David Ray Griffin's New Article: "A 571-Page Lie"

[graphixtech]

Link to Original:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php

For a DVD of Dr. Griffin's C-Span appearance:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/donations


The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
by Dr. David Ray Griffin

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions
and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title
might have been “a 571-page lie.” (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page
lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In
making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is
constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11
is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall
lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues.
This point is implied by my critique’s subtitle, “Omissions and
Distortions.” It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of
problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated “distortions”
can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two
types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the
Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a
hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not
give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an
implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged
suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly
been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that
Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are
implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor
its stated intention “to provide the fullest possible account of the
events surrounding 9/11.” They are also lies insofar as the Commission
could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by
not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most
instances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC
) until 9:58 (241-44).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://septembereleventh.org/


http://www.911truth.org/index.php

[philb]

1. More details on 911 Comm Report disinformation from Ch 12 of his book

Flight 11 American Airlines out of Boston Logan Airport

9/11 Commission Official Timeline, 2004
7:59 AM Takeoff
8:14 FAA aware radio and transponder off . ( sign of hijacking- regulations call for calling NORAD)
8:15 FAA called AA but did not call NORAD(NEADS)
8:20 FAA notes route change (again regulations require notification of NORAD)
8:21 American Airlines notified by flight attendant of hijacking and some killed
8:25 FAA hears hijacker message on radio FAA(Boston) notifies FAA(HQ)
< 9/11 Commission claims there were about 8 layers in chain of command and takes at least . 1 minute per layer to notify next level>
8:28 FAA HQ gets notification of hijacking
8:38 FAA(Boston) contacts NEADS
8:38 Battle Commander, Col Robert Marr at NEADS, calls Major General Larry Arnold in Florida for permission to scramble jets.
8:46 NEADS orders jets from Otis AFB in Massachusetts scrambled to New York
8:47 something hits the WTC1 North Tower
8:52 2 jets from Otis AFB are in the air

note: the closest AFB with jets to New York is McGuire AFB in NY, but General Richard Myers claims that only 2 AFB in northeast region had jets on ready due to large cutbacks in budget(Otis in Mass. and Langley in Maryland) Andrews in Washington DC is next closest.
Contradictions with evidence:
1. In interviews on 9/13/01, General Myers and Mike Snyder(NORAD) both said that jets were not scrambled by the military until the Pentagon was hit. This is in contradiction to the 9/11 Commission Report timeline.
2. Gen. Richard Myers and Major General Larry Arnold(NORAD) when asked about why no jets were scrambled to intercept the planes that hit buildings, both said that there were no planes on ready alert at Andrews AFB or Myers AFB. They said that there are only 2 bases in the entire NE Region with planes on alert(Otis AFB in Massachusetts and Langley AFB in Maryland, due to major budget cutbacks) This appears to be untrue according to a large body of evidence. Andrews AFB is said to be the main air defense for the capital and Pentagon complex and houses Air Force One. The Military web site on 9/11 said that Andrews serves to defend the capital complex and had 3 squadrons of planes on alert, one being the DC Air National Guard squadron(DCANG). These planes have been scrambled in the past and can be in the air in about 2 minutes and travel at 30 miles per minute. Also contradicting this are statements by General Myers and Mike Snyder(NORAD) that NORAD was not notified about the plane that hit the Pentagon but that jets from Andrews AFB were scrambled immediately after the Pentagon was hit. This was confirmed by Richard Clark, National Security Coordinator, and news reports from Washington based news agencies. Later when Donald Arias, Chief of Public Affairs of NORAD, was asked whether jets were kept on ready at Andrews, he refused to answer. Immediately after 9/11, the military web site was changed to deemphasize Andrews AFB and delete references to Andrews capabilities.
3. According to the 9/11 Commission report statements and guidelines, The FAA flight controllers and supervisors violated the published FAA standard operating procedures regarding reporting suspected hijack situations to NORAD, by not reporting when radio contact was lost and transponder off at 8:14 and again when there was a route change at 8:20. Yet apparently no one was reprimanded or punished for this major breach of SOP.
4. According to the 9/11 Commission Timeline, the U.S. Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta, who was at the White House with Vice President Cheney, had enough reports to ground all civilian airplanes in the U.S. before the first military jet was scrambled. This is the first time in history this step was taken.
5. If the call by NEADS commander Col Marr to Gen. Arnold was made and wasted 8 minutes, it was unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances- resulting in allowing the north tower to be hit. Under questioning later, Gen Arnold admitted that the call up the chain of command is not necessary or usual step to scramble jets.
6. The 9/11 Commission report further indicated that the 8 minutes lost by the alleged 8 minute call to Gen Arnold would not have made a difference in results since the plane had turned off its transponder so that NEADS radar could not find the plane. But this is rather absurd, since that would mean that all an enemy plane would have to do to defeat the U.S. defense system is to not turn on its transponder. And it is known that the Pentagon has some of the worlds most advanced radar equipment and was monitoring the hijacked flights. The Pentagon web site indicates that its radar is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles simultaneously.

All information here is supported by references in Dr. D.R. Griffin’s book: The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, 2004 , Chap 12

[tofubo]

2. Debunking conspiracy theorists' paranoid fantasies about Sept. 11

http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=20735

Debunking conspiracy theorists' paranoid fantasies about Sept. 11

by Gerard Holmgren [e-mail]

Copyright Gerard Holmgren. Jan 2003.

This work may be freely copied and distributed without permission as long as it not for commercial use. Please include the author's name, the web address where you found it and the copyright notice.

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one,often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. "The CIA killed Hendrix" "The Pope had John Lennon murdered," "Hitler was half Werewolf," "Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone" etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.

So its hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11, 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is—sadly—a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks—linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours,crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposturous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (ill)logical conclusions.

According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns,knives,box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID ( but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

"Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"

"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."

"Very strange," thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or boxcutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."

Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time,the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis.They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.

Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated,and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, "Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?"

"You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And so on...

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story.

"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? " The answer of course is that its just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen...

This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The "improbability drive", in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world). There is a principle called "Occam's razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.

Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.

Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is near impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with boxcutters and knives, and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously), but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.

So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of "our freedoms", it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar—really impeccable Islamic behavior—and then got up at 5am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.

It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the mental fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi-believable.

Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.

Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vapourizing the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.

There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosine,and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800 C has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourizing 65 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of kerosine—let alone the boiling point—which is what would be required to vapourize a plane. And then there's about 50 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosine.

For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as "mumbo jumbo." This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosine, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute. Blissfully ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vapourized into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.

"Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact." they state with pompous certainty. "Watch any Bruce Willis movie."

"Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation—other than Bruce Willis movies?"

At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and plan their escape by means of another stunning backflip.

"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin.

Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vapourized into nothing.

"But not big planes, with that much fuel," they shriek in hysterical denial.

Or that much metal to vapourize.

"Yes but not hijacked planes!"

"Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?"

"Now you're just being silly."

Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground,or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vapourize into nothing. What's so special about a tower that's mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "Its a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."

Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to," the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves ( if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vapourization of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit. loop...

But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosine. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant veritcal collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosine.

For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosine which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball, vapourizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosine is enough to

* completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft

* have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel ( melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel )

* still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.

This kerosine really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosine heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vapourized. And never again will I take kerosine lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp—the next—kapow! Vapourized into nothing along with with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire—therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C, without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.

Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why.

"Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir"

"No miss, the kerosine heater blew up and vapourized everything in the street, except for my passport."

"You see sir, the schoolbus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."

Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.

The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly kerosine was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat. (Although 2000 C isn't really required, 100C will generally do the job.) This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.

That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft.

You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vapourized by the fuel tank explosion maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.

So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.

This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space inbetween. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12 ft diameter through three rings ( six walls).A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.

But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell—why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is "mumbo jumbo." It conflicts with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it "must be wrong" although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.

Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned.They nervously maintain that the plane was vapourized by it's exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. (That's a wonderful fruit loop.) Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly backflip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage). As for what happened to the wings—here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly, (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an "irrecoverable angle." How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in "retaliation" are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11.

[stickdog]

3. What complete bullshit!

Do you actually endorse ANY of this tripe?

[tofubo]

6. you do understand the concept of parody ??

n/t

[stickdog]

10. Obviously too subtle for me. Sorry.

;>)

[graphixtech]

4. "I worry that I'm turning into a conspiracy theorist"

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050518222418110
The War on Paperclips

I worry that I'm turning into a conspiracy theorist


AL Kennedy
Wednesday May 11, 2005
The Guardian/UK

OK, I'm paranoid and depressed. My new government of troglodytes, murderers and spivs barely elongates the customary scream I give upon waking. What troubles me more is our rulers' inevitable recommencement of the war on terror bollocks.

To begin at what we're told is the beginning, we have 9/11 - the one in the US, not the earlier one in Chile when covert US government intervention killed thousands of innocents and handed the country to a commerce-friendly, torture-loving, far-right junta. Now if 9/11/2001 is so important, why is it so hard to find out what happened?

The FBI, as we know, blocked all manner of investigations into the plot in the run up to its execution, whether these involved highly specific warnings from its own agents or from government sources in Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, the Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco and Russia.

Meanwhile, I worry why the nearest military aircraft weren't scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked flights when this is standard procedure and why, when more distant jets were finally aloft, they flew at less than half speed, thus failing to prevent the impacts at the twin towers and then, it would seem, managing to shoot down Flight 93 when its passengers may already have overcome its hijackers.

It would, of course, be easier to know what happened to Flight 93 if there weren't - according to educated estimates - three minutes of the cockpit recording missing. It would, equally, be handy to have access to the black boxes from the other crashes. Firefighters at Ground Zero have repeatedly stated that three of the four possible black boxes there were found and taken away by government agents.

And these worries are maybe less important than the ones about clear links between the Pakistani ISI, the CIA and the men named as the 9/11 hijackers. Or the mysterious inability of anyone to capture Osama bin Laden, who fled from Tora Bora, possibly being evacuated by helicopter, and then escaped to Pakistan unhindered.

So while Chinese paperclips are now made out of vital 9/11 evidence and almost every implicated party goes free, we and our controlling US interests continue fearlessly to terrorise countries unconnected with the attacks, to place permanent military bases near oil reserves and pipeline routes, to harass and murder Muslims anywhere we can, and to foment terrorist resistance at every opportunity. The UK unmasks non-existent ricin plots and threatens us with ID cards, but we can't supply our troops in Iraq with working radios or a legal causus belli.

But you'd never want to think that on 9/11/2001 covert US government intervention killed thousands of innocents and handed the country, if not the world, to a commerce-friendly, torture-loving, far-right junta. That would make you a paranoid, depressed conspiracy theorist. And, take it from me, that just wouldn't be comfortable.

[Project_Willow]

5. Thanks,

I was going to post this today. It should be in LBN.

[WoodrowFan]

7. lots of evidence

that Griffin is lying or a nut

and that some DUers (no names) will buy the Brooklyn Brudge if they're told it'll make Bush look bad.

Is there much here that hasn't been debunked here a gazillion times? Anything that would directly link the US govt to 9-1? no? thought not.

[hang a left]

8. Please humor me one more time would ya?

Point out the lies or refer me to a link. I am willing to take a look.

[stickdog]

11. Yes, it's all been debunked before. Suuuuuuuuuure. That's the ticket,.

:eyes:

[graphixtech]

9. Additional video clip

For those who may be interested, here is an excellent short video clip of DRG in an earlier CA speech:
http://digitalstylecreations.com/movies/Griffin-256k-credits.mov


This, from 911Visibilty website:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-12-11...

"Theologian Asks the Hard Questions About 9/11"

by Douglas Todd
Vancouver Sun
Saturday, Dec 11, 2004

David Ray Griffin is one of the most respected philosophers of religion in North America. He is the author or editor of more than 24 academic books, including works co-written with the deans of world religions, Huston Smith and Martin Marty. He has lectured around the world, including at UBC.

Griffin is one of those profiled in the prestigious volume, A Handbook of Christian Theologians. He's painstakingly probed countless philosophical challenges, from the question of why there is evil to the relationship between science and religion, for which he's won numerous awards.

So why did this soft-spoken professor from the high-ranking Methodist-rooted School of Theology at Claremont, Calif., feel it necessary to risk his hard-earned reputation as a religion scholar to write one of the most incredible -- in all senses of the word -- political books of 2004?

Because no one else in mainstream America seemed prepared to do it...

The result? Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbour: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Interlink Publishing, $22.50) has already sold an astonishing 80,000 copies.

Griffin's unflinching analysis of the unanswered questions surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington has made Amazon.com's bestseller list despite receiving virtually no reviews in North America's mainstream media. That's unlike in Britain, where he's had solid coverage, including a three-page spread in London's mass-circulation Daily Mail.

Personally, when people ask how a group of Muslim extremists could have pulled off the devastating suicide attacks against the U.S., in spite of the country's global intelligence network and massive defence arsenal, I tend to side with the German philosopher, Goethe, who once said: "Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much?"

But when Griffin, who's known for his careful approach to philosophical problems, poses a series of questions suggesting the administration of George W. Bush had been warned about the terrorist attacks and did nothing, it's enough to make you shudder. The implications would make the Watergate scandal look like a Sunday brunch.

In effect, The New Pearl Harbour fleshes out in 214 pages the question asked in the final moment of Michael Moore's Academy-award-winning documentary, Fahrenheit 911. That's when the filmmaker wonders aloud: What exactly was Bush thinking as he sat in front of a bunch of school children reading a book titled My Pet Goat, knowing two jetliners had been flown into the World Trade Center?

Griffin's book is titled The New Pearl Harbor for two reasons. One, because that's what Bush wrote in his diary on the evening of Sept. 11: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." But also because members of the Bush administration in 2000 helped author the document, Project for the New American Century, which opined it would be difficult to galvanize Americans to support military expansion in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere unless a "new Pearl Harbor" occurred.

Here are a few of the questions Griffin looks into:

* Why did the Bush administration say it didn't anticipate the Sept. 11 attacks when the CIA and FBI had repeatedly told it al-Qaida was planning to hijack planes and fly them into U.S. targets, including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

* Why were standard procedures that could have prevented the tragedy not followed when the four hijacked planes went off course, including immediately sending up jet fighters to shoot down passenger planes that fail to obey orders?

* Why has there been no physical evidence a jet plane crashed into the Pentagon? Independent onlookers say they saw a missile fly into the building. Video evidence shot by a nearby gas station's security cameras was confiscated by government officials.

* Why did Bush, despite knowing about first one, then two, World Trade Center crashes, delay his response to them for up to 30 minutes and instead continue to read a children's book? Why was he not whisked away by his security agents, who are trained to believe he's a logical target of terrorists?

* Who made tens of millions of dollars by betting on the stock market in the weeks before Sept. 11 that shares in the two airlines that owned the hijacked planes were about to plummet?

The Bush administration has brushed off all such questions. For his part, Griffin doesn't argue the Bush administration was actually complicit in the attacks. Some of the professor's fans have regretted his cautiousness, because he won't compile a grand theory about why the attacks may have been allowed to happen. He consistently avoids inflammatory rhetoric.

Griffin, however, has clearly shown the gross inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission, which the Bush administration demanded be restricted to looking only at how to stop another terrorist assault.

Griffin's supporters, including top Christian theologians, say he achieved his key goal, which was to provide an overwhelming body of evidence to show it's necessary to conduct a thorough probe into how the attacks happened in the first place.

In the past month, Harper's Magazine and the New York Times have tentatively started to catch up with Griffin's questions. Harper's, for instance, published a cover feature titled, "Whitewash as public service: How the 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation," by Benjamin DeMott, which also asks whether it was sheer incompetence or something else that made the attacks possible.

For his part, Griffin says he's been overwhelmed by the positive responses he's received to his book, which has sold 50,000 copies in the U.S. almost solely by word of mouth. In an e-mail interview, Griffin said he's only received about a dozen denunciations. Many families of those who died in the World Trade Center attack are among his supporters. Two of his many high-placed admirers are Canadians; former Liberal defence minister Paul Hellyer and Michael Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa.

Griffin continues to believe the religious and philosophical questions he's devoted his career to answering are important, but, as a Christian, he feels a more urgent need to take on the geo-political developments that have elevated the planet onto high alert. Two weeks ago he released a follow-up book with the same publisher, titled The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. "

[philb]

12. Flight 175- more documentation of lies & disinformation from Chap 13

Flight 175

NORAD time line for Flight 175- released Sept 18, 2001
8:14 takeoff from Boston Logan airport
8:42 FAA confirmed radio and transponder off
8:43 FAA notifies NORAD that a second plane appears hijacked and has turned towards N Y
8:46 NEADS scrambles F-15s towards New York
8:55 Public announcement at the South Tower of WTC saying the building is secure and people should return to their office
9:03 WTC 2 South Tower struck by airplane

Note: Given this time line it is clear that there was sufficient time for jets to intercept and prevent the attack, and the military received considerable accusations of appearance of a stand-down.

1. Jets were scrambled from Otis AFB in Massachusetts but even from there, it takes only 2 minutes to get jets on alert into the air and flying at 30 miles per minute this is a 6 minute trip. So there was plenty of time to intercept and prevent the attack.
2. There were closer AFBs in New York(McGuire) and Washington(Andrews) but after 9/11, General Richard Myers and NORADs General Arnold said that no jets were on alert at those bases due to budget cutbacks. There is considerable evidence this is not true. (including contradiction by Gen. Myers quoted in Chap 13)
3. News reports quoting the officer on duty at Otis AFB, Major James Fox, said that the specific target location was not known so the planes were sent in the general direction of New York towards land. Then once the pilots(Nash and Duffy) were headed towards New York, Duffy was told “your contacts over Kennedy” (JFK airport)
4. Given the questions regarding why the jets did not intercept Flight 175, the 9/11 Commission Report stated that the pilots were not given directions to the target and “were vectored towards military-controlled airspace off Long Island, where they remained until after the South tower was hit. This is in contradiction to the earlier News Reports quoting the Otis AFB duty officer and testimony by Duffy.

Revisions in Time Line by 9/11 Commission:
The 9/11 Commission Report tries to alleviate the indications of a stand-down raised by the previous NORAD time line by publishing a new time line for events(3 years later).

In the new time line the report states that the previous time line was wrong and the FAA had never reported the second hijacking to the military and the planes headed for New York never knew about any target since by the time they got there the first tower had already been hit. The Commission also stated that Flight 175 transponder had never gone off, though there had been a change in the transponder code. This new revision of the time line contradicts the previous NORAD statements and time line on when the FAA notified NORAD(8:43) The Commission statement is also in conflict with statements and news reports that the scrambled jets original target was JFK airport which is less than 2 minutes from WTC. But this is also essentially true of Long Island as well.


The new 9/11 Commission revision also said that when the FAA flight controller tried to report the hijacking to their supervisor, the supervisor refused to talk to the controller. Then at 9:01 the FAA controller contacted FAA HQ but HQ did not contact NORAD. But this contradicts previous NORAD statements and the previous news reports quoting the Otis AFB duty officer. Also one of the pilots, Duffy, was quoted as saying they were going full blower all the way- which means they would have arrived in about 6 minutes from leaving. Additionally this contradicts statements to the Toronto Star by Captain Michael Jellinik of Norad’s Colorado HQ regarding knowledge of the hijacked plane.

The Commission Report also contains a paragraph where it is stated that the planes did not take off at 8:46 because they had no target. But this contradicts much of the previous information, reports, and news stories quoting Major Fox.

All of these statements contradict the earlier statements of General Myers and Mike Snyder, spokesman for NORAD, that no planes were scrambled until the Pentagon was hit.
New York Mayor Giuliani said that President Bush deputy political director Chris Henrick stated that fighter jets had been sent to New York at 9:46. So this supports the original statements by Gen. Myers and Mike Snyder that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.

So no matter what is true regarding the military jet response, it is clear that military officials stated many intentional falsehoods and contradictory statements to the 9/11 Commission.

There were 5 reports that were contrary to the 9/11 Commission Reports revised time line and events description.

According to a memo of May 22, 2003 by Laura Brown(FAA) (senior official Boston FAA)
The FAA and military and NORAD had been in constant communication from just after the first WTC crash and prior to the WTC2 crash(since about 8:50). Many sources confirm this and that they were talking about “all flights of interest”. So the 2 planes had time to intercept irregardless of whether they were over JFK or off Long Island. However the new 9/11 Commission time line states that the contact didn’t happen until 9;20, after the WTC2 was hit.

Journalist Tom Flocco reported that in 2003 Laura Brown of FAA said that a phone bridge between the FAA and Charles Leidig of NMCC had begun between 8:20 and 8:25 when Flight 11 was known to be hijacked.
A source at the Dept. of Transportation confirmed the 8:20 time period for the bridge call between NORAD, Secret Service, DOD, and DOT.


Tom Flocco states that in his opinion the majority of the evidence supports that the first bridge started during the 8:20 to 8:25 window.

The 4th report was Captain M. Jellinik, NORAD command director on 9/11. According to news reports in 2002 quoting him, a bridge call between NMCC, NORAD, and FAA began just after the first strike on the WTC, consistent with the time of the original Laura Brown memo.

The 5th report was from Richard Clark, National Security Coordinator,. He reported that the deputy director of the White House Situation Room told him at 9:15 that they had been on the air threat call with NORAD and FAA. This call had been going on for a considerable time as it had begun as a significant event call and had been upgraded to an air threat call; and there had been many exchanges of information that had occurred.

All of the reports are inconsistent with the 9/11 Commission revised time line and statements about events regarding Flight 175.

The source of this information is Chapter 13 of Dr. D.R. Griffin’s book which has references for the items discussed here. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions

[philb]

13. Solid documentation of official complicity in Pentagon event and cover-up

Fl 77 Pentagon
Original FAA/NORAD Time Line

8:20 AM Takeoff from Dulles Airport, D.C.
8:25 FAA notified all Regional FAA offices of Flight 11 hijacking
8:25 bridge call between FAA, NMCC, DOT, DOD, etc. started by NMCC as significant incident conference when Fl 11 hijacking reported and later upgraded to air threat conference dealing with all “planes of interest”
8:42 FAA confirmed radio and transponder off on Flight 175
8:43 FAA notifies NORAD that a second plane appears to be hijacked and has turned towards N Y
8:46 NEADS(NORAD) scrambles 2 jets from Otis AFB to N Y
8:46 FAA notes FL 77 significantly off course; this is supported by USA Today published flight course time line
8:47 WTC1 hit by airplane;
8:50 bridge call between FAA, DOD, DOT, NORAD, NMCC re: “all planes of interest”
8:56 transponder off on Fl 77 and plane turned around over NE Kentucky
8:57 report by FAA that Fl 77 crashed or landed near Kentucky/Ohio border/ lost on radar
9:03 a plane hits WTC2; notification sent out by FAA
9:24 FAA contacts NORAD and says Fl 77 heading towards D.C.
9:25 NORAD scrambles jets from Langley AFB heading to D.C.
9:30 jets in the air heading to D.C. (130 mile trip, 5 minute trip at 30 miles per minute)
9:38 something hits the Pentagon, jets reported to be off course and still 105 miles away

Note: General Richard Myers, commander of U.S. Forces, and the NORAD spokesman Mike Snyder both originally reported that no jets were scrambled by the military until after the Pentagon was hit. After considerable criticism of an apparent military stand down, the new report was issued indicating that FAA notified NORAD at 9:24 and planes were scrambled but got lost and arrived too late.
After more criticism of both earlier scenarios as implying a military stand down, the 9/11 Commission revised the time line and official scenario again in 2004, stating that the Pentagon was unaware that there was a plane heading towards D.C. until it was hit. And that the earlier report that planes had been scrambled to intercept Flight 77 were in error.

New Revised 9/11 Commission Time Line(2004)
8:20 Flight 77 takeoff from Dulles Airport
8::38 FAA contacts NORAD that Fl 11 hijacked, NORAD spends 8 minutes on calls up chain of command
8:46 jets scrambled from Otis AFB to New York
8:47 WTC1 hit, notice goes out to FAA offices
8:52 2 jets from Otis AFB are in air to N Y
8:54 Flight 77 significantly off course
8:56 transponder signal and radar track lost, assumed to have crashed or landed
9:00 FAA head Jane Garvey notifies the White House that a plane has crashed in Kentucky
9:03 a plane hits WTC2 South Tower, military was never notified by FAA
9: 21 FAA reported to NORAD that Flight 11 did not hit WTC1 and is headed towards D.C.
9:24 NORAD scrambles 3 jets form Langley AFB to Washington to intercept Fl 11 but does not know where target is; pilots make a mistake and fly out to sea far away from D.C.
9:25 FAA controller tells FAA HQ they think Flight 77 may have been hijacked
9:36 FAA Boston notifies NORAD of plane heading towards DC
9:38 plane hits Pentagon; NORAD never notified that plane was headed to D.C., Pentagon notified only 2 minutes before building was hit

The new revised 9/11 Comm. Scenario for Fl 77 said that the previous report of course changes and turning around(as also reported by news reports) were wrong and that the FAA was not aware that the plane had turned around and was heading towards D.C. So the plane flew undetected towards Washington for 36 minutes. The Comm. Report states that the military was never notified that the plane was headed towards D.C. and was never aware that the plane was hijacked. The Commission said that earlier reports and statements that NORAD was notified about the Fl 175 and Fl 77 hijackings were in error. The Comm. Said that the real reason that the Langley jets were scrambled to D.C. was that the FAA had reported at 9:21 that Flight 11 that had earlier been reported to have hit WTC1 was actually still in the air and heading towards D.C. They were aware of this new report for the first time in 2004 and used it to correct the time line. The Comm. said however that it was unable to identify the source of the report or who took the report. The Comm. Said that at 9:36 when the jet pilots were contacted to intercept Flight 11 which was thought to be headed towards D.C., the planes were still 105 miles away because the pilots had misunderstood their instructions and headed east out to sea.

There is considerable evidence contradicting the 9/11 Comm. revised time line and scenario.

1. Journalist Tom Flocco reported in 2003 that Laura Brown of FAA said that a phone bridge between the FAA and Charles Leidig of NMCC had begun between 8:20 and 8:25 after Fl 11 was known to be hijacked. This conference call was begun as a significant incident call after Fl 11 was hijacked but was upgraded later to an air threat call dealing with all “planes of interest”. A source at the Dept. of Transportation confirmed the 8:25 time period for the bridge call between NORAD, Secret Service, DOD, and DOT.
Tom Flocco stated his opinion that after talking to several parties, he is convinced the call started at the earlier time]
2. Laura Brown(senior FAA official at Boston Logan) (memo of May 23, 2003) The FAA and military and NORAD had been in constant communication from just after the first WTC crash and prior to the WTC2 crash(since approx. 8:50) Many sources confirm this call and that they were talking about “all flights of interest”.
3. Matthew Wald, NY Times published story supports the Laura Brown version of the call. It reported that according to his sources: “During the hour that the Fl 77 was under the control of the hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the East Side of the Pentagon were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do” (the command center is the NMCC and air traffic control is FAA)

4. Statement by Captain M. Jellinik, NORAD command director on 9/11, According to news reports quoting him, a bridge call between NMCC, NORAD, and FAA began just after the first strike on the WTC, consistent with the time of the original Laura Brown memo.
5. According to a report by Richard Clark, National Security Coordinator: He reported that the deputy director of the White House Situation Room told him at 9:15 that they had been on the air threat call with NORAD and FAA. This call had been going on a considerable time as it had begun as a significant event call and had been upgraded to an air threat call, and there had been many exchanges of information. According to Clarke, the FAA head Jane Garvey was at the White House teleconference answering questions about the hijackings before 9:20 am. The Commission report said that it could not determine who from DOD participated in the teleconference with Clark and the FAA; however Richard Clarke had testified that Gen Myers and Donald Rumsfeld and Jane Garvey were on the call. Others confirm this.
6. Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, said he met with Richard Clark who was on a conference call before going to the White House PEOC room to meet with V.P. Cheney at 9:20. So Clark was on the conference call by 9:15.
7. Norman Mineta, Sec. of Transportation, testimony before 9/11 Comm.: on a meeting he was at with V.P. Cheney at the White House PEOC that he arrived at about 9:20:
“During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, 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” the young man 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?”

[philb]

14. Rumsfeld, Gen Myers Complicity

Discrepancies in General Myers and Donald Rumsfeld’s statements

The 9/11 Commission Report apparently tries to deflect the criticism that Gen Myers complicit in the stand down by stating that Gen Myers was on Capital Hill meeting with Senator Cleland from 8:45 to 9:45 am about personnel matters during the period prior to the time that WTC and the Pentagon buildings were attacked. Thus he never took part in dealing with 9/11 events.

Also this statement is contradicted by the report and testimony of Richard Clarke, the National Security Director. He said that Myers, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Muller, and Garvey were on a teleconference call about the attacks and that he had a discussion with Gen Myers about getting fighters up over Washington. He said Myers gave a report that we have 3 F 16s from Langley up over the Pentagon and Andrews is launching fighters from the DC air national guard(DCANG). This also contradicts Gen Myers statements to the effect that Andrews AFB had no planes on alert to defend the D.C. area. One of these men clearly isn’t telling the truth, and given the number of people on the teleconference call it is easy to confirm who it is.

Shortly after 9/11, Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a statement carried by news reports and on the DOD web site about his actions on 9/11. Apparently he was also anxious to imply that he had not been aware of the 9/11 events before the buildings were hit. He said that he heard something happened and went downstairs to see what happened and was told a plane had hit the Pentagon (he was in the East wing, plane hit the west wing which is a considerable distance away). He said he went to the crash site and helped with putting people on stretchers for loading in ambulances and returned to his office at about 10:20. In testimony to the 9/11 Comm., he gave a slightly different story. He said that when the plane hit the Pentagon shook and he went out to see what had happened. He said he wasn’t there long and returned to his office at about 10:00. Note that actions and times are important due to other events.
The 9/11 Comm. agreed with the first report regarding actions and with the 2nd statement regarding the time of return to the office. But note the time that the plane hit and the fact that it is about a 10 minute walk from Rumsfeld’s office in the East wing to the west wing parking lot. Also there is contradictory testimony to any of these statements.

All of these statements are in conflict with Richard Clarke’s report, which is easily verifiable. Clarke said that Myers and Rumsfeld were on the teleconference call with him and others about the hijackings from about 9:15 until the plane hit the Pentagon. When the plane hit, Rumsfeld said that smoke was getting into the secure conference room so he moved to another studio at the Pentagon. This contradicts Rumsfeld’s statements on where he was and what he was doing. It also contradicts Myers and Rumsfeld’s statements that they were unaware of the status of Fl 77 before it hit the Pentagon.

The Comm. Report appears to be an obvious attempt to cover up these discrepancies by not looking at or reporting information from testimony that was not consistence with the statements of Cheney, Myers, Rumsfeld, and other top DOD and military leaders. The testimony of Transportation Secretary who was in charge of all response to the non military response to the hijackings , and the testimony of National Security Coordinator Richard Clarke, that of many FBI agents such as Sibel Edmunds and Crowley and of other officials was not included or mentioned in the Comm. Report. The FBI agents testified that they were aware of prior warnings of the plans for the attacks and that they and others had warned the administration and pentagon officials, and also that their efforts prior to 9/11 to prevent the attacks were stifled by FBI top level officials. Although the Commission Report says that the Pentagon only became aware of the plane heading to the Pentagon at 9:36 which was 2 minutes before the building was hit, it is clear this was not the case. Note another suspicious event that is contradictory to this statement besides the previous reports and testimony. The Comm. Report says that the Pentagon became aware of an unarmed military C 130H cargo plane in the Washington area and ordered it to find the plane and identify it. The C 130H pilot said that he spotted the plane, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and reported that it crashes into the Pentagon. Rather a lot of action in an extremely short time period when talking to a C130 pilot would not be high on official’s agenda. This is the primary source identifying that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a Boeing 757. Besides the obvious time complications, this story does not seem to be compatible with another story in the Commission Report about the plane that hit the Pentagon’s approach and actions. And another strange story of this C 130H being involved in Pennsylvania with the Flight 93 crash incident also have very confusing statements.

This information come from Chap 14 of the book of Dr. D.R. Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions; the book has references for the sources of information quoted.

[philb]

15. Who was in charge of the nations defense on 9/11?

The Joint Chiefs of Staff are technically advisers to the executive and theater command, which under law "runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the combatant command." As the theater of combat on Sept. 11 was domestic, the function of combatant command resided at the Pentagon in the NMCC.

The attacks made use of passenger transport, a realm supervised by the Federal Aviation Administration. Once it was clear that attacks were underway, the responsibility for aerial defense resided with the North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) under Gen. Ralph Eberhart.

Authority should have therefore run from Commander-in-Chief Bush to Secretary Rumsfeld to the NMCC under Winfield and NORAD under Eberhart, with Gen. Myers as the chief adviser.

Montague Winfield was originally scheduled to be at his command post on morning of Sept. 11. But on Sept. 10, he arranged for his deputy to relieve him the next morning at exactly 8:30 a.m. This turned out to be just eight minutes before the military was alerted to the diversion of the first flight (at 8:38 a.m. according to the timeline in The 9/11 Commission Report).

The report mentions Winfield by name only once, as a source in a footnote, without clarification (Ch. 1 fn 190, p. 463). His absence from the NMCC after 8:30 a.m. was first revealed to the Commission in a June 17, 2004 statement by his deputy, Capt. Charles J. Leidig (who was recently promoted to admiral).
(See www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/leidig_statement.pdf)

Winfield was scheduled to testify before the Kean Commission in public on the same day as Leidig. As on Sept. 11, he was a no-show. Leidig spoke for him, saying under oath that on Sept. 11, "Right after we resolved what was going on with United 93, around that time General Winfield took over" command of the NMCC.
(Transcript of June 17 hearings at www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-17.pdf

based on reports, an LA Times reporter wrote the following regarding Rumsfeld:
Sheehy: For more than two hours after the Federal Aviation Administration became aware that the first plane had been violently overtaken by Middle Eastern men, the man whose job it was to order air cover over Washington did not show up in the Pentagon's command center.

This conflicts with Richard Clarke's version somewhat, but apparently Rumsfeld was there "nominally" part of the time, across the hall in his office making phone calls while the assistant Sec of Defense, Victoria Clarke sat in for him at NMCC and reported to Rumsfeld periodically. They note that Rumsfeld disappeared for 30 minutes when no one could find him immediately after the plane hit the Pentagon and Rumsfeld explains it by saying he went to the parking lot to help victims.