements of various governments — including our own — not only knew about the attacks in advance, but also may have helped facilitate their implementation. The idea that someone in the Government of the United States contributed support to such a horrific attack is inconceivable to many. It is a threshold concept that is so frightening that it brings up a state of mind akin to complete unbelievability.

«It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable.» — Eric Hoffer, 1954, quoted from Mike Lozon's America's fear factor in the Holland Sentinel.

Saturday, March 05, 2005

— Now that we know, what can we do?

There's a Second Wave, a new «smoldering resurgence of the 9/11 skeptics movement», fueled by new books and groups, says John Kaminsky in his latest essay:

But then I noticed my book orders were spiking. Ten booklets here, 20 there, an occasional hundred for a meeting that someone had scheduled. Then it began to dawn on me. People were handing them out, trying to convince others. A whole new group of people was turning on to the real 9/11 story.

Finally, after years of brainwashed obedience to the clumsy media lies, the tragedy-forced patriotism, the false statements of our leaders were finally being perceived. People finally were finally waking up. New converts to the 9/11 skeptics movement were beginning the long, painful journey to that horrific realization - our leaders killed their own people merely for profit, and now were killing thousands more, every day, all over the planet, for the same evil purpose.

And people began calling me, telling me about their meetings. I didn’t dare believe it was a second wave. But the calls kept coming.

There is a Second Wave, for sure, and this fresh, new blog is part of it. And when it comes to not repeating the mistakes of the first wave, I couldn't agree more with Kaminsky:

The first thought I had was that the second wave shouldn’t make the same mistakes the first wave did. The first wave failed. The perps, so far, have gotten away with their evil deeds. In fact, one of the so-called leaders of the first wave, Mike Ruppert, has declared the 9/11 issue dead. Good. He’s retired. We don’t need him. He was the prime saboteur of the first wave, ruining the first big 9/11 forum in San Francisco with his oil company propaganda.

The second wave should know that peak oil has nothing to do with 9/11. It’s a disinformational distraction. Peak oil is a trend that may or may not be true. Most honest people think it’s just another oil company ruse to jack up prices. But even if it is a serious social problem, it has nothing to do with 9/11, the crime of the century, about which most of the public has been told nothing but lies.

So it appears we were all «Rubiconned» by a former LAPD cop, still playing his wargames of deception and deceit. Oh Lucy... Mike Ruppert has almost exclusively been focusing on the wrong issues, directing the attention away from the obvious:

There is one issue, and one issue only. It is the issue that will hang them.

The time the towers took to fall.

Meanwhile on Usenet, the webmaster at was alerted by David Ray Griffin to a blog post by William Pitt at, expressing it all in just one sentence:

A History of the Bush Administration in One Sentence

Just because the Supreme Court set a poison precedent and appointed Bush, who brought in his crowd of neocon yahoos that no one discussed during the 2000 campaign because we 'Muricans vote for the man and not the mob of frothing dogs that come in his wake, just because the twin bill of unreasonably massive tax cuts were combined with economic depth-charge that was the Enron/Arthur Andersen scandal that was umbilically connected to the White House, just because the economy (not to mention our whole psyche) absorbed another blow when four commercial airplanes somehow managed to pierce the most impenetrable air defense system in the history of the universe, fooling the entire intelligence community as well if you believe what you hear on Fox despite a blizzard of warnings and a raft of information from the previous administration, just because a bunch of anthrax got mailed to Democrats by the Ashcroft wing of the Republican Party in what were obvious assassination attempts and yet nothing but nothing has been done about it, just because the 9/11 attack was
immediately and I mean the day after immediately grasped as an excuse to invade Iraq, just because virtually everyone in the administration lied with their bare faces hanging out about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, terrorism ties in Iraq, so break out the plastic sheeting and duct tape because we're all gonna die, just because they did this in no small part to win the 2002 midterms by any means necessary, just because 1,502 American soldiers have been killed looking for the 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons (which is 1,000,000 lbs.) of sarin and mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 munitions to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, arial drones to spray the aforementioned stuff, and let's not forget the uranium from Niger for use in Iraq's robust nukular program, all of which was described to the letter by Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address, all of which remains on the White House website on a page titled 'Disarm Saddam Hussein,' just because the medical journal Lancet estimates that as many as 198,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed as well in the war to get at this stuff, just because none of the stuff was there, and by the way nonee of the stuff was there, and did I mention that none of the stuff was there, just because the idea that Hussein was allied with bin Laden was laughable because Osama has wanted Saddam's head on his battle standard for decades, just because the true source of world terrorism, which is Wahabbist extremism in Saudi Arabia, goes completely unaddressed because the Houses of Bush and Saud have been partnered for decades, just because so much of 9/11 and this 'War on Terra' has to do with business arrangements going awry between these two Houses, just because a deep-cover CIA agent who was working to track any person or nation or group that would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists got her cover and her network blown by Administration officials who wanted to shut her husband and any other potential whistleblowers the hell up, just because the front company she was working out of called Brewster Jennings and Associates was likewise blown, thus torpedoing other agents and their networks, just because absolutely all of this went virtually unreported by the mainstream media until it was too late, if it was reported at all, just because dangerous spies like Ahmad Chalabi used Judy Miller and the New York Times to disseminate the lie that Iraq was riddled with weapons, thus opening the floodgates for the rest of the media to repeat the lie because once the Times says it, it must be true, just because this lack of reporting combined with an astounding level of cheerleading from the aforementioned media combined with some good old-fashioned vote fraud in places like Ohio, Florida and New Mexico gave the aforementioned group of yahoos four more years and a congressional majority in both houses of congress, just because this means the Iraq war will continue and Iran will probably be next and draconian legislation further restricting our rights will get passed along with things like the Bankruptcy bill and media reform of any kind will be nowhere on the menu, just because a lot of the Justices on the Supreme Court are sure to step down or die soon and Bush will be able to recraft that high court for the next 20 years, just because the Christian Reconstructionists are becoming mainstream with their goal of having every American singing "Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me" in a droning monochromatic hypnotized voice all day every day...

...doesn't mean anyone should be worried or anything. Get a grip.

Don't worry, be happy.

Friday, February 25, 2005

DVD and Multimedia

In Santa Rosa, California in October 2004, professor David Ray Griffin gave a speech about his new book, entitled The 9/11 Commission Report — Omissions And Distortions. His lecture was filmed and edited by Portland-based Snowshoe Films, who later produced a 59 minute DVD.

The makers of the DVD encourage buyers to host private or public screenings to reach out and inform as many as possible. You can order it from

The kind people at even keep a downloadable copy of the lecture on the DVD at their Open Source Movies site. So all you need to do is go there, click save as, and then show it to your friends. Alternatively you can burn it on a CD and make copies for friends as well as your family. Maybe even pop it in the post to your favorite Mayor or Congressman?

Bundled with one of Griffin's great books, this CD or DVD should make the perfect gift for the curious, unprejudiced person!

And, as mentioned in the previous blog item, you can hear an interview from Pacifica Radio, also about Griffin's latest book.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Book: The 9/11 Commission Report — Omissions And Distortions

Following The New Pearl Harbor (NPH) is Professor David Ray Griffin's second book about this issue, titled The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions.

This latest book explores the 9/11 Commission Report and compares it to the findings of NPH. Griffin suggests an explanation of faith and ties to the government for the Report's many omissions and distortions, but concludes that the purpose of the Commission «was to argue, implicitly, that the US government was not itself complicit in the attacks of 9/11». And not to provide «the fullest possible account of the events», as stated in the Report itself.

And as David Ray Griffin puts it in his Final Thoughts in his book:
«Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?»
Professor Griffin applies a scholarly, academic style, and uses a thorough, scientific method of hypotheses and deductions, familiar to most scholars, to test the claims of the 9/11 Commission Report. And at the same time he keeps his language straightforward and to the point, always respecting the reader, which makes his books a thrilling (yet unpleasant) read also for the general public.

Griffin gave an interview on the book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions, on Pacifica Radio's show Flashpoints, and you can hear it here.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Book: The New Pearl Harbor — Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11

This book is the starting point of our Journey. Although there's been a lot of books about 9/11 published since the Fall of 2001, David Ray Griffin largely out-shadows all of these through his clear thought and composition, his thorough and academic treatment of the issues, and still with an easy and accessible language throughout his account of the events and the massive amount of information available about them. If you want to read just one book about 9/11 - because your time is precious like everyone else's - this is the one you want to pick up.

The New Pearl Harbor explores the two conspiracy theories; the Official and the Alternative, and explains how all the evidence for official complicity in 9/11 presents a cumulative argument for complicity, that is «like a cable composed of many strands», rather than «like a chain,» that is «only as strong as the weakest link».

The title is inspired by a (September 2000) report from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), that calls for a «new Pearl Harbor» to oil their dreams of a Transition of American society.

Finally, here's what some of the reviews have to say about The New Pearl Harbor:

«An extraordinary book. .. It is rare, indeed, that a book has this potential to become a force of history.»
— from the foreword By Richard Falk, human rights lawyer and Professor Emeritus, Princeton University

«The most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event.»
— Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States

«David Ray Griffin has written what America may most of all need — a dispassionate, balanced, and exhaustively researched and documented account of the implausible gaps and misrepresentations of the Bush administration's official story of 9/11. Sensitive to the 'conspiracy theory' mind-stop that has disconnected his fellow Americans from the facts of this history-steering event, Griffin painstakingly marshals the evidence pro and con, and follows it where it leads. A courageously impeccable work.»
— John McMurtry, author of Value Wars: The Global Market versus the Life Economy, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph

«It will be painful, and disturbing, to turn the pages of this thoughtful and meticulously researched book. But turn we must. For we owe the truth to those who died, and nothing less.»
— Colleen Kelly, sister of Bill Kelly, jr., who was killed in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, and co-founder of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows
PS: If you just can't wait for the mail, the book is also available online.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Welcome Aboard!

Dear Reader,
this blog will focus on books, blogs, DVDs and multimedia related to The New Pearl Harbor.

The new wars on multiple fronts, as well as other developments of the 21st Century, cannot be fully understood without a closer look at the events around September 11, 2001.

A steadily growing Community of scholars and critics of the conspiracy theories woven by the official United States of America - theories that have later been evolved and carved in stone by the so-called 'Independent Commission on 9/11' - has come up with an alternative set of questions and possible explanations. And it is the aim of this blog to try and keep track of the progress, proceedings and growth of this Community.

So then we set out on a Journey. Come along if you like; I will keep the Ship Log of this Odyssey, and you can be the Crew, or you can at least bookmark this blog and its XML feed, and you can comment it any time you feel like.

Set Sails!