profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

The 9/11 debate
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 21, 22, 23  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

BBC journalist hard at work defending the US Dept of Commerce NIST report - as he has done for six years as producer for BBC 'Conspiracy Files: 911'

What an unpleasant (but revealing) performance from the BBC's Mike Rudin, continually trying to draw Harrit into speculation. Note the way Rudin quotes both himself and "the BBC" as authoritative sources, in lieu of science discussion between experts in the public domain. The BBC censors this discussion out of the news section. The info is kettled into the "Conspiracy Files" (sic) corner, overseen by producer-interviewer Rudin, who cuts footage as he sees fit. Orwell could not have set it up better.

Harrit wisely insisted on personally taping this interview alongside the BBC camera and owning his own copyright. He's learned from others who've been quoted out of context or encouraged to make speculative statements, later used against them.

May 2011 BBC interview with Niels Harrit

My favourite part of the interview has to be this (paraphrased)
Mike Rudin: "This is a waste of time/not worth discussing."
Harrit: "So, what are you doing here then?"
[Rudin presumably having requested the interview and travelled from London to Copenhagen with his 'Conspiracy Files' crew in tow, on BBC expenses, to interview Harrit. Classic. ]

(i) Rudin brings up the primer paint story again. Harrit correctly asks for Rudin's sources to present a paper in the public domain, rather than communicate via the BBC.

(ii) Rudin stays quiet when Harrit points out the NASA satellite thermal images which show that extremely high temperatures persisted in the WTC rubble pile for five days, despite rain and chemical coolants. Officially unexplained to this day. Harrit also mentions the Environment Protection Agency/Uni of Calif. Davis readings of volatile chemical spikes 'never before seen in structure fire'. Any science journalists at the BBC care to explain this?

US Geological Survey - Nasa images

Environmental Anomalies at Ground Zero - The Environmentalist (Springer Journals)

Extract from above paper:

1 Introduction For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.
• Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.
• Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
• Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and
• A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).

The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel. Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants / paper continues at link...

BBC The Conspiracy Files

X-Files Meets X-Box: Where disinterested investigative journalism stops and
loaded semantics, conflation and lies of omission take over

Last edited by marc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:06 am; edited 2 times in total
Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:43 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Iran Rejects NY Judge's Ruling on Sept 11 Attacks
Russia Today
Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:13 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Revolving doors, trusted players.

It's A Small World After All - Foreign Policy Journal

"Detailed investigation reveals unexpected connections among people who played critical roles related to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

"Earlier articles have covered some of those connections with respect to the World Trade Center (WTC) and the official reports which were produced to explain the WTC events.[1] This article will begin to detail a wider set of connections that encompasses more aspects of 9/11.

"Readers may find that, with respect to the 9/11 attacks and those who were responsible for protecting us from terrorism, it is a small world after all."
..... continued at link
Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:15 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The Sacred Myth of 9/11 as Propaganda for Aggressive War

The Sacred Mysteries of 9/11 - Graeme MacQueen - The Canadian Charger

".[...] I am troubled by the role the political parties, the corporate media and the universities have played, and are still playing, in the construction of the cult of 9/11.

"I am bothered by the way they continue to set this day aside as if some sacredness protects it from all rational scrutiny and examination of evidence.

"Those of us who want to treat 9/11 like a historically important but otherwise ordinary day--who want to examine the crime scene and found out who did it and how—are treated like heretics.

"We profane the elements of the cult. We must be “conspiracy nuts.” [...]

"Even the political left has, to a great degree, closed its eyes and muttered prayers and incantations.

"While rejecting the imperialistic response of the United States to the events of 9/11, it has refused to look seriously at the events themselves."

* French author Thierry Meyssan observed in 2002, "the American government consecrated . . . its version of events. From then on, any questioning of the official truth would be seen as sacrilege."3

* Canadian professor Anthony Hall writes of "the culture of cover-up and propaganda necessary to keep the sacred myth of 9/11 alive in the public’s imagination" .. and ...
" "The sacred myth of 9/11 helps to raise walls of separation that hold back the wretched of the earth from the riches of capitalism’s blood-diamond elite. It is the vast disparities of material entitlement, not some engineered and trumped-up conflict of civilizations, that requires our most urgent attention. The perpetuation of the sacred myth of 9/11 helps divert attention from places where it is really needed such as post-Fukushima Japan."

The sacred myth of 911: depends on diabolical stereotypes chanelled uncritically by corporate media.

The Sacred Myth - D Griffin.

"While correcting proofs... I learned that the editor of a left-leaning website had,

in explaining why it was not necessary to read anything I had said about 9/11,

said that "a profesor of theology is not qualified to talk about anything but myths."

He apparently failed to see that I should, therefore, be eminently qualified

to discuss the official account of 9/11"
- Dr David. R. Griffin, Debunking 911 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Olive Branch Press) 2007.

"Although I am a philosopher of religion, I have spent most of my time during the past three years on 9/11---studying it, writing about it, and speaking about it. In this lecture, I will try to make clear why I believe this issue worthy of time and energy. I will do this in terms of the distinction between myth and reality.

I am here using the term "myth" in two senses.

In one sense, a myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false, failing to correspond with reality.

In a deeper sense, which is employed by students of religion, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizing story for a people, a story that reminds them who they are and why they do what they do.

When a story is called as a myth in this sense---which we can call Myth with a capital M---the focus is not on the story's relation to reality but on its function.

This orienting and mobilizing function is possible, moreover, only because Myths with a capital M have religious overtones.

Such a Myth is a Sacred Story.

However, although to note that a story functions as a Myth in the religious sense is not necessarily to deny its truth, a story cannot function as a Sacred Myth within a community or nation unless it is believed to be true.

In most cases, moreover, the truth of the Myth is taken on faith. It is not a matter of debate.

If some people have the bad taste to question the truth of the Sacred Story, the keepers of the faith do not enter into debate with them. Rather, they ignore them or denounce them as blasphemers.

According to the official story about 9/11, America, because of its goodness, was attacked by fanatical Arab Muslims who hate our freedoms. This story has functioned as a Sacred Myth for the United States since that fateful day.

And this function appears to have been carefully orchestrated.

The very next day, President Bush announced his intention to lead "a monumental struggle of Good versus Evil." 1

Then on September 13, he declared that the following day would be a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks.

And on that next day, the president himself, surrounded by Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi, and an imam, delivered a sermon in the national cathedral, saying:

Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. . . . In every generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America, because we are freedom's home and defender. And the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time. . . . [W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country. God bless America.2

Through this unprecedented event, in which the president of the United States issued a declaration of war from a cathedral, French author Thierry Meyssan observed in 2002, "the American government consecrated . . . its version of events. From then on, any questioning of the official truth would be seen as sacrilege."3

That attitude has remained dominant in the public sphere until this day, as the official account has continued to serve as a Sacred Story.

When people raise questions about this story, they are either ignored, ridiculed as conspiracy theorists, or .. attacked personally. When anyone asks what right the administration has to invade and occupy other countries, to imprison people indefinitely without due process, or even to ignore various laws, the answer is always the same: "9/11." Those who believe that US law and international law should be respected are dismissed as having "a pre-9/11 mind-set."

Given the role the official account of 9/11 has played and continues to play, the most important question before our country today is whether this account, besides being a Myth in the religious sense, is also a myth in the pejorative sense---that is, whether it is simply false.

As a philosopher of religion, I would emphasize that the fact that a story has served as a Myth in the religious sense does not necessarily mean that it fails to correspond with reality. Many religious accounts contain at least a kernel of truth that can be defended in terms of a rational examination of the relevant evidence.

In many cases, however, stories that have served as religious Myths cannot stand up to rational scrutiny.

When such a story is stripped of its halo and treated simply as a theory, rather than an unquestionable dogma, it cannot be defended as the best theory to account for the relevant facts. The official account of 9/11 is such a theory.

When challenges to it are not treated as blasphemy, it can easily be seen to be composed of a number of ideas that are myths in the sense of not corresponding with reality.

Using the word "myth" from now on only in this pejorative sense, I will discuss nine of the major myths contained in the official story about 9/11. I will thereby show that the official account of 9/11 cannot be defended, in light of the relevant evidence, against the main alternative account, according to which 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by people within our own government. I will begin with a few myths that prevent many people from even looking at the evidence for this alternative account.

Myth Number 1: Our political and military leaders simply would not do such a thing.

This idea is widely believed. But it is undermined by much evidence.

The United States, like many other countries, has often used deceit to begin wars---for example, the Mexican-American war, with its false claim that Mexico had "shed American blood on the American soil,"4 the Spanish-American war, with its "Remember the Maine" hoax,5 the war in the Philippines, with its false claim that the Filipinos fired first,6 and the Vietnam war, with its Tonkin Gulf hoax.7

The United States has also sometimes organized false flag terrorist attacks---killing innocent civilians, then blaming the attacks on an enemy country or group, often by planting evidence. We have even done this in allied countries.

As Daniele Ganser has shown in his recent book NATO's Secret Armies, NATO, guided by the CIA and the Pentagon, arranged many such attacks in Western European countries during the Cold War. These attacks were successfully blamed on Communists and other leftists to discredit them in the eyes of the voting public.8

Finally, in case it be thought that US military leaders would not orchestrate such attacks against US citizens, one needs only to read the plan known as Operations Northwoods, which the Joint Chiefs of Staff worked up in 1962, shortly after Fidel Castro had overthrown the pro-American dictator Batista.

This plan contained various "pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba." American citizens would have been killed in some of them, such as a "Remember the Maine" incident, in which: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guant�namo Bay and blame Cuba."9

At this point, some people, having seen evidence that US leaders would be morally capable of orchestrating 9/11, might avoid looking at the evidence by appeal to

Myth Number 2: Our political and military leaders would have had no motive for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.

This myth was reinforced by The 9/11 Commission Report.

While explaining why al-Qaeda had ample motives for carrying out the attacks, this report mentions no motives that US leaders might have had. But the alleged motive of al-Qaeda---that it hated Americans and their freedoms---is dwarfed by a motive held by many members of the Bush-Cheney administration: the dream of establishing a global Pax Americana, the first all-inclusive empire in history.

This dream had been articulated by many neoconservatives, or neocons, throughout the 1990s, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union made it seem possible. It was first officially articulated in the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, drafted by Paul Wolfowitz on behalf of then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney---a document that has been called "a blueprint for permanent American global hegemony"10 and Cheney's "Plan . . . to rule the world."11

Achieving this goal would require four things.

(i) One of these was getting control of the world's oil, especially in Central Asia and the Middle East, and the Bush-Cheney administration came to power with plans already made to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

(ii) A second requirement was a technological transformation of the military, in which fighting from space would become central. [UAV Drones]

(iii) A third requirement was an enormous increase in military spending, to pay for these new wars and for weaponizing space.

- (iv) A fourth need was to modify the doctrine of preemptive attack, so that America would be able to attack other countries even if they posed no imminent threat.

These four elements would, moreover, require a fifth: an event that would make the American people ready to accept these imperialistic policies.

As Zbigniew Brzezinski explained in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, the American people, with their democratic instincts, are reluctant to authorize the money and human sacrifices necessary for "imperial mobilization," and this refusal "limits . . . America's . . . capacity for military intimidation."12

But this impediment could be overcome if there were "a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat"13 ---just as the American people were willing to enter World War II only after "the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."15

This same idea was suggested in 2000 in a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was put out by a neocon think tank called the Project for the New American Century, many members of which---including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz---became central members of the Bush administration.

This document, referring to the goal of transforming the military, said that this "process of transformation . . . is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event---like a new Pearl Harbor."15

When the attacks of 9/11 occurred, they were treated like a new Pearl Harbor. Several members of the Bush administration spoke of 9/11 as providing opportunities.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that 9/11 created "the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world."16

It created, in particular, the opportunity to attack Afghanistan and Iraq; to increase the military budget enormously; to go forward with military transformation; and to turn the new idea of preemptive warfare into official doctrine. This doctrinal change was announced in the 2002 version of the National Security Strategy, which said that America will "act against . . . emerging threats before they are fully formed."17

So, not only did the Bush administration reap huge benefits from 9/11. These were benefits that it had desired in advance. The idea that it would have had no motives for orchestrating 9/11 is a myth. But there is one more myth that keeps many people from looking at the evidence. This is

Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.

This claim is based on a more general myth, which is that is impossible for secret government operations to be kept secret very long, because someone always talks. But how could we know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we by definition do not know about them.

Moreover, we do know of big some operations that were kept secret as long as necessary, such as the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb, and the war in Indonesia in 1957, which the United States government provoked, participated in, and was able to keep secret from its own people until a book about it appeared in 1995.18

Many more examples could be given.

We can understand, moreover, why those with inside knowledge of 9/11 would not talk. At least most of them would have been people with the proven ability to keep secrets. Those who were directly complicit would also be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace.... Those people who had knowledge without being complicit could be induced to keep quiet by means of more or less subtle threats---such as: "Joe, if you go forward with your plans to talk to the press about this, I don't know who is going to protect your wife and kids from some nutcase angered by your statement."

Still another fact is that neither the government nor the mainstream press has, to say the least, shown any signs of wanting anyone to come forward.

I come now to ..

Myth Number 4: The 9/11 Commission, which has endorsed the official account, was an independent, impartial commission and hence can be believed.

One needs only to look at the reviews of The 9/11 Commission Report on to see that this assumption is widely accepted. Perhaps this is partly because in the Preface, the Commission's chairman and vice chairman tell us that the Commission sought "to be independent, impartial, thorough, and nonpartisan." But these terms do not describe the reality.

The Commission's lack of impartiality can be partly explained by the fact that Chairman Thomas Kean, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the members of the staff had conflicts of interest.19

The most serious problem, however, is that the executive director, Philip Zelikow, was essentially a member of the Bush-Cheney administration.

He had worked with Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council in the administration of the first President Bush. When the Republicans were out of office during the Clinton administration, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together.

Rice then, as National Security Advisor for the second President Bush, had Zelikow help make the transition to the new National Security Council.

After that, Zelikow was appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Zelikow was, therefore, the White House's man inside the 9/11 Commission.

And yet, as executive director, he guided the staff, which did virtually all the work of the Commission.20

Zelikow was in position, therefore, to decide which topics would be investigated and which ones not. One disgruntled member reportedly said at the time, "Zelikow is calling the shots. He's skewing the investigation and running it his own way."21

Accordingly, insofar as the Commission was supposed to be investigating the failure of the Bush administration to prevent the attacks, the Commission was no more independent and impartial than if Dick Cheney had been running it. (The only difference is that no one got shot.)

Zelikow's ideological and personal closeness to the Bush administration is shown by one more fact that has until now not been widely known, even within the 9/11 truth movement

. I mentioned earlier the Bush administration's National Security Strategy statement of 2002, in which the new doctrine of preemptive warfare was articulated. The primary author of this document, reports James Mann in Rise of the Vulcans, was none other than Philip Zelikow.

According to Mann, after Rice saw a first draft, which had been written by Richard Haass in the State Department, she, wanting "something bolder," brought in Zelikow to completely rewrite it.22

The result was a very bellicose document that used 9/11 to justify the administration's so-called war on terror. Max Boot described it as a "quintessentially neo-conservative document."23

We can understand, therefore, why the Commission, under Zelikow's leadership, would have ignored all evidence that would point to the truth: that 9/11 was a false flag operation intended to authorize the doctrines and funds needed for a new level of imperial mobilization.

The suggestion that 9/11 was a false flag operation brings us to:

Myth Number 5: The Bush administration provided proof that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists under the direction of Osama bin Laden.

One of the main pieces of alleged proof involved the claim that the baggage of Mohamed Atta, called the ringleader of the hijackers, was discovered at the Boston airport, from which Flight 11 departed.

This baggage, besides containing Atta's passport and driver's license, also contained various types of incriminating evidence, such as flight simulator manuals, videotapes about Boeing airliners, and a letter to other hijackers about preparing for the mission. But the bags also contained Atta's will. Why would Atta have intended to take his will on a plane that he planned to fly into the World Trade Center? There are also many other problems in this story.24 We appear to have planted evidence.

Another element of the official story about the alleged hijackers is that they were very devout Muslims. The 9/11 Commission Report said that Atta had become very religious, even "fanatically so."25 The public was thereby led to believe that these men would have had no problem going on this suicide mission, because they were ready to meet their maker.

Investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker, however, discovered that Atta loved cocaine, alcohol, gambling, pork, and lap dances.26 Several of the other alleged hijackers, the Wall Street Journal reported, had similar tastes.27 The Commission pretends, however, that none of this information was available.

But if there are various problems with the government's story about the hijackers, surely it presented proof that Osama bin Laden was behind the operation?

Insofar as this belief is widely held, it also is a myth. Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to provide a white paper providing proof that the attacks had been planned by bin Laden, but this paper was never produced.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair did provide such a paper, which was entitled "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States." But it begins with the admission that it "does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law."32 (So, evidence good enough to go to war, but not good enough to go to court.)

And although the Taliban said that it would hand bin Laden over if the United States presented evidence of his involvement in 9/11, Bush refused.33

This failure to provide proof was later said to be unnecessary because bin Laden, in a video allegedly found in Afghanistan, admitted responsibility for the attacks. This "confession" is now widely cited as proof. However, the man in this video has darker skin, fuller cheeks, and a broader nose than the Osama bin Laden of all the other videos.34 We again seem to have planted evidence.

There are, moreover, other problems in the official account of Osama bin Laden. For one thing, in June of 2001, when he was already America's "most wanted" criminal, he reportedly spent two weeks in the American Hospital in Dubai, at which he was treated by an American doctor and visited by the local CIA agent.35 {Le Monde}

Also, after 9/11, when America was reportedly trying to get bin Laden "dead or alive," the US military evidently allowed him to escape on at least four occasions, the last one being the "battle of Tora Bora," which the London Telegraph labeled "a grand charade."36

Shortly thereafter, Bush said: "I don't know where he [bin Laden] is. . . . I just don't spend that much time on him. . . . I truly am not that concerned about him."37 (Sometimes the truth slips out.)

It's a wrap: O(b)ama gets O(s)ama. Time to dump overboard an increasingly awkward conversation.

In any case, the idea that the Bush administration has provided proof for its claims about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda hijackers is a myth. I turn now to:

Myth Number 6: The 9/11 attacks came as a surprise to the Bush administration.

Nothing is more essential to the official story than this idea. About 10 months after 9/11, for example, FBI Director Robert Mueller said: "To this day we have found no one in the United States except the actual hijackers who knew of the plot."38 There is much evidence, however, that counts against this claim.

The Put Options: One type of evidence involves an extraordinarily high volume of "put options" purchased in the three days prior to 9/11. To buy put options for a particular company is to bet that its stock price will go down. These extraordinary purchases included two, and only two, airlines--United and American--the two airlines used in the attacks. They also included Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories of the World Trade Center.

The price of these shares did, of course, plummet after 9/11, resulting in enormous profits for the purchasers. These unusual purchases, as the San Francisco Chronicle said, raise "suspicions that the investors . . . had advance knowledge of the strikes."39 It would appear, in other words, that those who made the purchases knew that United and American airliners were going to be used in attacks on the World Trade Centre.

The 9/11 Commission tried to show these suspicions to be unfounded.

It claimed, for example, that the purchases for United Airlines do not show that anyone other than al-Qaeda had foreknowledge of the attacks, because 95 percent of these options were purchased by "[a] single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda."40

But the Commission thereby simply begged the question at issue, which is whether some organization other than al-Qaeda was involved in the planning.

Also, the Commission ignored the other crucial point, which is that US intelligence agencies closely monitor the stock market, looking for any anomalies that might provide clues about untoward events in the works.41

Therefore, regardless of who orchestrated the attacks, the US government would have had intelligence suggesting that United and American airliners were to be used for attacks on the World Trade Center.

Myth Number 7: US officials have explained why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted.

Actually, there is a sense in which this statement is true. US officials have explained why the US military did not prevent the attacks. The problem, however, is that they have given three explanations, each of which is contradicted by the others and none of which is a satisfactory explanation. I will explain.

According to standard operating procedures, if an FAA flight controller notices anything that suggests a possible hijacking, the controller is to contact a superior. If the problem cannot be fixed quickly (within about a minute), the superior is to ask NORAD---the North American Aerospace Defense Command---to send up, or "scramble," jet fighters to find out what is going on. NORAD then issues a scramble order to the nearest air force base with fighters on alert.

The jet fighters at NORAD's disposal could respond very quickly: According to the US Air Force website, F-15s can go from "scramble order" to 29,000 feet in only 2.5 minutes, after which they can fly over 1800 miles per hour.50

Therefore--according to General Ralph Eberhart, the head of NORAD---after the FAA senses that something is wrong, "it takes about one minute" for it to contact NORAD, after which, according to a spokesperson, NORAD can scramble fighter jets "within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States."51

These statements were, to be sure, made after 9/11, so we might suspect that they reflect a post-9/11 speed-up in procedures. But an Air Traffic Control document put out in 1998 warned pilots that any airplanes persisting in unusual behavior "will likely find two [jet fighters] on their tail within 10 or so minutes."52

If these procedures had been carried out on the morning of 9/11, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 would have been intercepted before they could have reached Manhattan, and AA Flight 77 would have been intercepted long before it could have reached the Pentagon.

Such interceptions are routine, being carried out about 100 times a year.

A month after 9/11, the Calgary Herald reported that in the year 2000, NORAD had scrambled fighters 129 times. Do these scrambles regularly result in interceptions?

Just a few days after 9/11, Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesperson, told the Boston Globe that "[NORAD's] fighters routinely intercept aircraft."53 Why did such interceptions not occur on 9/11?

During the first few days, the public was told that no fighter jets were sent up until after the strike on the Pentagon at 9:38. However, it was also reported that signs of Flight 11's hijacking had been observed at 8:15. That would mean that although interceptions usually occur within "10 or so" minutes after signs of trouble are observed, in this case 80 or so minutes had elapsed before fighters were even airborne. This story suggested that a "stand-down" order had been issued.

Within a few days, however, a second story was put out, according to which NORAD had sent up fighters but, because notification from the FAA had been very slow in coming, the fighters arrived too late. On September 18, NORAD made this second story official, embodying it in a timeline, which indicated when NORAD had been notified by the FAA about each airplane and when it had scrambled fighters in response.54

Critics showed, however, that even if the FAA notifications had come as late as NORAD's timeline indicated, NORAD's jets would have had time to make the interceptions.55 This second story did not, therefore, remove the suspicion that a stand-down order had been given.

Hoping to overcome this problem, The 9/11 Commission Report provided a third account, according to which, contrary to NORAD's timeline of September 18, 2001, the FAA did not notify NORAD about Flight 175 until after it had struck the south tower or about Flight 77 until after it had struck the Pentagon. But there are serious problems with this third story.

One problem is the very fact that it is the third story. Normally, when a suspect in a criminal investigation keeps changing his story, we get suspicious.

Let's say that the police ask Charlie Jones where he was Saturday night.

He says he was at the movie theatre, but they say, "No, the movie theatre has been closed all week." Then Charlie says, "Oh, that's right, I was with my girl friend." But, the police say, "No, we checked with her and she was home with her husband." If at that point Charlie says, "Oh, now I remember, I was home reading my Bible," you are probably not going to believe him.

And yet that's what we have here. The military told one story right after 9/11, another story a week later, and a third story through The 9/11 Commission Report in 2004.

A second problem with this third story is that it contradicts several features of the second story, which had served as the official story for almost three years.

For example, NORAD's timeline of September 18, 2001, had indicated that the FAA had notified it about Flight 175 exactly 20 minutes before it hit its target and about Flight 77 some 14 minutes before the Pentagon was struck.

The 9/11 Commission maintains that both of these statements were "incorrect"---that, really, there had been no notification about these flights until after they hit their targets. This, it claims, is why the military had failed to intercept them.56

But if NORAD's timeline was false, as the Commission now claims, NORAD must have been either lying or confused. But it is hard to believe that it could have been confused one week after 9/11. So it must have been lying. But if the military's second story was a lie, why should we believe this third one?

Further scepticism about this third story arises from the fact that it is contradicted by considerable evidence. For example, the Commission's claim that the military did not know about Flight 175 until it crashed is contradicted by a report involving Captain Michael Jellinek, a Canadian who on 9/11 was overseeing NORAD's headquarters in Colorado. According to a story in the Toronto Star, Jellinek was on the phone with NORAD as he watched Flight 175 crash into the south tower. He then asked NORAD: "Was that the hijacked aircraft you were dealing with?"--to which NORAD said "yes."57

The 9/11 Commission's claims about Flights 175 and 77 are also contradicted by a memo sent to the Commission by Laura Brown of the FAA. Her memo stated that at about 8:50 the FAA had set up a teleconference, in which it started sharing information with the military about all flights. She specifically mentioned Flight 77, indicating that the FAA had been sharing information about it even before the formal notification time of 9:24. Her memo, which is available on the Web,58 was discussed by the 9/11 Commission and read into its record on May 23, 2003.59 But Zelikow's 9/11 Commission Report fails to mention this memo.

Because of these and still more problems, which I have discussed in my book on the 9/11 Commission's report and also in a lecture called "Flights of Fancy",60 this third story does not remove the grounds for suspicion that a stand-down order had been issued.

... Accordingly, the idea that the attacks could not have been prevented is a myth. I turn now to:

Myth Number 8: Official Reports have explained why the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed.

This claim suffers from the same problem as the previous one: We have had three explanations, each of which contradicts the others and none of which is anywhere close to adequate.

(i) The first explanation, widely disseminated through television specials, was that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the jet-fuel-fed fires. But this explanation contained many problems, the most obvious of which is that steel does not begin to melt until about 2800 degrees F, while open fires based on hydrocarbons such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---cannot under the most ideal circumstances rise above 1700 degrees.

(ii) A second explanation, endorsed by The 9/11 Commission Report, is a "pancake" theory, according to which the fires, while not melting the steel, heated it up sufficiently to cause the floors weakened by the airplane strikes to break loose from the steel columns---both those in the core of the building and those around the outside. All the floors above the strike zone hence fell down on the floor below the strike zone, causing it to break free, and this started a chain reaction, so the floors pancaked all the way down.

But this explanation also suffered from many problems, the most obvious of which was that it could not explain why the buildings collapsed into a pile of rubble only a few stories high. The core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of 47 massive steel columns. If the floors had broken loose from them, these columns would have still been sticking up a thousand feet in the air. The 9/11 Commission Report tried to cover up this problem by claiming that the core of each tower consisted of "a hollow steel shaft."62

But those massive steel columns could not be wished away.

(iii) The definitive explanation was supposed to be the third one, issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, often simply called NIST. The NIST Report claimed that when the floors collapsed, they, rather than breaking free from the columns, pulled on them, causing the perimeter columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832?F, and this combination of factors resulted in "global collapse."63

But, as physicists Jim Hoffman and Steven Jones have shown, this account is riddled with problems.

One of these is that NIST's claim about tremendously hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. NIST's own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482?F (250?C).64 A second problem is that, even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provided no explanation as to why it would have produced global---that is, total---collapse. The NIST Report asserts that "column failure" occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the core columns would have broken, or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse.65

And this is only to begin to enumerate the problems in NIST's theory, all of which follow from the fact that it, like the previous two theories, is essentially a fire theory, according to which the buildings were brought down primarily by fire.

[If fire could drop steel high-rises through the path of greatest resistance, demolition companies would be out of business]

In the case of the Twin Towers, of course, the impact of the airplanes is said to have played a role. But most experts who support the official theory attribute the collapses primarily to the fires. NIST, for example, says that the main contribution of the airplanes, aside from providing jet fuel, was to dislodge a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel, thereby making it vulnerable to the fires.66

But these fire-theories face several formidable problems:

-- First, the fires in these three buildings were not very hot, very big, or very long-lasting, compared with fires in some steel-frame high-rises that did not collapse.

A 1991 fire in Philadelphia burned 18 hours, and a 2004 fire in Caracas burned 17 hours, without causing even a partial collapse.67 By contrast, the fires in the north and south towers burned only 102 and 56 minutes, respectively, before they collapsed, and neither fire, unlike the Philadelphia and Caracas fires, was hot enough to break windows.

-- Second, total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never---either before or after 9/11---been brought about by fire alone, or fire combined with externally produced structural damage.

The collapse of Building 7 has been recognized as especially difficult to explain. It was not hit by a plane, so the explanation has to rely on fire alone, and yet, because there was no jet fuel to get a big fire started, this building had fires on only two or three floors, according to several witnesses68 and all the photographic evidence.69

FEMA admitted that the best explanation it could come up with it had "only a low probability of occurrence."70

The 9/11 Commission Report implicitly admitted that it could not explain the collapse of Building 7 by not even mentioning it. The NIST Report, which could not claim that the fire-proofing had gotten knocked off the steel of this building, has yet to offer an explanation as to why it collapsed.

And NIST, like the 9/11 Commission, evidently did not want citizens asking why Building 7 collapsed even though it was not hit by a plane. On its Website, it says that one of its objectives is to determine "why and how World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft"---thereby implying that building 7, like the Twin Towers, was hit by a plane.71

-- In any case, a third problem with the official account of the collapse of these three buildings is that all prior and subsequent total collapses of steel-frame high-rises have been caused by explosives in the procedure known as "controlled demolition." This problem is made even more severe by the fact that the collapses of these three buildings manifested many standard features of the most difficult type of controlled demolition, known as implosion. I will mention seven such features:

(i) First, the collapses began suddenly. Steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag. But as one can see from videos available on the Web,72 all three buildings are completely motionless up to the moment they begin to collapse.

(ii) Second, if these huge buildings had toppled over, they would have caused enormous death and destruction. But they came straight down. This straight-down collapse is the whole point of the type of controlled demolition called implosion, which only a few companies in the world can perform.73

(iii) Third, these buildings collapsed at virtually free-fall speed, which means that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, were offering no resistance to the upper floors.

(iv) Fourth, as mentioned earlier, the collapses were total collapses, resulting in piles of rubble only a few stories high. This means that the enormous steel columns in the core of each building had to be broken into rather short segments---which is what explosives do.

(v) Fifth, great quantities of molten steel were produced, which means that the steel had been heated up to several thousand degrees. Witnesses during the clean-up reported, moreover, that sometimes when a piece of steel was lifted out of the rubble, molten metal would be dripping from the end.74

(vi) Sixth, according to many fire fighters, medical workers, journalists, and World Trade Center employees, many explosions went off before and after the collapses. For example, Fire Captain Dennis Tardio, speaking of the south tower, said: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom."75 Firefighter Richard Banaciski said: "It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."76

(vii) A seventh feature of controlled implosions is the production of large quantities of dust. In the case of the Twin Towers, virtually everything except the steel---all the concrete, desks, computers---was pulverized into very tiny dust particles.78

The official theory cannot explain one, let alone all seven, of these features---at least, as Jim Hoffman and Steven Jones have pointed out, without violating several basic laws of physics.79 But the theory of controlled demolition easily explains all these features.

These facts are inconsistent with the idea that al-Qaeda terrorists were responsible.

Foreign terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for the hours needed to plant the explosives.

Terrorists working for the Bush-Cheney administration, by contrast, could have gotten such access...80 Al-Qaeda terrorists would also probably not have had the courtesy to ensure that these huge buildings came straight down, rather than falling over onto other buildings. They also would not have had the necessary expertise.

Another relevant fact is that evidence was destroyed. An examination of the buildings' steel beams and columns could have shown whether explosives had been used to slice them. But virtually all of the steel was removed before it could be properly examined,81 then put on ships to Asia to be melted down.82 It is usually a federal offense to remove anything from a crime scene. But here the removal of over 100 tons of steel, the biggest destruction of evidence in history, was carried out under the supervision of federal officials.83

Evidence was also apparently planted. The passport of one of the hijackers on Flight 11 was allegedly found in the rubble, having survived the fire caused by the crash into the north tower and also whatever caused everything else in this building except the steel to be pulverized.84 As a story in the Guardian said, "the idea that [this] passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would [test] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism."85

To sum up: The idea that US officials have given a satisfactory, or even close to satisfactory, explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings is a myth.

And they have implicitly admitted this by refusing to engage in rational debate about it.

For example, Michael Newman, a spokesman for NIST, reportedly said during a recent interview that "none of the NIST scientists would participate in any public debate" with scientists who reject their report. When Newman was asked why NIST would avoid public debate if it had confidence in its report, Newman replied: "Because there is no winning in such debates."85

In that same interview, Newman had compared people who reject the government's account of the collapses with people who believe in Bigfoot and a flat earth.86 And yet he fears that his scientists would not be able to show up these fools in a public debate!


It would seem, for many reasons, that the official story of 9/11, which has served as a religious Myth in the intervening years, is a myth in the pejorative sense of a story that does not correspond to reality.

One sign of a story that is a myth in this sense, I have pointed out, is that it cannot be rationally defended, and the official story has never been publicly defended against informed criticism by any member of NIST, the 9/11 Commission, or the Bush administration...

If so, we must demand that the government immediately cease implementing the policies that have been justified by this myth.

[...] The charges against the official story of 9/11 are .. serious, for this story, serving as a national religious Myth, has been used to justify two wars, which have caused many tens of thousands of deaths; to start a more general war on Islam, in which Muslims are considered guilty until proven innocent; to annul and violate civil rights; and to increase our military spending, which was already greater than that of the rest of the world combined, by hundreds of billions of dollars, partly so that weapons can be put into space.

Congress needs to put the implementation of these policies on hold until there is a truly independent investigation, carried out by qualified individuals who are not members of the very circles that, if 9/11 truly was a false flag operation, planned it, carried it out, and then covered it up.

Last edited by marc on Tue May 15, 2012 11:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:26 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

An excellent book written by Dr Paul Rea D: Mounting Evidence: Why We Need a New Investigation (iUniverse Publishing) (2011)

"... conspiracy theories, like scientific theories, gain strength as attempts to disprove them fail. "

"In the case of 9/11, thoughtful citizens face a conspiracy of silence: the news media haven't wanted to tell and most of the public hasn't wanted to hear." - Dr Paul W. Rea, Mounting Evidence: Why We Need a New Investigation (iUniverse Publishing) (Kindle) (2011)

"In one volume, Mounting Evidence provides the most important evidence accumulated over many years that calls into question the government's account of 9/11. Any citizen of conscience reading it will demand a new investigation." - Mike Gravel - as US Senator he presented the Pentagon Papers.

Last edited by marc on Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:41 pm; edited 2 times in total
Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:49 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote


Remember the pre-2001 PNAC documents that laid out the neo-con wish-list for a " New American Century" - lamenting that peace-loving Americans would have to be riled up, scared witless and motivated into Middle -Eastern wars by some sort of 'catastrophic and catalysing" terror event - like a new "Pearl Harbour"?

Well, this Brookings Institute document - on the subject of Iran - reads like PNAC 2:

‘Like Iraq’, the [Brookings Institute] authors state, ‘Iran is too intrinsically and strategically important a country for the United States to be able to march in, overthrow its government, and then march out, leaving chaos in its wake. (…)

Iran exports about 2.5 million barrels per day of oil and, with the right technology, it could produce even more. It also has one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. These resources make Iran an important supplier of the energy needs of the global economy.

Iran does not border Saudi Arabia- the lynchpin of the oil market- or Kuwait, but it does border Iraq, another major oil producer and a country where the United States now has a great deal at stake.’

...[T]hey allow themselves the luxury of speculating openly about a possible ‘provocation’ to escalate things to the point of armed conflict.

‘(…) it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion.

And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation).

However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.’

Now that would be a great disappointment, wouldn’t it? Under the headline ‘The Question of a Provocation’ on page 66, the authors press the point even further:

With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.’

Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran.

During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil (probably because they know who is usually responsible for such mass terror attacks):

‘Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…).

"The entire question of “options” becomes irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?‘

Regarding the question of international support for an US invasion of the Islamic Republic, the Brookings people lament:

‘Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds.’

The same goes for their plans in regards to that old favorite of the elite, covert psychological warfare, in order to subdue a sovereign nation. In chapter 7 of the manuscript, called ‘Inspiring an Insurgency’, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists loot their nation:

‘The core concept lying at the heart of this option would be for the United States to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War.

"The United States would provide arms, money, training, and organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.’

From the comment section:
[1] 170 pages
From the website: "The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:

• Strengthen American democracy;
• Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans
Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system

[2] "... how hard it is to get people to look at the evidence [of] 9/11... Now we will be able to point out that a pattern exists as this is clearly a rehash of the PNAC way of thinking. .. this sort of cold-blooded calculation is going on right now was going on prior to 9/11..."
Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:51 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: New 9/11 documentary Reply with quote
Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:36 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Saudi elites have been allies and working partners with some powerful elite players from other nations for decades...
'The failure to properly investigate 9/11 indicates a sickening level of establishment corruption and arrogant contempt for the public. Especially after 9/11 has been exploited for years to justify all sorts of corrupt policies.'

NYT: US Senators see possible Saudi 9-11 link

Last edited by marc on Tue May 15, 2012 11:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:46 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: graeme macqueen Reply with quote

As the war-drums roll ....

Important lecture from Graeme MacQueen, given at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Studies at Harvard.

"The Fictional Basis of the War on Terror":
-- Dr Graeme MacQueen!

Graeme MacQueen received his Ph.D. from Harvard University and taught at McMaster University for 30 years. In 1989 he became founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster, after which he helped develop the B.A. programme in Peace Studies and co-directed (with $2 million in government, UN and NGO funding) peace-building projects in Sri Lanka, Gaza, Croatia and Afghanistan.

He has also contributed to the development of the Women's Peace Brigade in north India (active now in several states) and was involved for some years in the Third Option, a peace initiative for Afghanistan.

He has published numerous peer-reviewed articles and book chapters as well as four books. He took early retirement from McMaster University to devote his energy to peace and justice work.

For the past five years most of Graeme's research has focused on the events and anomalies of 9/11. He has written four research articles on the subject (some in conjuction with engineer Tony Szamboti), found at

Graeme has given numerous interviews and talks on 9/11, some of which can be found on the internet.
Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:01 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Kucinich voted out - March 2012

Kucinich vows to conduct 'financial investigation' into events of 9/11

"I can't be bought and I can't be bossed." Kucinich said. "I'm going to keep speaking the truth, I'm going to keep seeking the truth, and as long as people are there to support that, I'll be in Congress."

Last edited by marc on Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:47 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Whistle-blower Kevin Ryan has attracted flak and accusations of anti-semitism because he took up an invitation to address a Muslim American audience recently:

Kevin Ryan presentation
Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:50 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Muslims did not attack the US on 9-11
- Kevin Ryan

SINCE September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated a number of wars in Muslim countries. These wars, which would be more correctly called massacres, have resulted in the deaths of countless innocent Muslims.

In some cases, attempts have been made to present these aggressions in the guise of humanitarian efforts to promote democracy.

But the limited public support for U.S. military action around the world goes back to the U.S. government claim that Muslims were responsible for 9/11. This claim is untrue and it is past time for people to recognize that fact.

There are many ways to see that Muslims were not responsible for 9/11. Author David Ray Griffin has previously made arguments in this regard.[1] As time goes on, however, more facts lead people to realize that claims of Muslim responsibility for terrorism in the U.S. should be highly suspect. These facts include that the October 2001 anthrax attacks were blamed on Muslims only to be later traced to a U.S. military facility and to non-Muslim, U.S. scientists. Moreover, a number of FBI-planned acts of terrorism since 2001 have been falsely attributed to young Muslims who were victims of appalling acts of entrapment by the FBI.[2]

According to the official account of 9/11, nineteen young Arab Muslims were responsible for the entirety of the mass murder that day. The FBI accused these young men within 72 hours of the attacks and, although the list changed slightly at first, it has remained the same since shortly after the attacks. To support the accusations, U.S. authorities pointed to passports that were found under implausible circumstances, luggage containing unbelievably convenient documents, and other dubious evidence.

In October 2001, reporter Seymour Hersh wrote –

“Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, ‘Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.’”[3]

Years later, the 9/11 Commission Report (911CR) was written by a professional myth-maker, Phillip Zelikow, who was also a Bush Administration insider. Oddly enough, the outline for the report was written by Zelikow and his colleague Ernest May even before the investigation began. It is now widely accepted that the 9/11 Commission and the FBI did very poorly in terms of investigating most aspects of the attacks. In just one example, the FBI never even interviewed the people suspected of engaging in 9/11 insider trading.[4]

Despite the poor quality of the investigation, the 911CR used inflammatory language which focused on Muslims as “the enemy.” The Commission told us that “the enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility toward us and our values is limitless.” The Commission was being false and misleading when it made these statements, however, as the evidence shows that 9/11 was not a Muslim crime.

The most obvious reason that the Commission was off-track is that Muslims do not murder innocent people. Some people find this statement outrageous. Of course Muslims murder innocent people, they say, that’s what al Qaeda does.

The problem is that, as a society, many of us have been trained to accept religion as a noncommittal affiliation or label. For example, many of the current U.S. leaders have engaged in mass murder around the world over the last ten years yet they still call themselves Christians. Anyone can see that they are not.

Those who truly believe in God live by the laws of the religion they proclaim and Christians do not engage in wars of aggression or the torture and killing of other human beings.

The 911CR says that Hani Hanjour, the accused hijacker pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, was the terrorist operation’s most experienced pilot. The official account tells us that he slammed the aircraft into the Pentagon at the first-floor level going over 500 mph. But all the evidence indicates that he was a very poor pilot at best. He repeatedly failed his training courses on single engine aircraft and according to representatives of his flight training schools he had no fundamental pilot skills.[19] Due to these facts, we know that Hanjour could not have flown the plane as alleged. So it doesn’t matter if he was a Muslim.

It is possible that all the planes were commandeered by way of existing remote control technology, which would explain a number of the unanswered questions.[20] Remote piloting could explain why the planes did not squawk the hijack code, why the auto-pilot stayed on during the hijacking process, and how these planes were flown with extreme precision at very high speeds regardless of the poor skills of the alleged pilots. It would also explain how those who planned the attacks could have remained confident of their success, despite having employed unreliable, cocaine-snorting, alcoholic perverts as “hijackers.”

Regardless of who actually flew the planes, we know that most of the deaths on 9/11 were the result of actions which could not have been accomplished by the accused men. Of course, the initial hijackings could be blamed on the alleged, non-Muslim hijackers and one might argue that some passengers and crew members were said to be killed during the hijackings. But so little is known about how the hijackings occurred that it is difficult to know what really happened. The 9/11 Commission could not even say how the alleged hijackers entered the cockpits of any of the four planes, or why the hijack code was not squawked for any of them.

If we examine what was needed to facilitate the attacks, we see that most of the deaths on 9/11 were the result of many things that should not have happened. And none of it could have been accomplished without the involvement of U.S. authorities.
1.Pre-9/11 investigations that would have caught the accused men were shut down.
2.All the levels of hijacking prevention failed four separate times.
3.For several hours, our leaders did nothing to protect the nation.
4.The planes should have been intercepted but they were not.[21]
5.The planes were flown like guided missiles.
6.Three WTC skyscrapers were completely destroyed, and all of them fell through what should have been the path of most resistance.[22]
7.Evidence for explosives at the Pentagon was discovered and not explained.
8.The debris damage in Pennsylvania indicates that Flight 93 was shot down.

An extensive examination of the people who had access to the WTC towers shows that the accused men were not among those who could have placed explosives in those highly-secure buildings, nor were any Muslims in such a position.[23] Therefore, there is no evidence whatsoever that the accused non-Muslims, or any unspecified Muslims, caused the deaths of the nearly 2,600 people who were killed in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

It is reasonable to say, without an extensive inquiry, that Muslims could not have shut down the pre-9/11 investigations. Similarly, they could not have caused the repeated failure of a hijacking prevention system that had been successful for over 20 years. Muslims certainly could not have stopped U.S. leaders from doing their jobs on 9/11, nor could they have disabled the U.S. air defenses or shot down Flight 93.

Additionally, there is no doubt that Muslims were not to blame for delaying and obstructing the investigation into 9/11, during which time the U.S. and its allies had already initiated massacres in the Middle East. The official accounts that were finally generated, that ignored most of the important evidence and are transparently false, are not the work of Muslims either. The murder of millions of people has been falsely justified by way of those official accounts.

Muslims could not have done any of these things. Not even the drug-abusing drunk called Mohammed Atta, who dated strippers, dressed like a gangster and hung out with drug runners, could have done those things.

Moving beyond Islamophobia ... ...continued at the link........


[1] David Ray Griffin, Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?, information Clearing House, September 8, 2008,

[2] Glenn Greenwald, The FBI again thwarts its own Terror plot, Salon, Sep 29, 2011,

[3] Seymour M. Hersh, What Went Wrong, The New Yorker, October 8, 2001,

[4] Kevin R. Ryan, Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11, Foreign Policy Journal,

[5] Huda, Muslim Victims of 9/11 Attack: Several dozen Muslims were among the innocent victims,,

[6] Program on International Policy Attitudes, Muslims Believe US Seeks to Undermine Islam, April 24, 2007,

[7] David Harrison, Revealed: the men with stolen identities, The Telegraph, 23 Sep 2001,

[8] Der Spiegel, Panoply of the Absurd, September8, 2003,,1518,265160,00.html

[9] Hillary Smith, The Main Purveyors of Islamophobia: Daniel Pipes, The Council for the National Interest, 18 January 2012,

[10], Resurrected Hijackers: Suicide Hijackers Identified by the FBI Proclaim Their Innocence,

[11] Shelley Murphy and Douglas Belkin, Hijackers Said to Seek Prostitutes, The Boston Globe, October 10, 2001,

[12] Jody A. Benjamin, Suspects’ actions don’t add up, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, September 16 2001,

[13] Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida, Trine Day; 2004
etc... continues at link....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Islamophobia has become a lucrative *industry*, it fuels multi-trillion dollar wars, defense contractors', weapons manufacturers', security and surveillance industry bottom lines and stock prices. 9/11 was the big enabler"

Last edited by marc on Mon Nov 25, 2013 4:55 pm; edited 2 times in total
Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:17 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Asia Times Online Investigation by German financial journalist Lars Schall:

Insider trading 9/11 ... the facts laid bare

Last edited by marc on Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:21 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Keiser Report on RT TV

Max Keiser interviews German financial journalist Lars Schall on September 2001 insider trading .

­Episode 265: First half of the show covers Irish stoicism.
In the second half, Max talks to independent German financial journalist and author, Lars Schall, about his recently published investigation into insider trading around the 9/11 terrorist attack.
Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:48 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

911's most controversial photo
- The Guardian

For the second time in a couple of months, this 9-11 photo has popped up on the Guardian's Most Commented On list:

Series: Framing the debate - The meaning of 9/11's most controversial photo

The photo - of young people at waters' edge - is apparently the most controversial 9-11 photo.


'Falling Man' - the photo of an office worker jumping to his death - appears more controversial. His country's policies caused deadly blowback, organic or engineered. Caught in a crucible, the man falls through the path of least resistance, one leg bent at the knee.

Commander-in-Chief George Bush's Kodak Moment on the rubble pile, prior to a decade of resource-wars, also comes to mind.

The photographs of massive steel columns shredding in mid-air as the top sections of North and South Towers explode in identical fashion, are controversial in their implications. Prior to this sudden-onset event, the Towers predictably withstood plane penetration, jet fuel burn-off and dying fires as they were designed to do.**

Photographs of explosion - revealing an extra source of energy at play, rather than a gravity-driven phenomenon - are more controversial than Hoepker's photo. They must be controversial: corporate media blocks their discussion and the BBC shunts mention of them into the 'Conspiracy Files' (sic).

Apart from the stills photography, there is significant video photography which is controversial in its political implications. The most iconic is the long shot of WTC Saloman Bros Building Seven descending in a dead ringer for a textbook implosion.

Comments from cif: "It's an iconic photo? I've never seen it before. There are many more iconic photos of 9/11 than this one" [1026 recommends] and "It's so controversial no-one's seen it before".

** US Dept of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) FAQ
"World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft."

NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century :
a critique of the Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Centre Towers by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Centre Disaster

Last edited by marc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:59 am; edited 3 times in total
Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:24 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Zelikow's 'e-mail exchange' with The Guardian

The Guardian's Chris McGreal ignores the 911 Commission Report Director Philip Zelikow's past history and writes a report that essentially talks him up as a moral type who 'spoke out' against torture. Nothing about his role as White House insider, Condi Rice co-author, Aspen Institute fellow with Wolfowitz, student of 'public myth'...

Comments here

- - - "The 9/11 Myth Maker and guy who co-authored the 2002 Bush pre-emption doctrine came out in 2006 against torture? Am I in the twilight zone? I spit my Cheerio's all over the screen in disbelief when I read this."

- - - "One scrap of paper exists that exonerates both Phil and Condi"?

- - - "It seems like a Cover Your Ass free pass... 2006 is pretty late in the game - where are his statements against torture at the onset of this disgrace?"

What Chris McGreal *doesn't* say about Zelikow:

Source Watch: Zelikow

According to James Petras (2008): "The key figure in and around the Bush Administration who actively promoted a ‘new Pearl Harbor ’ and was at least in part responsible for the policy of complicity with the 9/11 terrorists was Philip Zelikow. Zelikow, a prominent Israel-Firster, is a government academic, whose expertise was in the nebulous area of ‘catastrophic terrorism’ – events which enabled US political leaders to concentrate executive powers and violate constitutional freedoms in pursuit of offensive imperial wars and in developing the ‘public myth’. Philip Shenon’s book, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation pinpoints Zelikow’s strategic role in the Bush Administration in the lead up to 9/11, the period of ‘complicit neglect’, in its aftermath, the offensive global war period, and in the government’s cover-up of its complicity in the terror attack." [2]

Zelikow: Snowshoe Films
Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:36 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. Navajo Proverb.

Last edited by marc on Sat May 12, 2012 5:54 pm; edited 2 times in total
Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:36 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Anything to this?

Osama, Wikileaks and The Guardian
Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:59 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Got a patsy?
Documents provide rare insights into FBI's Terrorism Stings
Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:49 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Petition: Come clean about free fall of WTC 7

Aiming for one million signatures, to be delivered to US Dept of Commerce NIST. If you've noticed the blanket media black out on this subject, this is worth getting behind, whatever one thinks of Avaaz.

Why this is important

Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent. After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.5 seconds. However NIST still claimed that fires were the cause.

Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . .”

NIST, a U.S. government agency, has already admitted the scientific fact of free fall in Building 7. Now it should admit what that means; that the entire building structure was removed before Building 7 began to fall. This means explosive controlled demolition.

This gives a very different understanding of what really happened on 9/11. It implies a very different story about who caused it.

Bringing peace to the U.S. and the Middle East, saving American and foreign lives, begins with an honest evaluation of the free fall descent of WTC Building 7.

UPDATE: 24 hours later

AVAAZ has shut down this petition.

Reason given:

This petition has been removed for violating the Avaaz Petition Site Community Agreement

Last edited by marc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:19 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Less than 24 hours after Mark Graham put up his petition to NIST - "Come Clean on Free Fall at WTC7" - the petition was removed by AVAAZ. Avaaz claims that its campaigns are selected by its members themselves in democratic polls, and that it practices what it terms ‘servant leadership’.
It seems that Avaaz - will promote petitions calling for NATO 'humanitarian' military interventions in Africa; will not promote petitions calling for release of information from the US Department of Commerce body NIST.

Last edited by marc on Tue May 01, 2012 4:12 am; edited 1 time in total
Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:56 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

A letter to send to local media:

Last edited by marc on Tue May 01, 2012 3:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:54 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill Clinton in full cry:
Tue May 01, 2012 2:58 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: Debate on “9/11, False Flags, and Black Ops” Reply with quote

Debate on “9/11, False Flags, and Black Ops” with Jonathan Kay and Webster Tarpley

Tarpley onstage at the International Spy Museum in Washington DC with two leading neocons, both from Canada. This debate is especially relevant coming as it does as the little Ribbentrops of the NATO foreign ministries escalate their campaign for a near-term attack on Syria and/or Iran, which might well be assisted by a Wag-The-Dog event, false flag terrorist provocation, or replay of the Gulf of Tonkin fraud. The program is airing between the first and second rounds of the French presidential elections, when the desire of Washington and London to keep their asset Sarkozy in power may create a short-term dynamic in the same direction. The broadcast will help viewers understand what kinds of vigilance are required to preserve world peace.
Wed May 02, 2012 8:53 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

'We deny science in this country,
unless it provides us with war tools"*

- Former president of American Screen Actors Guild Ed Asner, decrying the lack of journalists at the press conference, despite scores of invitations sent out.

Gage recounts his experiences with BBC and other journalists. He calls the media criminal in its complicit silence.. Worth listening to Gage and Asner lay into the media at this LA press conference - prior to the screening of "Expert Speak Out" - a tighter version edited by moonlighting Hollywood pros.

LA Press Conference (media .. starts about 7 minutes in)
Thu May 31, 2012 8:20 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 21, 22, 23  Next
Page 22 of 23

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
   printer friendly