Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Japanese MP asks hard 9/11 questions of PM, Finance Minister& Foreign Minister

Yukihisa Fujita (Democratic Party of Japan), former Chief Cabinet Secretary under Koizumi in 2001, and now a member of the House of Councillors in the Diet, made a 30 minute presentation before a session of the Japanese Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee that was broadcast live nationwide on Japanese NHK television.

The Japanese Defense and Foreign Affairs Committe was discussing Japan's continued contribution to the US in Afghanistan. Fujita questioned Japan's continuing support for the US 'war on terror' and the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq because he believes there are too many doubts about 9/11 which is the main reason Japan is currently supporting the US.

During Fujita's presentation, a staffer holds up large photos and diagrams such as photos of the damaged Pentagon with a plane superimposed on the photo illustrating conflicts with the official story. These photos and diagrams appear to be from a variety of 9/11 Truth sites.

Fujita also asks the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister about, and requests, investigation by Japanese authorities into Japanese citizens killed in New York on September 11, 2008, instead of just taking US authorities word (no Japanese investigations were done). These are exactly the kind of questions and requests Canadian MPs should have/be making of our government.

Here is a English translation of Yukihisa Fujita's questions in the Japanese Parliament done by Benjamin Fulford who is a Canadian writer and journalist living in Japan:

Here is a link to page with links to 8 YouTube videos with English sub-titles of his presentation and lots of presentation info:

Here is a streaming video of the entire presentation with no English sub-titles, beginning at 18 minutes into the stream

More information on Yukihisa Fujita:

Yukihisa Fujita's website: (translate to English using

Wikipedia Yukihisa Fujita entry:

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Graeme MacQueen - Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference

9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses

The stories of 503 men and women ran to 12,000 pages. Graeme MacQueen, a recently retired religious studies professor, read them all. In addition to the heartrending nature of many of the stories, the consistent theme was of hearing, feeling and seeing explosions, a controlled demolition. Failure to officially acknowledge this evidence is further proof of an inside job. MacQueen (McMaster University, Ontario, Canada) narrowed down the testimony of 118 first responders as especially court-worthy testimony. But he notes the entire testimony was excluded by the 9/11 Commission, as well as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). [Part 1 of 2; Part 2: First Responders Testimony] Video prepared for the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference, June 22-24, 2007

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference - June 22 to 24

The Vancouver 9/11 Truth Society will host an international conference to expose the realities, myths, omissions and distortions of the official narrative of the events of September 11th, 2001, and present evidence which contradicts what the public has been told about that fateful day, and evidence that has been ignored. Presenters will detail the numerous reasons why a new, full, and impartial investigation into 9/11 is required.

The theme of the conference is “9/11, Canada and the New World Order – Reclaiming Our Destiny” and will focus not only on what occurred, on September 11th, but will also look critically at what has been done, and is being done today, by our governments (both abroad and domestically) with 9/11 as the justification, and will question the legitimacy of the War on Terror.

Friday, May 04, 2007

Dr. David Ray Griffin coming to Vancouver!!

I read in the Vancouver Sun recently that Dr. Griffin is coming to Vancouver!! The Vancouver 911 Society is putting this event on:

I got my tickets already. Looking forward to seeing the good Doctor in person!!

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

BBC reported WTC 7 had collapsed 20 minutes beforehand

Two BBC news stations broadcast news that WTC 7 (or as they also refer it, Salomon Smith Barney building) collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did collapse. In fact, in one long report, a BBC reporter in New York, reporting from a building many blocks away from WTC, is standing in front of a window in which you can actually see WTC 7 still standing!

There was absolutely no ambiguity about whether or not the building had actually fallen, and is reported as a confirmed certainty.

This "pre-broadcast" of WTC 7 collapse, was broadcast on two BBC news shows. A blogger at downloaded and watched nearly the entire archived video from BBC to verify that the window in front of which the reporter is standing, and in which WTC 7 can clearly been seen to be standing, is not a blue screen or manipulated image. One of the shows footage includes a time stamp as do many news broadcasts that confirms the early reporting.

This BBC reporter in New York was actually cut off by apparent signal interruption just 5 minutes before the WTC 7 building actually collapsed. If she had been allowed to continue, the collapse could have been seen on live TV, after the reporter in the same view had said it collapsed just 20 minutes earlier!

Apparently, CNN also broadcast the fact that WTC 7 had collapsed before it did too.

Check out the evolving reporting on 911blogger:

BBC has come out with saying that not only did they lose the footage for that day, they also have no documentation on who contacted them and told them that WTC 7 had collapsed. The reporter claims not be have been aware of her prescient reporting!

This is a smoking gun. Jumping the gun!

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Kevin Ryan's Powerpoint presentation called "The NIST World Trade Center Report: A New Standard for Deception

Check out Kevin Ryan's Powerpoint presentation called "The NIST World Trade Center Report: A New Standard for Deception" presented at the 911 Truth Conference in Chicago, IL June 4, 2006 is jam-packed full of useful facts and arguments about the NIST investigation (or as David Ray Griffin says "omissions and distortions.")

This is hands down the most detailed, informative and persuasive set of facts and arguments that refute the official story that WTC collapses happened for the reasons NIST has concluded in their reports.

Edit: Thanks to ra herbst who pointed out that the Powerpoint presentation referred to above only contains notes from Kevin Ryan's Reasearch that was posted in another powerpoint. The link to Kevins powerpoint, which is excellent, has been updated above.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Canadian Defence Minister O’Connor says its about "retribution" for 9/11!

Globe and Mail link here

Its all about retribution for 9/11, says Canadian Defence Minister O’Connor?!

“What it means is, if our country is attacked, we are not going to stand blandly by and not do anything about it”, O’Conner said.

This uber-hawkish utterance could’ve come straight from the American White House. It clearly portrays a Canadian government out of sync with what it means to be Canadian. Pursuing justice without resorting to “might makes right policies” is not “standing blandly by.” The empire to the south may believe in wreaking vengeance, but it is not the Canadian way. Sounds like Harper’s Defence Minister has been choking down too much American policy in his North American integration sessions.

Yes, sadly, Canadians were killed on that awful 11th day of September, 2001 when the US was attacked by terrorists. Yes, justice does need to be served, but not by indiscriminant bombs and flying bullets. Sure, Afghanistan is in dire need of international aid. We should be there. But it is a colossal strategic blunder to be in Afghanistan for the purpose of seeking “retribution! That changes the mission entirely.

This extreme Harper government is steadily trashing the hard-earned reputation, and security, that Canada has enjoyed to-date. Sending Canadian troops out to seek vengeance for an attack that was directed at the US is only going to hasten the loss of Canada’s truly amazing and unique stature, and the inherent security it has brought us.

Look, the Taliban was as powerless to control the fractious groups in Afghanistan as NATO forces are trying to rein in violence in that most unfortunate country, never mind find expel bin Laden. It is the most grossly distorted rendition of facts for Harper’s Defence Minister to say, “When the Taliban or al-Qaeda came out of Afghanistan, they attached the twin towers and in those twin towers, 25 Canadians were killed.” Most of the purported hijackers were Saudis, according to the official story, coordinated by the amazing disappearing Saudi, Osama bin Laden, and even funded and supported by the Saudi ruling elites. The fact is, that there is plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that the Americans themselves allowed 9/11 to happen through their infernal domestic and foreign machinations.

But look at this issue even closer. If the Afghan mission is about retribution for 9/11, then someone ought to tell the Americans, because they somehow believe retribution is to be found in Iraq, and perhaps Iran. They had barely arrived in Afghanistan, before they were targeting Iraq. They even gave up the supposed mastermind of 9/11. Bush shrugged and said, “I hardly think of bin Laden anymore.”

Defence Minister O’Connor’s unfortunate claim that Canada is in Afghanistan for “retribution” is the most absurd, dangerous thing yet to come out of this Harper government. This is not just about politics. Stephen Harper and his government are actively eroding the security of all Canadians by their increasingly militant lockstep with the lawless policies of the Bush administration.

But you know what? Given Harper’s government’s insistence that 9/11 is the reason for invading Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly Iran, and for the gradual erosion of our freedoms, perhaps we should ensure that all doubt about what happened on 9/11 is eliminated. Maybe we need to understand better how the Canadian military’s NORAD participation contributed to the sluggish response on 9/11, which allowed more people to die. Maybe we need to understand more about the military exercises which transferred most of North Americas air support into northern Canada and Alaska, and how these exercises interfered with “real-world” responses to the hijackings of 9/11.

Minister O’Connor, you have opened up a whole can of worms by invoking 9/11 as the reason that Canada is marching off to war.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Yes, they DO scramble jets - 129 times from May 15, 1996 to May 14, 1998

Part of the official lie about 9/11 is that Norad doesn't scramble jets often, or with efficiency, precision and speed, to " identify unknown aircraft that could be a threat to the nation’s air sovereignty". But as this award for Western Air Defense Sector shows, they DO scramble jets often and have been doing so for at least 4 years prior to September 11, 2001.

The entire text of the Western Air Defense Sector award for excellence is provided below, just in case it gets taken off of their website. Blogger 911 has linked to this too, and no doubt the webmasters at Western Air Defense Sector are noticing the spike in traffic.

The Western Air Defense Sector (WADS) is one of two sectors responsible to NORAD’s aerospace warning and control mission. The Western Air Defense Sector is part of the Continental U.S. NORAD region. There are also Canadian and Alaskan NORAD regions.
WADS Receives Organizational Excellence Award

Story & photo by Maj Herb Porter

Western Air Defense Sector
The Western Air Defense Sector (WADS) McChord AFB, Tacoma, WA, recently celebrated another milestone in its illustrious career as it was awarded the 1998 Air Force Organizational Excellence Award. Being one of only eight Air National Guard units to win such a coveted honor, the members of the WADS proved once again that the Air National Guard is truly a world class organization.

Maj General. Paul A. Weaver Jr., Director of the Air National Guard, congratulated the sector on such a prestigious award. "The competition was extremely keen," he stated, "and the winner is commended for having been selected from an outstanding group of nominees. The dedication….of the members of this unit enables the Air National Guard to fulfill its commitment to the missions of peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, domestic improvement, and most important of all, the defense of America".

Similarly, Colonel John L. Cromwell, WADS Commander, added his accolades, further praising the sector’s men and women. "The WADS has uniquely distinguished itself with exceptional service in support of the Air Force, the Air National Guard, the state of Washington, and the local community.

Col Cromwell added, "We have developed an outstanding reputation from the primary customers at the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the joint community in general, for our service support, technical innovation, and overall commitment to excellence. I am really proud of our people…they truly deserve this honor."

The Commander of the Washington Air National Guard, also lauded WADS’ accomplishments. Maj General Frank Scoggins stated: "In dozens of major exercises, the unit has been lauded with praise, congratulations, and compliments from major command commanders, inspectors general, civilian drug enforcement officials, and sister service senior leaders". General Scoggins further added: "The sector sets the standard for continuous volunteerism and its outstanding support for real-world air defense missions."

The sector is the Air National Guard organization responsible for the air sovereignty of the western 63% of the continental United States. More than 300 Washington Air National Guard members at WADS have operational control of fighters on continuous alert, keeping track of 1.9 million square miles of airspace, from Texas to the Pacific Coast, across to North Dakota. WADS works directly with three alert bases, where pilots wait for the call to identify unknown aircraft that could be a threat to the nation’s air sovereignty. In the award-judging period from May 15, 1996 to May 14, 1998, the sector "scrambled" jets 129 times to identify these "unknown riders". The WADS scrambled jets another 42 times against potential and actual drug smugglers to support the Domestic Air Interdiction Coordination Center and U.S. Drug Enforcement agencies.

To hone its air sovereignty skills, the sector participated in numerous deployments and exercises during the judging period, including the Felix SPADE – Simulated Penetration Air Defense Exercises — program. During SPADE, the sector practiced 46 live no-notice airspace penetrations. The exercise tested WADS’ ability to detect, intercept, and identify a simulated unknown aircraft trying to violate national sovereignty. The sector was 100 % successful. These exercises paid off in the real world, according to Colonel Cromwell. The sector assisted civilian law enforcement agencies in their arrests of drug smugglers and the seizures of more than 900 kilos of marijuana and 400 kilos of cocaine worth more than $140 million. It also deployed mission-ready personnel for command and control duties to Croatia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Central and South America. Further proof of the sector’s excellence was demonstrated during its most recent operational inspection. WADS achieved the highest rating possible given by the Office of the Air Force Inspector General during its most recent Organizational Readiness Inspection (ORI).

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Response to Noam Chomsky's dismissal of 9/11 Truth

The following is a response to an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...


Mr. Chomsky,

I have to admit it is very difficult to reconcile your 9/11 stance with other words of yours, for example, those contained in Secrets, Lies and Democracy (Interviews with Noam Chomsky) 1994 by David Barsamian where you said,
"I could imagine a democratic society with an organization that carries out intelligence-gathering functions. But that's a very minor part of what the CIA does. Its main purpose is to carry out secret and usually illegal activities for the executive branch, which wants to keep these activities secret because it knows that the public won't accept them. So even inside the US, it's highly undemocratic."
But, Mr Chomsky, you seem to have turned your back on that analysis when considering 9/11. We have seen mounting evidence of CIA awareness of, if not involvement with, the purported hijackers prior to 911. We have seen how aggressively this administration has treated whistleblowers and dissenters such as Joe Wilson, John O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Siebel Edmonds, David Schippers, and others.

You've said that the culpable would've been mad to do this, and wouldn't have dared to endanger the Republican party. But, if we accept that the official story is not correct or at least not complete, we must also accept that those who steered these events were not primarily concerned about the survival of the Republican Party. They must also have known that those who are interested in the survival of the Republican party would fall in line pretty quickly. Those interested in preserving order and America's claim to the source of all that is democratic and civilized would also fall in line. Nothing about the "conspiracy" theories is implausible, and nothing is even new. You have taught us that Mr Chomsky!

You have also discounted any evidence presented saying,
"As for the theories, I don't think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly."
But, let me say that David Ray Griffin provides an excellent study of the available evidence in his two books "The New Pearl Harbour: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11" and “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions: A Critique of the Kean-Zelikow Report” . You state that a misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence is at the heart of these conspiracies, but I believe Griffin presents a proper, thorough analysis of what the evidence is and what possibilities it supports. Are you specifically dismissing this analysis Mr Chomsky? If so, how can that be, as you claim such analysis is below your level of contemplation? How can you confuse investigation, research and analysis with one's opinion - if you don't do the former, how can you dismiss the latter?

Mr Chomsky, you said chaos would make loose ends that appear as conspiracy. Well, this chaotic event did in fact spawn a number of coincidences, contradictions and loose ends. But it also spawned many inconsistencies and some outright lies by official sources which you lump with the former. Most physical evidence, that of the WTC towers debris, the plane debris, the black boxes, video from surveillance cameras, were whisked away without any public analysis whatsoever, or never declared to be found, rendering the gathering of some very clear evidence impossible. It took enormous pressure from 9/11 victim's families to have a 9/11 investigation, poor and hampered as it was, at all.

As for the general public apathy and acquiescence, surely the mind behind Manufacturing Consent can comprehend how a nation's public, faced with such a shocking event, would not seek to find evidence, or be expected to ask the right questions. But those endowed with the public trust should have ask questions, and failed. Also, intellectuals, such as yourself, fell into their usual pattern of debating each other within the framework of the official dialogue, too afraid, unwilling, or unable to stray into or even see disturbing waters.

I am perplexed by your position , and can only surmise you do not want to be associated with something that you perceive will never see the light of day. Well, newsflash Mr Chomsky, it has, but it needs a push from more reputable people like yourself . I cannot see anything more important. It is one thing for America to fool its people about the state of democracy in Haiti or Columbia, but if they can allow their own people to be attacked, and not be called to account, then there is no hope at all and all your past legacy of activism rendered moot. Mr Chomsky, you will then end up in the category of those, who by act or omission, supported status quo for personal gain, or fear of loss, and failed your fellows when needed most.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Excellent, detailed, referenced David Ray Griffin

A December 16 2006 post by Robin Good at the Independent Publishing News website gives an excellent, detailed and thoughtful review of David Ray Griffin. If you don't know anything about 911 truth or are confused about what "reasonable" doubt you should have, this is a very good place to start. Read Robin's post and then take some time to watch video of David Ray Griffin, and check out some of the links from the article.

Recently, Prof. Griffin recorded two of his public presentations that he gave in San Francisco and Oakland in March and April of this year. Out of these recordings came the release of a full-length video documentary entitled: 9/11 - The Myth and The Reality, which can be freely viewed online in its entirety (1hr 38').

In the full-featured video, Prof. Griffin details nine of the most commonly held myths and misconceptions about the events surrounding 9/11, and with microscopic precision addresses and dismantles each of the fallacies on which each one of those myths was painstakingly built.

In this unique video report I have decided to assemble here, I have extracted from the full-length video documentary, the nine short sections in which Prof. Griffin methodically dismantles by way of clear and fact-supported logic, the key foundations that keep together the mainstream story most of us still believe today.

In this showcase, my newsroom has worked to bring to you nine short videos extracted from Dr. Griffin full-length video documentary as well as the full and complete English text transcription of them.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Publisher criticizes David Ray Griffin's book "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11"

Church publishers criticize own book
Author says Bush planned 9/11 terror

By Peter Smith
The Courier-Journal

In an unusual criticism of its own product, the board of the Louisville-based Presbyterian Publishing Corp. says a book fell short of its editing standards with its "spurious" claim that the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 terror attacks.

But the publisher will continue selling the controversial book, "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11," by California theologian David Ray Griffin.

Clearly, this statement by the Presbyterian Publishing Corp's board of directors regarding David Ray Griffin's book "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11" is mainly the result of pressure from critics rather than any introspection on the board's part.

Presbyterian Publishing Corp "has long been known for publishing specialized books on theology and church life as well as books on religion for the general public" -- but lets face it, these topics are things to be taken on faith -- and are not fact based on research. It wouldn't be in their interest to attack books that they publish, based on fact and legitimate research alone.

Therefore, the Presbyterian Publishing Corp board saying "the conspiracy theory is spurious and based on questionable research" and "whether it meets our publishing standards," are not the real reasons for their statements. The irony is that David Ray Griffin's book "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11" might actually be one of the more fact-based books that Presbyterian Publishing Corp publishes!

Further, as Griffin noted, Presbyterian Publishing Corp did not specify what they found to be lacking. Griffin said. "This is something I've worked on almost daily for years. I doubt any of the … members of the board have spent nearly the time on it I have. They were really not in the position to make such a statement." The only clear indication of shortcomings was given by Kenneth Godshall, chairman of its board of directors who said in an interview that "Griffin failed to take into account rebuttals of his theories, such as one published by Popular Mechanics." However, Griffin has more than adequately rebutted Popular Mechanics theories elsewhere which is something Godshall has either ignored or is unaware of (as Griffin points out may be the case). So, this reinforces the idea that the board made their statement based on pressure from critics rather than their own convictions based on facts.

So, who are the critics and what are they saying that has pressured the board to single out Griffin's book for such unusual criticism?

From the article above, we learn "One of the book's critics, Alan Wisdom of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, welcomed the corporation board's statement saying "Let us hope that the (corporation) editors will learn a lesson and refrain from future dalliances with the loony left." This is clearly vehement, intense and very partisan pressure, with its references to the "loony left". If this is what Wisdom expresses in public, one can imagine the private comments made to Godshall. It is not hard to imagine organized and sustained pressure from this group. So, the fact that the board addressed this pressure is not that unusual especially as it may have been annoying or hard to avoid and making the statement is a way to make the noise stop!

There is also another line of criticism from Presbyterian church members who say "the corporation was undercutting the denomination's credibility by publishing conspiracy theories under its name and that of its long-respected imprint, Westminster John Knox." This is a more legitimate line of criticism, if it was made by earnest church members concerned with the Church's reputation and is something the board had to address. Fair enough, earnest people deserve a response - and they got one.

In the end though, the Presbyterian Publishing Corp "will continue selling the controversial book, "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11." In fact, the Presbyterian Publishing Corp board goes out of its way to note that Griffin is "a distinguished theologian" who has published a number of books with the corporation," and that they "are not recalling the book or renouncing it," but are "just expressing the point of view of whether it meets our publishing standards. I think we'll just let the book find its own way."

I don't know about you, but that tells me that the board may actually have found a way to have their cake and eat it too. They have acted to get the critics off their collective backs but to also allow an important book to have its day in the court of public opinion.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

FBI to release to Judicial Watch Doubletree Hotel video

The FBI has agreed to release to Judicial Watch a videotape obtained from the Doubletree Hotel near the Pentagon by November 9, 2006.

Note that the hotel where the employees of the hotel were watching the video in shock when the FBI came and confiscated it was not the Sheraton but the Doubletree.

Also, it is important to note that in most cases, the FBI didn't in fact show up instantly as often reported but showed up within an hour or more. However, they did confiscate the approximately 85 videos very quickly (faster than the US military responded to hijacked planes!) and most importantly have kept them secret, releasing only 3 useless videos to the public (including this Doubletree video).

Perhaps you can get some idea of what the Doubletree video may show by looking at this image which shows a view from the hotel's restaurant which comes from the hotel's website here.

However, it is very likely that the Doubletree video may not show Flight 77 actually hitting the Pentagon as indicated by the FBI agent's statement below. It is possible that the Doubletree video shows the plane in the tight corkscrew descent before it hit the Pentagon.

"September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.

September 26, 2005: Hodes files a request seeking "copies of 85 videotapes in the possession of the FBI described in the declaration of Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire dated September 7, 2005."


Tuesday, October 24, 2006

50 Patriots Questioning 9/11

50 Patriots Questioning 911 is a detailed list of over fifty high ranking Military, Intelligence, and Government officials critical of the official story of the 9/11 attacks, including relevant links and summaries of their individual comments. This amazing collation Senior Military, Intelligence, and Government Critics of 9/11 Commission Report is the work of Alan Miller.

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This web site is a collection of their public statements. It should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this web site.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Bush admin not telling 911 truth - Oct 8, 2006 poll

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Source: Angus Reid

I also quickly grabbed survey data from April 2004 NTY/CBS polling (Source: NYT) that included same questions to get the chart below. (Note I have added results from three separate survey periods in and about April 2004)

Clearly, the "hiding something": and "telling the truth" (as well as "not sure") people are becoming converted into "mostly lying" people.

Its a trend!

Thursday, August 31, 2006

X-Files “The Smoking Man” William B. Davis introduces Barrie Zwicker author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11

X-Files “The Smoking Man” William B. Davis introduces Barrie Zwicker author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11

Wednesday, August 30th, 2006; 7:30 to 9:30 pm - St. Andrew's Wesley United Church, Nelson at Burrard, Vancouver, BC. $5-20 Sliding Scale.

Presentation sponsored and organized by Necessary Voices Society is a non-profit society that aims to promote civil dialogue on essential issues of the day, encouraging responsible citizenry and democratic participation. Necessary Voices Society promotes this through several different mediums and outlets. Their description of the event, from their website is:
Barrie Zwicker was the first journalist in the world to deeply question the official story of 9/11 on national television. A write, TV producer and host, and political and environmental activist, he was Director of the International Citizens’ Inquiry into 9/11, Phase 2, at the University of Toronto in May 2004.

A dozen carefully-researched books have exposed the official story of 9/11 to be a terror fraud. Yet the mainstream media have monolithically failed to ask elementary questions about anomalies in this story. So-called alternative media have been little better. Towers of Deception explains why and prescribes actions to break out the truth.
When I arrived at 7:20 pm, after happily paying $10 entrance fee, the woman with a handheld clicker counter told me she was up to 550 in attendance and the church seemed bit more than half full. By the time the event began at 7:45 pm, I'd guess at least another 200 people had entered because the church pews were now filled to pretty much to the back of the church making total attendance about 700 people. Necessary Voices holds regular events and has its own following, but these normal serious looking people came to this particular event knowing full well the topic and presenter. The flyer I saw for this event was not sugar coated, so people came because they wanted to hear about official complicity in 911. Actually, Zwicker made a point of saying that 'complicity' was too lite a term and that conspiracy in planning and actively making 911 happen is more appropriate description.

Before Zwicker was introduced, an organizer of Vancouver's first 911 Truth group invited people to join her group, which has already held 4 meetings. Unfortunately, I don't have her name but if you contact Necessary Voices, I sure they can hook you up (I will be doing that later myself).

Amazingly, and wonderfully appropriately, Zwicker was introduced by none other than William B. Davis, theX-Files “The Smoking Man”, who said that he found himself "surprised" to be presenting Zwicker. Davis was relaxed and engaging and said he was going to listen with interest to what Zwicker had to say.

Zwicker interspersed his talk with audio clips from his DVD The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw” and excerpts from his book, "Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9-11" which were read by a charming woman from Vancouver. The presentation followed the sequence of chapters in Towers of Deception as follows:

CHAPTER 1:Your Sunday Puzzle — Three Amazing Secrets About 9/11
CHAPTER 2: 9/11 is a Number — Here are the Facts: Evidence Proves White House complicity.
CHAPTER 3: 9/11 Truth is Hidden in Plain Sight: 2001 Tricks for Avoiding the Obvious.
CHAPTER 4: While Sleeping Watchdogs Lie, Other Watchdogs Are Lied To
CHAPTER 5: The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left
CHAPTER 6: Invisible Government: Manipulator of Events and the Media Gatekeepers.
CHAPTER 7: Gunpowder, Treason and Plot:
CHAPTER 8: Dr. David Ray Griffin: Modern Day Prophet
CHAPTER 9: You and the Media: Ways Forward

A very interesting part of Zwicker's talk concerned Noam Chomsky. Zwicker devotes an entire chapter to 'left gatekeepers' blocking 911 truth including talking about Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, and others. While Zwicker was very careful to lay out his past positive perceptions of Chomsky, he clearly and carefully laid out what can mildly be called his disappointment with Chomsky's lack of interest in 911. In fact, Zwicker is very harsh in his criticism of Chomsky and is pretty much calling him a secret government disinfo agent. At one point an audience member said Barrie you are going too far, to which Zwicker responded by saying "wait until you hear the final paragraph (on Chomsky) in this chapter" (which was blistering). Essentially, Zwicker describes Chomsky as a plant in the left movement but only to get their respect so he is able to steer the left away from criticizing when it might negatively impact this secret government.

I agree with Zwicker’s assessment insofar as Chomsky's utter lack of criticism of the official 911 story, which is riddled with holes, the exact kind of holes that Chomsky became famous for investigating. I remember seeing Chomsky speak live in Toronto in 1987 for the first time and thinking to myself that Chomsky was saying things that seemed outlandish. What was this business of kiling squads in Latin America and CIA supported coups, etc. However, time has proven Chomsky to be right on so very many aspects of the US governments dark side. So, why is Chomsky shying off of 911 and even counseling others not to “waste their time” investigating this “black hole”? It just doesn’t add up. I suspect that Chomsky has been bought off or perhaps even blackmailed. Then again, it could even be as simple and venal as Chomsky wanting to preserve his legacy and not go down in history as a 911 conspiracy theorist. Whatever the reason(s), Chomsky's, and other "left gatekeepers", silence on the issue of 911 truth is glaring, and given their standing and positions, utterly incomprehensible and even immoral.

As far as Zwicker’s assertions that Chomsky is an agent of a secret government, one must acknowledge that society's power structure includes unseen elements. No need to get paranoid but it is clear to any reasonable person that networks, lobby groups and special interests hold sway in wink and nod acknowledgments that are simultaneously disavowed officially. An analogy is similar to that in astrophysics and cosmology where the presence of some dark matter or energy is surmised because of its observed effects, or rather something is needed to explain observations. The pervasive dissonance in the official 911 story are observations that need an explanation and unseen power structures official or otherwise are need to explain how it could have been pulled off. Zwicker described a huge artpiece which was essentially a massive network diagram of the people around Bush family and said that this provides clues about who is part of this secret government.

The Smoking Man, William B Davis, came back up on the stage after the talk to read audience questions, but first asked two questions of his own. Even though he had agreed to introduce Barrie Zwicker, Davis needed more information to doubt the official story. His first question for Zwicker was related to the role Zwicker gives the hijackers. Davis asked if Zwicker was saying that the hijackers were ordered to undertake the hijackings by US agents or were they used as dupes and patsies? Zwicker responded that if there were hijackers on the planes, they were at a minimum dupes and patsies, but that there is very little evidence to put the hijackers on the planes, such as the fact that they weren’t on any passenger manifests.

The Smoking Man's second question concerned his doubts that even though Americans had committed past false flag events that he had difficulty believing Americans could do so in a way that would kill 3000 of their own citizens. Zwicker answered his question by going into some detail about the allegations of FDR's allowing, perhaps provoking, the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour.

The Smoking Man could only read two additional questions from those collected, as time was running short, one which asked what role peak oil played as a motivation for 911 to be done by official complicity and the second which asked how Zwicker was treated by mainstream media. In reply to the first question, Zwicker noted that the current administration could be called an “oil-gopoly”. For the second, he noted that he found that his relationship with mainstream media hadn’t changed and that he wasn’t actively shunned and that his Vision TV show Mediafile’s popularity gave him some industry standing.

Zwicker also noted that he had been interviewed that same day (August 30, 2006) for the first time by any mainstream media source on Vancouver’s Bill Good Show

Other links related to Barrie Zwicker’s Vancouver presentation:

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Official whitewash attempt: 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

Here comes an audacious new attempt at 9/11 damage control ...

Why is this just now coming out? Up until now, the 9/11 Commission has been standing by all statements made in their report. Now they are saying they were hiding this huge pile of lies from the Pentagon?

Could this timing be due to Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, James Fetzer and others getting too much air-time including on C-SPAN which broadcast the recent Los Angeles 9/11 panel discussion three separate times?

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the
truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

David Ray Griffin's new book: Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action

David Ray Griffin's new book called Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action was published in July 2006.

Reviews of the book can be found here.

Sunday, July 30, 2006

C-SPAN broadcast the LA American Scholars Conference Panel Discussion

On 29 July 2006, C-SPAN broadcast video of the LA American Scholars Conference Panel Discussion, with Alex Jones, Bob Bowman, Steve Jones, Webster Tarpley, and James H. Fetzer. It was shown first at 8-9:50 PM/EDT (Watch : C-SPAN, 1,2,3) and rebroadcast from 11 PM-12:50 AM/EDT. The video broadcast on C-SPAN was described on the C-SPAN website as follows:
Panelists discussed theories on alleged conspiracies regarding the origins of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Mr. Tarpley is the author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, published by Progressive Press.

The two-day event, “American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and The Neo-Con Agenda,” was held in the ballroom of the Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown.

The panelists are members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, "a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11. "

While I have not yet located an online copy of the video broadcast on CSPAN, another video of the LA American Scholars Conference Panel Discussion from Alex Jone's website is on Google Video.

This is news. The many serious questions about the official story are not going away and are spreading to a wider audience, as indicated by this broadcast on C-SPAN, as well as the many recent media appearances of Kevin Barrett, James Fetzer and others.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

UW Lecturer Kevin Barrett

UW-Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett, who has come under fire recently for his views on 9/11, was interviewed by Neil Heinen on News 3 Wisconsin's show called "For the Record" Friday, July 21st, 2006. Kevin Barrett has a one-semester appointment as an associate lecturer and received his Ph.D. from UW-Madison in 2004 in African languages and literature and folklore.

Heinen asked fair and balanced questions of Kevin Barrett first by asking Barrett to provide viewers with his controversial views on 911, as well as how his 911 views will influence the course that Barrett will teach at UW-Madison. Mr. Barrett choose to articulately and clearly give an overview of how he came to hold the opinion that the "official" story is not true and that the real story is much different. Barrett describes a key turning point for his views which was a debate which appeared on Al-Jazeera between Thierry Messan and a Pentagon official about the Pentagon attack in which Messan "mops the floor with the" Pentagon official. Barrett clarified that only 5% of his course content will involve his 911 views saying that people taking his class, thinking it will be more, will be disappointed. Barrett also describes himself as a lapsed Unitarian but considers himself a Muslim.

Barrett described how he began to see gaps in the official story, and how hearing that Dr. David Ray Griffin, someone he calls " a man of uncommon common sense", was also about to release his book "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9-11", decided to investigate this more fully himself. He points out that governments need to be questioned because the people in it are not necessarily good people.

Like Griffin, Kevin Barrett relies on the evidence which has lead him to believe unequivically the "official" story regarding 911 is false. Barrett is also confident that the truth about 911 will out because of the overwhelming evidence contrary to the "official" story.

The interview can be found here:

Read UW-Madison press release regarding UW-Madison's affirmation of Kevin Barrett's employment as lecturer:

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Was September 11th an inside job? July 1, 2006 Norwegian Le Monde Diplomatique

Le Monde diplomatique asks "Was 9/11 an inside job?" in its Norway edition, also read in Sweden and Denmark. An English version will apparently be released by Le Monde, but in the meantime, an unofficial, draft English translation of a part of the article can be found here:

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation


- urges 2006 reform candidates to recognize a powerful new constituency.
(Utica, NY) - Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.

*Numerical computations conservatively based on 2000 Census data citing 174 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 64. NOTE: Given US Census Bureau data projecting 184 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2005, the actual number of Americans who distrust the official 9/11 story is, then, over 80 million.

The most interesting finding of this poll is that 43% of respondents were not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse! That is amazing. That means that these people probably don't know about a lot of arcane events about 911 that are critical to understanding why it must be investigated again.

It is possible that if those people WERE aware of WTC 7's collapse, then they might also find it suspicious enough that it should have been investigated because of the people who were aware of the WTC 7 collapse, 38% thought the Commission should have investigated it.

So, next time someone says you are in a minority for doubting the official 911 story, you can point to these poll numbers. These are astounding findings.

Friday, May 19, 2006

Judicial Watch gets video from Pentagon on Flight 77?

Pentagon releases Flight 77 videos from 9/11Video Catches Moment Plane Crashes Into Pentagon on 9/11

The video which Judicial Watch has pried out of the Pentagon does not show a jet crashing into the Pentagon. It mostly shows a placid scene of nothing, the few minutes before the explosion and subsequent fireball and smoke appear. We see a car and a minivan go by the gate. Then at the end of clip we see a whitish blurry thing, purported to be the nose of flight 77, a 757, poke into the frame from the right. Then, the building erupts in flames and then smoke.

The little white blurry thing doesn't complete its journey across the frame, but leaps, quantum like, unseen, across the frame and supposedly impacts the building. We don't see the rest of the jet in the video.

If the whitish blurry thing is the nose, then it would be about 1/10th the length of the entire jet and to boot, it shouldn't be white, it should be silvery, blue and red as American Airlines jets are coloured.

Ok, maybe the jet is moving so fast that the camera can't have captured it on video. That is entirely plausible. But, there are reports of up to 80 known videos of flight 77's crash into the building. Is this the best of them? Why not release all of the others so we can put this issue to rest once and for all.

Smells like a ruse to me. It seems like the old trick of telling the mark (the reader in this case) what they are about to see and then showing them something; the gullible mark will then believe they see what they have been told to see.

See the video for yourself and ask questions:

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Shareholder Proposal: Insurer to Investigate 9/11

A proposal by a small shareholder to withhold approval from the Board of Directors for failure to investigate signs of insurance fraud on 9/11 has been published on the website of the Allianz Group, one of the world’s largest insurers, in preparation for its May 4th annual meeting.

(PRWEB) May 2, 2005 -- Allianz Group published a shareholder proposal on April 20th faulting management for ignoring signs of insurance fraud on /11/2001. Allianz carried a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, and stands to pay a corresponding portion of the $3.5 billion payout currently being litigated in New York. In his proposal, shareholder John Leonard, a California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition, and for no plausible reason related to the 9/11 attacks. Management replied that it relied on official US government reports which made no mention of such evidence.

The Allianz Group is incorporated in Germany and has approximately 570,000 shareholders. Under German Stock Companies law, publicly held companies are
required to publish shareholder proposals that meet certain criteria.

It is interesting that usually sceptical and thorough insurance companies are not waiting for this investigation to be complete before paying out on this enormous claim. The government reports which the insurance companies are relying upon are the many volumes of the "NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower" which was published in September 2005. However, a final report for WTC7 has not yet been done. The NIST website page for the NCSTAR 1 report indicates that the final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report (that webpage was last updated 4/26/2006).

Apparently, the investigation of the WTC7 collapse was not performed along with the WTC 1 and 2 investigations because of staffing (and funding) shortfalls. Understandable that NIST would have resourcing challenges, as they do a lot of other work besides these WTC collapse investigations. However, as with the 911 Commission (of omissions and distortions), clearly the lack of funding is a political decision, as the US has lots of money for bridges to nowhere in Alaska and throw around Afghanistan and Iraq.

Shyam Sunder, Lead Technical Investigator of National Construction Safety Team for WTC Investigation, has admitted many times publically that the cause of collapse of WTC7 is proving to be difficult to determine (without considering demolition).

Journalist Janelle Nanos describes her meeting with Shyam Sunder in her article in New York magazine "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll" which is discussed in a previous post .

I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?

This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.

NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”

Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

Nanos also describes her own intimate, and life threatening, experience with the collapse of WTC7,

Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. Covered with dust, he was drinking a bottle of Poland Spring water. Half his squad was missing. They’d gone into the South Tower and never come out. Then, almost as a
non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away.

"That building is coming down," he said with a drained casualness.

"Really?" I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. "When?"

"Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning."

This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.


I screamed, unsure which way to run, because who knows which way these things fall. As it turned out, I wasn’t in any danger, since 7 WTC appeared to drop straight down. I still have dreams about the moment. Even then, the event is oddly undramatic, just a building falling.

There are many more such incidences of foreknowledge of the towers' collapses. Lets hope that Janelle Nanos told her WTC7 story to Shyam Sunder. Lets hope that those insurance companies listen to accounts such as Janelle Nanos', because they clearly indicate that further investigation into WTC7 is required before someone should be paid out.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic’s View By Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor The Crisis Papers

Ernest Partridge, I've just discovered, is Co-Editor of The Crisis Papers which is a bloglike website. I've come across it now and again. It seems to be a "liberal" (as they say in the US) website and apparently, Ernest Partridge is no friend of Republicans or the Bush administration.

So, with that introduction, we can introduce Ernest Partridge's essay "The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic’s View" which is getting some good play across the blogosphere in which he questions both "conspiracy theories" (CTs) and the "official version" (OV) about 911. He appropriately begins his essay with "This essay is certain to make many readers very angry with me. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do." But, frankly, I fail to see why he had to do what he did.

The issue is not that a liberal blogger would question the plausibility of 911 CTs. The issue is that Partridge has done what any white-washing, covering-up, head-in-the-sand partisan has done, which is to conflate nearly everyone who is a contrarian to the OV into the same no-evidence-providing, nothing-better-to-do-with-their-lives basement-dwelleing conspiracty category.

A closer look at the conspiracy theories (CTs) indicates that these too can not be true. Too many improbable assumptions.

Whether Partridge has done this purposefully or appears to do this simply because he wrote the essay fast and posted it hastily, or is confused about what is being claimed, is uncertain but the problem for Partridge is that he ends up the article by claiming he has his own questions and doubts about the OV and that he wants to see further investigation.

The governments, New York City and State, and the Feds still have a lot of splainin’ to do.

What happened on 9/11? Who is responsible? The questions remain open even as they remain urgent. The American people deserve answers, and more immediately, competent and sustained investigation leading to these answers.

So, he appears to be conflicted, dismissing anyone else's questions except his own! I can sypathsize with the guy because after all, who wants to be grouped in with a bunch of conspiracy theorists right?

But Mr. Partridge why do you care about other CTs if you have your own doubts? Shouldn't your own doubts be enough to motivate you to act? There is no "ya gotta do what ya gotta do" about denigrating other people's questions. The only thing you gotta do, Mr. Partridge, if you genuinely have doubts about the OV, is to add your voice to the millions of others expressing their own doubts about the OV.

The sad and simple truth is that evidence or unassailable arguments are not available to the public for a very good reason. Evidence has been sequestered away for "national security reasons" (or no reason at all, its just not available), and the people who know the most about what happened have been ordered or intimidated into not talking about it (eg, Sibel Edmonds). The best official investigations to-date, the Senate and Congressional 911 investigations, the 911 Commission (of Omissions and Distortions), and associated NIST studies avoid addressing critical issues altogether (no clear answer on WTC 7) makes these efforts appear to be cover-ups and white wash jobs . Official intransigence is plainly evident by considering the US Department of State website that apparently represents the best the US government is can to do to refute CTs. Why can't the US government bring an overwhelming case to answer all open questions? In the absence of this, you can't fault anyone for coming up with all sorts of implausible angles on what happened. That this is happening is clearly due to the dearth of information and the widely held feelings that the OV is not the full story.

Also, there is the consideration that, as many informed observers suspect, there are active and ongoing disinformation campaigns to discredit 911 CTs which may be resulting in nutbags coming up with wacky theories designed to make the good ones look bad. This is not paranoia. The US Dept of State website is one very obvious way that the Bush administration is implementing their stated goal to use proganda to advance their objectives and fend off critics. The US Dept of Defense has also stated their goals and intentions to shift the definition of warefare into the information front. Never mind the many, many other sources of soft sell from a variety of individuals and organizations with vested interests in supporting the OV.

But, in the end, it doesn't really matter what CTs people invent, or what suspicions of disinformation exist, because what most people are asking for, as you have, is for a wide ranging and detailed investigation to sort out the details, determine who is culpable for the murder, fraud and deceipt. Let the investigation sort the chafe from the grain. When all evidence is publically available, and all types of qualified experts are freely allowed to investigate and report publically the bad theories will fade away and can more reasonably be denigrated as CTs.

In the meantime, Mr. Partridge, if you have your own doubts about the OV please just put voice to them. Your integrity is not injured by the existence of other CTs. You don't have to question CTs which don't synch with your doubts because the investigation will do it for you. If your doubts are genuine, and they appear to be genuine, then all you gotta do is stand on the rooftops and yell and scream and demand a proper investigation. I don't think anyone, except of course, the perpetrators of the murder, fraud and deceipt will be angry with you then.

A post-post note: Victoria Ashley and Jim Hoffman of have created another rebuttal to Ernest Partridge's sceptical essay, which is very respectful in tone but thorough and detailed about pointing out the things that Partridge overlooked, or glossed over.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Take HEED! Pay attention to this project.

Keep your eyes on this project. It will be interesting to see what survivors of the WTC collapses have to say. Take note that this initiative is a British, not American.

HEED is a three year project fully funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the equivalent of the US National Science Foundation, with a budget of £UK1.6 million ($US2.9 million). The project is a collaboration between three UK universities, the Universities of Greenwich, Ulster and Liverpool and brings together the UK’s leading experts in Fire Safety Engineering and evacuation behaviour.

The main objectives of the project include: collect and collate the human actions and experience in the WTC disaster and structure this into a database that will provide an interactive research environment.

The data collection will focus on the two towers. As part of this project it is anticipated that some 2000 survivors from the WTC collapse will be interviewed.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Dustin Mugford's "9/11 Revisited" - a must see!

The video "9/11 Revisited - were explosives used to bring down the buildings?" is amazing.

This is a must see video. It is free online or you can have a DVD mailed to you for nominal cost (I paid $10 US and received it within 2 weeks here in Canada).

  • The video contains lots of clips of the buildings' collapses that I've never seen before, many of which clearly and astoundingly demonstrate the fact that the buildings are being exploded as they fall.
  • What is more astounding are the many references by news reporters on the scene referring to mulitple explosions that they see, hear and feel. Firemen tell of being knocked over by explosions.
Here is the link to the website:

(The site has links to other sites where you can watch online or download video.)

Saturday, April 08, 2006

New York magazine article - The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll

This 7,000 word article covers a lot of ground and touches on most of the aspects of 911 that need further investigation. It asks questions.

But it is a big article and my bet is that most people won't be able to read the entire thing without drifting off. While it is heartening to see that at least the issues are being covered, it must be pointed out that this is primarily an investigation of the people who are "conspiracy theorists" more than of the "conspiracy" itself. For example, the article finishes up with a faux comic categorization of the theories which has the effect of minimizing the information presented earlier. This is a shame. It is almost as if the author felt a need to do this consciously or not so as not to leave themselves vulnerable to be called a believer in the subject of their investigation.

The author, Mark Jacobson, has his own incredible story about 911, which makes the flippant, and nearly derisive tone of his article difficult to understand. If he doesn't get the fact that someone's action to take down WTC 7 could have cost his life if he had been closer to the building when it fell or some part of the building hit him. But he wrote the story, so needless to say it is on his mind.

Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. Covered with dust, he was drinking a bottle of Poland Spring water. Half his squad was missing. They’d gone into the South Tower and never come out. Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away.

"That building is coming down," he said with a drained casualness.

"Really?" I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. "When?"

"Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning."

This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.


I screamed, unsure which way to run, because who knows which way these things
fall. As it turned out, I wasn’t in any danger, since 7 WTC appeared to drop
straight down. I still have dreams about the moment. Even then, the event is
oddly undramatic, just a building falling.

Elsewhere in his article, Jacobson writes,
Yet it is difficult to deny the allure of this movement. The conspiracist has
always relied on a degree of magical thinking. As Marshall McLuhan would swear
if he weren’t dead, there has never been a more conspiracy-ready medium than the
Net. It is an exhilarating serendipity that every surfer has felt: the glorious
synchronicity in the way one link handshakes the next, the sensation of not
knowing how you got there but being sure this is the right place. Such
miraculous methodology cannot simply be random. For the moment, it feels like

Feels like truth? Sounds like denial to me ...

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Dr. David Ray Griffin article in San Francisco Chronicle

Dr. Griffin provides the most palatable arguments about why the "official" story on 911 should be doubted and independent investigation should be conducted. He is a reasonable, rational person who exudes the the best Christian characteristics of humility, service to his community, and honesty. I am gratified that he is receiving greater and greater coverage by all forms of media including the San Franciso Chronicle who published their interviewed with him on their website. Here it is:

OUT LOUD AN INSIDE JOB? David Ray Griffin: Theologian scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories, then looked closer

Reyhan Harmanci, San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, March 30, 2006

"When David Ray Griffin, noted theologian and professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, first heard someone say that Sept. 11 was an inside job, he scoffed.

"I can remember my exact words. ... I said, 'I don't think that even the Bush administration could perpetrate such a thing,' " said Griffin, who has since written two books, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,'' which dispute the official version of events. Specifically, Griffin believes that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks. "

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

US Dept of State addresses 911 Conspiracy Theories

I only recently learned about a US Dept of State website that "identifies misinformation" and tells of "confused stories", one of them being "September 11 Conspiracy Theories". The webpage opens with this paragraph:

"Conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Many of the most popular myths are addressed on this Web site, in a March 2005 article “9/11: Debunking the Myths” in Popular Mechanics magazine, and in The 9/11 Commission Report."

Unbelievably, the US State Dept has relied on only two sources of information for the very important task of attempting to clarify "confused stories" about 911 - a Popular Science article and the 9/11 Commission Report.


You'd think the US government would have much more conclusive information to present to the public that would be able to dispell this "confusion" without doubt. The two sources they refer to though, are hardly conclusive, independent and are themselves the subject of many legitimate questions.

First, the March 2005 Popular Science article. The Hearst Corporation owned Popular Science magazine hired as "senior researcher" for the article, a 25-year-old named Benjamin Chertoff. Who is Benjamin Chertoff? American Free Press found "he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security." Ok, big deal, he is related to a key member of Bush's cabinet. Just a bit of nepotism. It got him a job, that is all. So, even granting that this kid joined the team with no agenda other than to research and write a story as he honestly thought best, he is still a 25 year old kid. He has no special credentials to investigate the 911 "confusion" especially as a "senior researcher". Put this young cousin of Michael Chertoff next to Steven Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University and co-founder of Scholars for 911 Truth and ask them both to discuss their research findings, and I am pretty sure that young Mr. Chertoff would be struggling to defend his "research" findings.

Aside from the questions of nepotism and clearly compromised impartiality (because Michael Chertoff has many questions of his own to answer to clear up any 911 "confusion") Popular Mechanics is the magazine of flying cars and cities of the future. Popular Mechanics has lots of far out articles about the exiting science of tommorrow such as military robots and fantastic new materials. This is not a publication to take seriously on whether or not cars will fly or a robot to clean your house, let alone something as significant as the many and complex events of 911. In any event, the arguments put forth by Popular Mechanics are selective and focus on "strawman" type issues that are amenable to being used to discredit all other issues raised. Two sources provide anlaysis on the Popular Mechanics article:

this reply to Popular Mechanics on

this essay on

Also, there are plausible claims of Popular Mechanics ties to the CIA. Even if these aren't true, it surely can't help the US Dept of State's argument. Why not use another source of information which nobody can doubt, for whatever reason?

Ok, on to the second source of information used by the US Dept of State to clear up 911 "confusion": The 911 Commission Report. This document is so riven with omissions and distortions and the conflicts of interest of nearly all the people on the 911 commission itself, including the low-ball budget, the reluctance for the Bush administration to even allow the investigation to actually happen, make this source of information dubious. Surely the US Dept of State can do better. Though we are reminded of Colin Powell holding up vials of anthrax and warning of mobile biochem labs in Iraq. Not a very credible lineage of evidentiary presentation. But, I'll let Dr. David Ray Griffin's analysis of that 911 Commission report tell you why the document does nothing to clear up 911 "confusion" but only adds much more confusion.

For the US Dept of State to use only these two sources to counter "confused stories" and "911 Conspiracy Theories" is either supremely audacious or unbelievably stupid. Why have they not come out with reams of evidence, photographs, videos, statements, investigative work, DNA analysis of victims, that could be independently investigated? If they have nothing to hide, why not bring it all out? It is not that victims families would be distressed: I am sure that they would be happy to put this issue to rest once and for all. It is not that state secrets would be revealed: the deed is done and there are questions to be answered. The only explanation for the US State Dept using only these two feeble and questionable sources is clearly reason to believe that this US State Dept webpage is just part of a continuing and pervasive efforts at cover-up.

I would really like to see them prove all the "911 Conspiracy Theories" wrong. I really would. But there is nothing on the US Dept of State webpage that could make me believe that the "official" story much less prove the "911 Conspiracy Theories" are wrong. The sad and horrible truth is that there is much more to be told about 911.

Where are the good guys in the US government? What are you waiting for?

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Dr. David Ray Griffin interviewed on a Pacifica investigative news radio show

Thursday March 30, 2006 on Flashpoints, a Pacifica investigative news radio show. Weekdays at 5 PM Pacific Time at 94.1 Berkeley, California USA

"Author, scholar and 9-11 investigator David Ray Griffin tears the lid off the official story of the attack on the Twin Towers"

The interviewer is a doubtful yet polite and thoughtful questioner. Dr. Griffin gets lots of time to present his arugments. IMHO, the interviewer is like many of us; he finds it hard to get past the "official" involvement part in terms of the sheer audacity of the attack, the cover-up, the involvement of untold numbers of people to make it all happen.

Again, the solution for these people is to simply dismiss these questions, and just focus on the facts and evidence available, and if it doesn't add up, then call it like it is, and let the cards fall where they may. What can be wrong with investigating 9/11 more fully, and more independently? How can that be wrong? Like the Bush administration says about using surveillance tactics that may inadvertently spy on ordinary, innocent Americans "if you got nothing to hide, then what is the problem?" Exactly!

What have they got to hide? Nothing? Ok, then why don't they release all the evidence, and allow an independent investigation, if for no other reason, to finally dispell all the "myth and rumour" that is in this blog?

Dr. David Ray Griffin Speaks to Sold-out Audience About Myths and Reality of 9/11

"On March 31, 2006, almost a hundred people eager to hear David Ray Griffin speak about the myths and reality of the terrible events of September 11, 2001 had to be turned away from the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, California early yesterday evening because his lecture was completely sold-out."

If you have read either of Dr. Griffin's books on 9/11 (they are listed in the top of this page), you know the subject of Dr. Griffin's talk. Although, if you have heard him or read in recent interviews with Dr. Griffin, he has continued to accumulate more information that increasingly makes the word "doubt" look pretty weak, and the word certainty more appropriate in terms of the "official" story being the correct and full story. The story goes something like this:

Three buildings collapsed, each with characteristics of controlled demolitions. The Bush administration has pretty much sealed off most evidence that would verify their version of what really happened. Clearly, the comlete and correct story is yet to be told, although Dr. Griffin, and many others, are giving us a pretty good preview of what that story will be. We need a real, independent investigation of the entire complex sequence of events and people involved in 9/11 to learn the fullest account of what happened to bring about 9/11.

The bottom line is this: do you want to live in a world where a handful of people can literally get away with mass murder, ill-conceived and immoral wars, the theft of billions, if not 100's of billions of dollars from the US public, lies and extortion? Or do you want to live in a world where justice and equal treatment under the law prevails? If you have the slightest doubt that you haven't been told the truth about 9/11, then you should be making waves. You have to. You must. Forget about presidential authority and dignity. Forget about the fact that you believe and trust in those you elect and place in positions of authority. Those things do not apply here. The people you are placing your faith and trust in, are lying to you. They have robbed you. They have murdered people to get whatever it is they want. They are getting away with it.

Unless YOU do something about it.

Read more about Dr. Griffin's address on March 31, 2006. You can also download an mp3 audio recording of the talk:

More information about Griffin's upcoming appearances:

Sunday, April 2, 12:30-3:30 pm • 1187 Franklin, SF • Democratic World Federalists Luncheon

Monday, April 3 at noon • Commonwealth Club of CA in SF,

And here are links to audio of Griffin's address at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland:

Source: 2006/ 03/ dr-david-ray-griffin-at-grand-lake.html

MP3 download link: '9/11 - The Myth & The Reality' (2 hours - 27MB MP3): audio/20060330_ David_Ray_Griffin_32k.mp3

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Lookin' for the 911 Truth - 9/11 Cover-up is National News

TPM cafe has a very cogent and useful article that does another great job of defining high profile 9/11 sceptics - ie those who don't believe the 'official story'.

It starts off with a bit about Charlie Sheen's public statements about not believing the 'official story' and then zings smoothly into the 'types' of other public doubters of the 'official story' :

Charlie thinks 9/11 was an inside job!

Maybe you don't care what he thinks, he's just an actor. Perhaps you want the opinion of an expert like Steven E Jones, professor of Physics at BYU.

Maybe he's too theoretical for you. You want someone from the applied sciences. May I suggest Clemson engineering professor Judy Wood.

Maybe you don't care for 'eggheads'. You want to hear from a true patriot, a military man, like former head of Star Wars and air force colonel, Bob Bowman.

Maybe military types scare you. How about a lady of letters like poet Erica Jong

Maybe you're not into poetry. Prose is more your style. How about Webster Tarpley author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror made in USA?

Maybe you don't trust actors, authors or poets. You want to hear from a man of God. How about David Ray Griffin theologian, professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology?

What could a theologian know about national security? You want to hear from an insider to the covert world. How about CIA analyst Ray McGovern, an expert on National Security who's career spanned JFK to GHW Bush?

Maybe you've had enough of Washington bureaucrats. What about an elected official like former U.S. congressman Dan Hamburg?

Maybe he's too far left for you. You want to hear from a Republican. How about Paul Craig Roberts assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan?

OK, he's a Republican, but that was back in the Reagan days. Maybe you need to hear from someone in GW's administration. How about Morgan Reynolds professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and chief economist for the US Department of Labor during Bush's first term?

Maybe you don't want to listen to any of these individuals, but the fact is, a lot of Americans agree with them. Like the 83% of over 50,000 CNN Showbiz Tonight online poll respondents who think the government is covering up the truth of 9/11.

Maybe you don't care what the American people think?

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Charlie Sheen joined a growing army calling for a new independent investigation of 9/11

Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it. article.php?story=20060323162638376

Say what you want about actors and their credibility and right to speak out on public issues but making a oublic statement is not something most people will do lightly. Consider seriously whether or not you would even mention your doubts about the official story to office colleagues or family members for fear that they may think you crazy or bizarre.

That is why a public statement from any person with a high public profile should be considered seriously. But should asking for an independent investigation of 9/11 really entail the risk of derision? I mean, why not investigate it thoroughly and independently, if even just to 'prove the official story is right' .. Sheen_interview_on_911_garners_media_0323.html news/magazine/daily/14182003.htm index.php?context=viewArticle&code= JON20060322&articleId=2153

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Good brief summary of better 9/11 skeptics

I found this nice summary of some of the better 9/11 skeptics. Read each of the their statements and then ask yourself: does what they say sound plausible? Don't try to understand how it was done in terms of detail or try to imagine why someone would have let such a thing happen. If you are honest with yourself, you will agree with me that it is possible that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. You will agree that it fits the evidence much better than the 'official' story, which is that fire was the primary reason the buildings to fall. After you have your eyes opened to this new reality, you are free to conjecture on how exactly it was done, by whom and for what reasons. But we really need to have an investigation in order to know all that with any certainty.

Lookin' for the 911 Truth - Conservatives for 9/11 Truth by 911wasInsideJob bio

Most people, when they encounter 9/11 skeptics for the first time, assume that most members of the 911 truth movement would be drawn from the left of center politically. In fact, most of the strongest and most respected voices speaking about 911 truth are conservatives-- old-school republicans who speak out of a profound respect for the truth, the constitution and the rule of law. For example:

Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts was the assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan where he developed the theory of economics that came to be called "Reaganomics.". Dr. Roberts is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review.

Here is what Paul Craig Robert has to say about 9/11:

"I haven't looked at it very close, but I did go to Georgia Tech and I did learn some physics and I know enough physics to know that it is strictly impossible for those buildings to collapse in their own footprint, at free-fall speed except under controlled demolition. Those buildings did not come down the way the 9-11 report says. It is strictly impossible, in fact, it's a total, the account in the 911 report is a total contradiction to the laws of physics".

Listen to the entire interview at ElectricPolitics .com (here)

David Ray Griffin
David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, where he taught for over 30 years (retiring in 2004). He has authored or edited over two dozen books, including "God and Religion in the Postmodern World," "Religion and Scientific Naturalism," recently he has written several papers and two books about 9/11; "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11." And "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"

Here is what David Ray Griffin has to say about 9/11:

"It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by forces within our own government". (read his paper)

Ray McGovern
Ray McGovern had a 27-year career with the CIA as an analyst, spanning the administrations of JFK to GHW Bush. His duties included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President's Daily Brief (PDB). During the mid-eighties, Ray was one of the senior analysts conducting early morning briefings of the PDB one-on-one with the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

Here is what Ray McGovern has to say about 9/11:

"There are real doubts in my mind whether they [Cheney and Rumsfield] clue the president in on some very serious things, 9/11 for example… a lot of bizarre stuff going on there… very troubling. What can be more telling than the fact that the president was unwilling to see the commissioners alone, he had to have Cheney with him… that's not symbiosis, that's making sure we've got our stories straight."

Listen to the entire interview at ElectricPolitics .com (here)

Morgan Reynolds
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during George W. Bush's first term.

Here is what Morgan Reynolds has to say about 9/11:

"There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse…, if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.
If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up." (read his paper)

Prof. Steven E. Jones
Steven E. Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Jones has also investigated the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7, which all collapsed nearly symmetrically on September 11, 2001, were brought down by pre-positioned explosives. Professor Jones describes himself as a life-long Republican who voted for President Bush in 2000.

Here is what Professor Jones has to say about 9/11:

"I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the "final" reports funded by the US government. I have also presented multiple evidences for an alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7, and the sulfidation of structural steel. The controlled- demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as "junk science" because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony. It ought to be seriously (scientifically) investigated and debated". (read his paper)

For more information go to

Monday, March 13, 2006

Scholars Question Cheney's Role in 9/11

The "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" have been criticized because they are not all experts in the domain of engineering or chemistry and not qualified to make judgements about whether or not the WTC 1,2 and 7 buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition. But they include in their numbers some very serious people who have established, impeccable academic and technical backgrounds.

It is interesting that critics do not point out the fact that Scholars for 9/11 Truth are simply asking for qualified experts to investigate and release findings to the public - something which has not yet been done. If there is nothing to hide, then why has the US government and military classified 1,000's of photographs, videos as well as testimony, physical evidence relating to the WTC collapses, flight 93 and the plane crash into the Pentagon?

Let us see and we can all decide whether or not the 'official' story is complete.

Scholars Question Cheney's Role in 9/11

Scholars Repudiate Official Version of 9/11 27 January 2006 press release follows:

Experts conclude Vice President possessed foreknowledge and suggest Moussaoui trial a "distraction".

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) March 13, 2006 -- A society of experts and scholars contends that the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui -- for willfully concealing advance knowledge of the events of 9/11 -- has the status of a Soviet-style "show trial" and functions as a diversion from the real culprits. The nonpartisan group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, asserts that the evidence implicating Vice President Dick Cheney of that very offense is more obvious and compelling. If they are even remotely correct, then the alleged terrorists appear to have been cast in the role of "patsies."

The experts base their conclusion on testimony presented to the 9/11 Commission by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta on May 23, 2003, which was omitted from its final report, and on related events at the Pentagon. Members of the society will present their findings during a press conference to be held at 1 PM on Tuesday at the United States Courthouse in Alexandria, VA, the location of a trial to determine whether Moussaoui, who is called "the 20th hijacker", should serve a life term or receive the death sentence.

"Mineta's testimony is devastating," observed James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota. Fetzer is the founder and co-chair of the scholars' society, which recently joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of documents, films and videos, and physical evidence withheld from the public by the administration. "It pulls the plug on the Commission's contention there was no advance warning that the Pentagon was going to be hit."
According to Secretary Mineta's testimony, which is in the public domain, when he (Mineta) arrived at an underground bunker at the White House (known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center), the Vice President was in charge. "During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon", he stated, "there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'The plane is 50 miles out.' 'The plane is 30 miles out.'

"And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,'" Mineta continued, "the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'" One way to construe these remarks could be that the orders were to shoot down the plane.

The scholars suggest that that is an implausible interpretation. The Pentagon, they observe, may be the most heavily defended building in the world. If the orders had been to "shoot it down," then no doubt it would have been shot down. Moreover, there would have been no apparent reason for the young man to have expressed concern over whether or not "the orders still stand." Shooting it down, under the circumstances, would have been the thing to do.
"The only reasonable interpretation of the orders," Fetzer observed, "is that the incoming aircraft should not be shot down, which would have been an obvious source of anxiety for an aide. Since it contradicts the official story about the Pentagon," he added, "it had to be suppressed and was not even included in The 9/11 Commission Report." And other scholars, including Professor David Ray Griffin of Claremont Graduate University, have drawn the same conclusion.

Philip J. Berg, Esq., Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and a past candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor, and U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, who is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, added, "Those who made it happen were obviously in the position to know that it was going to happen and therefore could have sounded a warning alarm. The case against Cheney is more powerful than the case against Moussaoui. No one is more culpable than the perpetrators. If Moussaoui deserves the death penalty, what does our Vice President deserve?"
Berg also represents William Rodriguez, a WTC witness, in a RICO lawsuit against officials in the administration for complicity in the events of 9/11, being U.S. District Court (Philadelphia) Case Number 04CV4952. Other members of the society include Robert Bowman, head of the "Star Wars" program in both Democratic and Republican administrations; Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor in the Bush() administration; Andreas von Buelow, former assistant defense minister of Germany; Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics from Brigham Young University and the society's co-chair; and Griffin, a noted theologian and author of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.

Members of the society point to other indications of advance knowledge, which include volumes of put-options placed by betting that the stock value of United and American Airlines would drop. The SEC has detailed information about those who placed the options, which it has not released to the public. "Time and time again," Fetzer remarked, "evidence that would expose the official account to be a deception and a hoax intended to manipulate the nation has been concealed."

According to Fetzer, experts in the society of scholars, including pilots and aeronautical engineers, physicists and mechanical engineers, have established that flying these planes would have been beyond the "hijackers" capabilities, that it would have been virtually impossible for cell phone calls to have been placed during those flights, and that even the Saudi Arabian Embassy has long confirmed that several of the accused "hijackers" did not die on 9/11.
"It does not take rocket science to infer that, if these guys were killed in the crash of these aircraft, then they cannot be alive and well and living in Saudi Arabia," he remarked, "yet the FBI has not bothered to revise its list of suspects." Other studies available on the society's web site at indicate that the passenger manifests for the four flights did not include the names of the hijackers nor were autopsies conducted on them.

"A growing body of evidence supports the inference that these 19 men were patsies for forces within the United States government," Fetzer concluded. "This trial appears to be yet one more illustration of Karl Rove's policy of 'creating our own reality' to serve the political goals of the administration, even when it comes at the cost of the lives and the security of the American people. The idea that Bush is 'the security president' is just a cruel joke!"

Documentary support for the conclusions reported here may be found at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth web site at

For Further Information:

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.Founder and Co-ChairScholars for 9/11 Truth(218) 726-7269 (office)(218) 724-2706 (home)(218) 726-7119 (fax)

Philip J. Berg, Esq.706 Ridge PikeLafayette Hill, PA 19444(800) 993-7445 (office)(610) 834-7659 (fax)(610) 662-3005 [cell