New Age Islam
Tue Nov 30 2021, 12:10 AM

War on Terror ( 11 Sept 2008, NewAgeIslam.Com)

Comment | Comment

Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9-11?

By Professor David Ray Griffin


Much of America's foreign policy since 9/11 has been based on the assumption that it was attacked by Muslims on that day. This assumption was used, most prominently, to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is now widely agreed that the use of 9/11 as a basis for attacking Iraq was illegitimate: none of the hijackers were Iraqis, there was no working relation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and Iraq was not behind the anthrax attacks. But it is still widely believed that the US attack on Afghanistan was justified. For example, the New York Times, while referring to the US attack on Iraq as a "war of choice," calls the battle in Afghanistan a "war of necessity." Time magazine has dubbed it "the right war." And Barack Obama says that one reason to wind down our involvement in Iraq is to have the troops and resources to "go after the people in Afghanistan who actually attacked us on 9/11."


The assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11 also lies behind the widespread perception of Islam as an inherently violent religion and therefore of Muslims as guilty until proven innocent. This perception surely contributed to attempts to portray Obama as a Muslim, which was lampooned by a controversial cartoon on the July 21, 2008, cover of The New Yorker.


As could be illustrated by reference to many other post-9/11 developments, including as spying, torture, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, America's new doctrine of pre-emptive war, and its enormous increase in military spending, the assumption that the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were attacked by Muslim hijackers has had enormous negative consequences for both international and domestic issues.1


Is it conceivable that this assumption might be false? Insofar as Americans and Canadians would say "No," they would express their belief that this assumption is not merely an "assumption" but is instead based on strong evidence. When actually examined, however, the proffered evidence turns out to be remarkably weak. I will illustrate this point by means of 16 questions.


1. Were Mohamed Atta and the Other Hijackers Devout Muslims?


The picture of the hijackers conveyed by the 9/11 Commission is that they were devout Muslims. Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader, was said to have become very religious, even "fanatically so."2 Being devout Muslims, they could be portrayed as ready to meet their Maker---as a "cadre of trained operatives willing to die."3


But this portrayal is contradicted by various newspaper stories. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Atta and other hijackers had made "at least six trips" to Las Vegas, where they had "engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures." These activities were "un-Islamic" because, as the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada pointed out: "True Muslims don't drink, don't gamble, don't go to strip clubs."4


One might, to be sure, rationalize this behaviour by supposing that these were momentary lapses and that, as 9/11 approached, these young Muslims had repented and prepared for heaven. But in the days just before 9/11, Atta and others were reported to be drinking heavily, cavorting with lap dancers, and bringing call girls to their rooms. Temple University Professor Mahmoud Ayoub said: "It is incomprehensible that a person could drink and go to a strip bar one night, then kill themselves the next day in the name of Islam. . . . Something here does not add up."5


In spite of the fact that these activities were reported by mainstream newspapers and even the Wall Street Journal editorial page,6 the 9/11 Commission wrote as if these reports did not exist, saying: "we have seen no credible evidence explaining why, on [some occasions], the operatives flew to or met in Las Vegas."7


2. Do Authorities Have Hard Evidence of Osama bin Laden's Responsibility for 9/11?


Whatever be the truth about the devoutness of the hijackers, one might reply, there is certainly no doubt about the fact that they were acting under the guidance of Osama bin Laden. The attack on Afghanistan was based on the claim that bin Laden was behind the attacks, and the 9/11 Commission's report was written as if there were no question about this claim. But neither the Bush administration nor the Commission provided any proof for it.


Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," said he expected "in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack."8 But at a press conference with President Bush the next morning, Powell reversed himself, saying that although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden's responsibility, "most of it is classified."9 According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a "lack of solid information."10


That same week, Bush had demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden. But the Taliban, reported CNN, "refus[ed] to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week's attacks on the United States." The Bush administration, saying "[t]here is already an indictment of Osama bin Laden" [for the attacks in Tanzania, Kenya, and elsewhere]," rejected the demand for evidence with regard to 9/11.11


The task of providing such evidence was taken up by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who on October 4 made public a document entitled "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States." Listing "clear conclusions reached by the government," it stated: "Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001."12


Blair's report, however, began by saying: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law." This weakness was noted the next day by the BBC, which said: "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial."13


After the US had attacked Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said: "We have asked for proof of Osama's involvement, but they have refused. Why?"14 The answer to this question may be suggested by the fact that, to this day, the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorist" webpage on bin Laden, while listing him as wanted for bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, makes no mention of 9/11.15


When the FBI's chief of investigative publicity was asked why not, he replied: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."16


It is often claimed that bin Laden's guilt is proved by a video, reportedly found by US intelligence officers in Afghanistan in November 2001, in which bin Laden appears to report having planned the attacks. But critics, pointing out various problems with this "confession video," have called it a fake.17 General Hamid Gul, a former head of Pakistan's ISI, said: "I think there is an Osama Bin Laden look-alike."18 Actually, the man in the video is not even much of a look-alike, being heavier and darker than bin Laden, having a broader nose, wearing jewellery, and writing with his right hand.19 The FBI, in any case, obviously does not consider this video hard evidence of bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11.



What about the 9/11 Commission? I mentioned earlier that it gave the impression of having had solid evidence of bin Laden's guilt. But Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the Commission's co-chairs, undermined this impression in their follow-up book subtitled "the inside story of the 9/11 Commission."20


Whenever the Commission had cited evidence for bin Ladin's responsibility, the note in the back of the book always referred to CIA-provided information that had (presumably) been elicited during interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives. By far the most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), described as the "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks. The Commission, for example, wrote:


Bin Ladin . . . finally decided to give the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. . . . Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives. . . . Atta---whom Bin Ladin chose to lead the group---met with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.21


The note for each of these statements says "interrogation of KSM."22


Kean and Hamilton, however, reported that they had no success in "obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."23 Besides not being allowed to interview these witnesses, they were not permitted to observe the interrogations through one-way glass or even to talk to the interrogators.24 Therefore, they complained: "We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?"25


An NBC "deep background" report in 2008 pointed out an additional problem: KSM and the other al-Qaeda leaders had been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture, and it is now widely acknowledged that statements elicited by torture lack credibility. "At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report," this NBC report pointed out, "have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being "-tortured.'" NBC then quoted Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, as saying: "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, . . . their conclusions are suspect."26


Accordingly, neither the White House, the British government, the FBI, nor the 9/11 Commission has provided solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11.


3. Was Evidence of Muslim Hijackers Provided by Phone Calls from the Airliners?


Nevertheless, many readers may respond, there can be no doubt that the airplanes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers, because their presence and actions on the planes were reported on phone calls by passengers and flight attendants, with cell phone calls playing an especially prominent role.


The most famous of the reported calls were from CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson. According to CNN, he reported that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77," saying that "all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by . . . hijackers [armed with] knives and cardboard cutters."27


Although these reported calls, as summarized by Ted Olson, did not describe the hijackers so as to suggest that they were members of al-Qaeda, such descriptions were supplied by calls from other flights, especially United 93, from which about a dozen cell phone calls were reportedly received before it crashed in Pennsylvania. According to a Washington Post story of September 13,


[P]assenger Jeremy Glick used a cell phone to tell his wife, Lyzbeth, . . . that the Boeing 757's cockpit had been taken over by three Middle Eastern-looking men. . . . The terrorists, wearing red headbands, had ordered the pilots, flight attendants and passengers to the rear of the plane.28


A story about a "cellular phone conversation" between flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw and her husband gave this report:


She said the plane had been taken over by three men with knives. She had gotten a close look at one of the hijackers. . . . "He had an Islamic look," she told her husband. 29


From these calls, therefore, the public was informed that the hijackers looked Middle Eastern and even Islamic.


Still more specific information was reportedly conveyed during a 12-minute cell phone call from flight attendant Amy Sweeney on American Flight 11, which was to crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.30 After reaching American Airlines employee Michael Woodward and telling him that men of "Middle Eastern descent" had hijacked her flight, she then gave him their seat numbers, from which he was able to learn the identity of Mohamed Atta and two other hijackers.31 Amy Sweeney's call was critical, ABC News explained, because without it "the plane might have crashed with no one certain the man in charge was tied to al Qaeda."32



There was, however, a big problem with these reported calls: Given the technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were not possible, and yet these calls, some of which reportedly lasted a minute or more, reportedly occurred when the planes were above 30,000 or even 40,000 feet. This problem was explained by some credible people, including scientist A.K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American.33


Although some defenders of the official account, such as Popular Mechanics, have disputed the contention that high-altitude calls from airliners were impossible,34 the fact is that the FBI, after having at first supported the claims that such calls were made, withdrew this support a few years later.


With regard to the reported 12-minute call from Amy Sweeney to Michael Woodward, an affidavit signed by FBI agent James Lechner and dated September 12 (2001) stated that, according to Woodward, Sweeney had been "using a cellular telephone."35 But when the 9/11 Commission discussed this call in its Report, which appeared in July 2004, it declared that Sweeney had used an onboard phone.36


Behind that change was an implausible claim made by the FBI earlier in 2004: Although Woodward had failed to mention this when FBI agent Lechner interviewed him on 9/11, he had repeated Sweeney's call verbatim to a colleague in his office, who had in turn repeated it to another colleague at American headquarters in Dallas, who had recorded it; and this recording---which was discovered only in 2004---indicated that Sweeney had used a passenger-seat phone, thanks to "an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant."37


This claim is implausible because, if this relayed recording had really been made on 9/11, we cannot believe that Woodward would have failed to mention it to FBI agent Lechner later that same day. While Lechner was taking notes, Woodward would surely have said: "You don't need to rely on my memory. There is a recording of a word-for-word repetition of Sweeney's statements down in Dallas." It is also implausible that Woodward, having repeated Sweeney's statement that she had used "an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant," would have told Lechner, as the latter's affidavit says, that Sweeney had been "using a cellular telephone."


Lechner's affidavit shows that the FBI at first supported the claim that Sweeney had made a 12-minute cell phone call from a high-altitude airliner. Does not the FBI's change of story, after its first version had been shown to be technologically impossible, create the suspicion that the entire story was a fabrication?


This suspicion is reinforced by the FBI's change of story in relation to United Flight 93. Although we were originally told that this flight had been the source of about a dozen cell phone calls, some of them when the plane was above 40,000 feet, the FBI gave a very different report at the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The FBI spokesman said: "13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls."38 Instead of there having been about a dozen cell phone calls from Flight 93, the FBI declared in 2005, there were really only two.


Why were two calls still said to have been possible? They were reportedly made at 9:58, when the plane was reportedly down to 5,000 feet.39 Although that was still pretty high for successful cell phone calls in 2001, these calls, unlike calls from 30,000 feet or higher, would have been at least arguably possible.


If the truth of the FBI's new account is assumed, how can one explain the fact that so many people had reported receiving cell phone calls? In most cases, it seems, these people had been told by the callers that they were using cell phones. For example, a Newsweek story about United 93 said: "Elizabeth Wainio, 27, was speaking to her stepmother in Maryland. Another passenger, she explains, had loaned her a cell phone and told her to call her family."40 In such cases, we might assume that the people receiving the calls had simply mis-heard, or mis-remembered, what they had been told. But this would mean positing that about a dozen people had made the same mistake.


An even more serious difficulty is presented by the case of Deena Burnett, who said that she had received three to five calls from her husband, Tom Burnett. She knew he was using his cell phone, she reported to the FBI that very day and then to the press and in a book, because she had recognized his cell phone number on her phone's Caller ID.41 We cannot suppose her to have been mistaken about this. We also, surely, cannot accuse her of lying.


Therefore, if we accept the FBI's report, according to which Tom Burnett did not make any cell phone calls from Flight 93, we can only conclude that the calls were faked---that Deena Burnett was duped. Although this suggestion may at first sight seem outlandish, there are three facts that, taken together, show it to be more probable than any of the alternatives.


First, voice morphing technology was sufficiently advanced at that time to make faking the calls feasible. A 1999 Washington Post article described demonstrations in which the voices of two generals, Colin Powell and Carl Steiner, were heard saying things they had never said.42


Second, there are devices with which you can fake someone's telephone number, so that it will show up on the recipient's Caller ID.43


Third, the conclusion that the person who called Deena Burnett was not her husband is suggested by various features of the calls. For example, when Deena told the caller that "the kids" were asking to talk to him, he said: "Tell them I'll talk to them later." This was 20 minutes after Tom had purportedly realized that the hijackers were on a suicide mission, planning to "crash this plane into the ground," and 10 minutes after he and other passengers had allegedly decided that as soon as they were "over a rural area" they must try to gain control of the plane. Also, the hijackers had reportedly already killed one person.44 Given all this, the real Tom Burnett would have known that he would likely die, one way or another, in the next few minutes. Is it believable that, rather than taking this probably last opportunity to speak to his children, he would say that he would "talk to them later"? Is it not more likely that "Tom" made this statement to avoid revealing that he knew nothing about "the kids," perhaps not even their names?


Further evidence that the calls were faked is provided by timing problems in some of them. According to the 9/11 Commission, Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 as a result of the passenger revolt, which began at 9:57. However, according to Lyzbeth Glick's account of the aforementioned cell phone call from her husband, Jeremy Glick, she told him about the collapse of the South Tower, and that did not occur until 9:59, two minutes after the alleged revolt had started. After that, she reported, their conversation continued for several more minutes before he told her that the passengers were taking a vote about whether to attack. According to Lyzbeth Glick's account, therefore, the revolt was only beginning by 10:03, when the plane (according to the official account) was crashing.45


A timing problem also occurred in the aforementioned call from flight attendant Amy Sweeney. While she was describing the hijackers, according to the FBI's account of her call, they stormed and took control of the cockpit.46 However, although the hijacking of Flight 11 "began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter," the 9/11 Commission said, Sweeney's call did not go through until 8:25.47 Her alleged call, in other words, described the hijacking as beginning over 11 minutes after it, according to the official timeline, had been successfully carried out.



Multiple lines of evidence, therefore, imply that the cell phone calls were faked. This fact has vast implications, because it implies that all the reported calls from the planes, including those from onboard phones, were faked. Why? Because if the planes had really been taken over in surprise hijackings, no one would have been ready to make fake cell phone calls.


Moreover, the FBI, besides implying, most clearly in the case of Deena Burnett, that the phone calls reporting the hijackings had been faked, comes right out and says, in its report about calls from Flight 77, that no calls from Barbara Olson occurred. It does mention her. But besides attributing only one call to her, not two, the FBI report refers to it as an "unconnected call," which (of course) lasted "0 seconds."48 In 2006, in other words, the FBI, which is part of the Department of Justice, implied that the story told by the DOJ's former solicitor general was untrue. Although not mentioned by the press, this was an astounding development.


This FBI report leaves only two possible explanations for Ted Olson's story: Either he made it up or else he, like Deena Burnett and several others, was duped. In either case, the story about Barbara Olson's calls, with their reports of hijackers taking over Flight 77, was based on deception.


The opening section of The 9/11 Commission Report is entitled "Inside the Four Flights." The information contained in this section is based almost entirely on the reported phone calls. But if the reported calls were faked, we have no idea what happened inside these planes. Insofar as the idea that the planes were taken over by hijackers who looked "Middle Eastern," even "Islamic," has been based on the reported calls, this idea is groundless.


4. Was the Presence of Hijackers Proved by a Radio Transmission "from American 11"?


It might be objected, in reply, that this is not true, because we know that American Flight 11, at least, was hijacked, thanks to a radio transmission in which the voice of one of its hijackers is heard. According to the 9/11 Commission, the air traffic controller for this flight heard a radio transmission at 8:25 AM in which someone---widely assumed to be Mohamed Atta---told the passengers: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport." After quoting this transmission, the Commission wrote: "The controller told us that he then knew it was a hijacking."49 Was this transmission not indeed proof that Flight 11 had been hijacked?


It might provide such proof if we knew that, as the Commission claimed, the "transmission came from American 11."50 But we do not. According to the FAA's "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events," published September 17, 2001, the transmission was "from an unknown origin."51 Bill Peacock, the FAA's air traffic director, said: "We didn't know where the transmission came from."52 The Commission's claim that it came from American 11 was merely an inference. The transmission could have come from the same room from which the calls to Deena Burnett originated.


Therefore, the alleged radio transmission from Flight 11, like the alleged phone calls from the planes, provides no evidence that the planes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers.


5. Did Passports and a Headband Provide Evidence that al-Qaeda Operatives Were on the Flights?


However, the government's case for al-Qaeda hijackers on also rested in part on claims that passports and a headband belonging to al-Qaeda operatives were found at the crash sites. But these claims are patently absurd.


A week after the attacks, the FBI reported that a search of the streets after the destruction of the World Trade Centre had discovered the passport of one of the Flight 11 hijackers, Satam al-Suqami.53 But this claim did not pass the giggle test. "[T]he idea that [this] passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged," wrote one British reporter, "would [test] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism."54


By 2004, when the 9/11 Commission was discussing the alleged discovery of this passport, the story had been modified to say that "a passer-by picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Centre towers collapsed."55 So, rather than needing to survive the collapse of the North Tower, the passport merely needed to escape from the plane's cabin, avoid being destroyed or even singed by the instantaneous jet-fuel fire, and then escape from the building so that it could fall to the ground! Equally absurd is the claim that the passport of Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of Flight 93, was found at this plane's crash site in Pennsylvania.56 This passport was reportedly found on the ground even though there was virtually nothing at the site to indicate that an airliner had crashed there. The reason for this absence of wreckage, we were told, was that the plane had been headed downward at 580 miles per hour and, when it hit the spongy Pennsylvania soil, buried itself deep in the ground. New York Times journalist Jere Longman, surely repeating what he had been told by authorities, wrote: "The fuselage accordioned on itself more than thirty feet into the porous, backfilled ground. It was as if a marble had been dropped into water."57 So, we are to believe, just before the plane buried itself in the earth, Jarrah's passport escaped from the cockpit and landed on the ground. Did Jarrah, going 580 miles per hour, have the window open?58 Also found on the ground, according to the government's evidence presented to the Moussaoui trial, was a red headband.59 This was considered evidence that al-Qaeda hijackers were on Flight 93 because they were, according to some of the phone calls, wearing red headbands. But besides being absurd for the same reason as was the claim about Jarrah's passport, this claim about the headband was problematic for another reason. Former CIA agent Milt Bearden, who helped train the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, has pointed out that it would have been very unlikely that members of al-Qaeda would have worn such headbands:


[The red headband] is a uniquely Shi'a Muslim adornment. It is something that dates back to the formation of the Shi'a sect. . . . [I]t represents the preparation of he who wears this red headband to sacrifice his life, to murder himself for the cause. Sunnis are by and large most of the people following Osama bin Laden [and they] do not do this.60


We learned shortly after the invasion of Iraq that some people in the US government did not know the difference between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. Did such people decide that the hijackers would be described as wearing red headbands?


6. Did the Information in Atta's Luggage Prove the Responsibility of al-Qaeda Operatives?


I come now to the evidence that is said to provide the strongest proof that the planes had been hijacked by Mohamed Atta and other members of al-Qaeda. This evidence was reportedly found in two pieces of Atta's luggage that were discovered inside the Boston airport after the attacks. The luggage was there, we were told, because although Atta was already in Boston on September 10, he and another al-Qaeda operative, Abdul al-Omari, rented a blue Nissan and drove up to Portland, Maine, and stayed overnight. They caught a commuter flight back to Boston early the next morning in time to get on American Flight 11, but Atta's luggage did not make it.



This luggage, according to the FBI affidavit signed by James Lechner, contained much incriminating material, including a handheld flight computer, flight simulator manuals, two videotapes about Boeing aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, and Atta's last will and testament.61 This material was widely taken as proof that al-Qaeda and hence Osama bin Laden were behind the 9/11 attacks.


When closely examined, however, the Atta-to-Portland story loses all credibility.


One problem is the very idea that Atta would have planned to take all these things in baggage that was to be transferred to Flight 11. What good would a flight computer and other flying aids do inside a suitcase in the plane's luggage compartment? Why would he have planned to take his will on a plane he planned to crash into the World Trade Center?


A second problem involves the question of why Atta's luggage did not get transferred onto Flight 11. According to an Associated Press story that appeared four days after 9/11, Atta's flight "arrived at Logan . . . just in time for him to connect with American Airlines flight 11 to Los Angeles, but too late for his luggage to be loaded."62 The 9/11 Commission had at one time evidently planned to endorse this claim.63 But when The 9/11 Commission Report appeared, it said: "Atta and Omari arrived in Boston at 6:45" and then "checked in and boarded American Airlines Flight 11," which was "scheduled to depart at 7:45."64 By thus admitting that there was almost a full hour for the luggage to be transferred to Flight 11, the Commission was left with no explanation as to why it was not.


Still another problem with the Atta-to-Portland story was the question why he would have taken this trip. If the commuter flight had been late, Atta, being the ringleader of the hijackers as well as the intended pilot for Flight 11, would have had to call off the whole operation, which he had reportedly been planning for two years. The 9/11 Commission, like the FBI before it, admitted that it had no answer to this question.65


The fourth and biggest problem with the story, however, is that it did not appear until September 16, five days after 9/11, following the collapse of an earlier story.


According to news reports immediately after 9/11, the incriminating materials, rather than being found in Atta's luggage inside the airport, were found in a white Mitsubishi, which Atta had left in the Boston airport parking lot. Two hijackers did drive a blue Nissan to Portland and then take the commuter flight back to Boston the next morning, but their names were Adnan and Ameer Bukhari.66 This story fell apart on the afternoon of September 13, when it was discovered that the Bukharis, to whom authorities had reportedly been led by material in the Nissan at the Portland Jetport, had not died on 9/11: Adnan was still alive and Ameer had died the year before.67


The next day, September 14, an Associated Press story said that it was Atta and a companion who had driven the blue Nissan to Portland, stayed overnight, and then taken the commuter flight back to Boston. The incriminating materials, however, were still said to have been found in a car in the Boston airport, which was now said to have been rented by "additional suspects."68 Finally, on September 16, a Washington Post story, besides saying that the Nissan had been taken to Portland by Atta and al-Omari, specified that the incriminating material had been found in Atta's luggage inside the Boston airport.69


Given this history of the Atta-to-Portland story, how can we avoid the conclusion that it was a fabrication?


7. Were al-Qaeda Operatives Captured on Airport Security Videos?


Still another type of evidence for the claim that al-Qaeda operatives were on the planes consisted of frames from videos, purportedly taken by airport security cameras, said to show hijackers checking into airports. Shortly after the attacks, for example, photos showing Atta and al-Omari at an airport "were flashed round the world."70 However, although it was widely assumed that these photos were from the airport at Boston, they were really from the airport at Portland. No photos showing Atta or any of the other alleged hijackers at Boston's Logan Airport were ever produced. We at best have photographic evidence that Atta and al-Omari were at the Portland airport.


Moreover, in light of the fact that the story of Atta and al-Omari going to Portland was apparently a late invention, we might expect the photographic evidence that they were at the Portland Jetport on the morning of September 11 to be problematic. And indeed it is. It shows Atta and Omari without either jackets or ties on, whereas the Portland ticket agent said that they had been wearing jackets and ties.71 Also, a photo showing Atta and al-Omari passing through the security checkpoint is marked both 05:45 and 05:53.72


Another airport video was distributed on the day in 2004 that The 9/11 Commission Report was published. The Associated Press, using a frame from it as corroboration of the official story, provided this caption:


Hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar . . . passes through the security checkpoint at Dulles International Airport in Chantilly, Va., Sept. 11 2001, just hours before American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in this image from a surveillance video.73


However, as Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall have pointed out,


a normal security video has time and date burned into the integral video image by proprietary equipment according to an authenticated pattern, along with camera identification and the location that the camera covered. The video released in 2004 contained no such data.74


The Associated Press notwithstanding, therefore, this video contains no evidence that it was taken at Dulles on September 11.


Another problem with this so-called Dulles video is that, although one of the men on it was identified by the 9/11 Commission as Hani Hanjour,75 he "does not remotely resemble Hanjour." Whereas Hanjour was thin and had a receding hairline (as shown by a photo taken six days before 9/11), the man in the video had a somewhat muscular build and a full head of hair, with no receding hairline.76


In sum: Video proof that the named hijackers checked into airports on 9/11 is nonexistent. Besides the fact that the videos purportedly showing hijackers for Flights 11 and 77 reek of inauthenticity, there are no videos even purportedly showing the hijackers for the other two flights. If these 19 men had really checked into the Boston and Dulles airports that day, there should be authentic security videos to prove this.


8. Were the Names of the "Hijackers" on the Passenger Manifests?


What about the passenger manifests, which list all the passengers on the flights? If the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded the flights, their names would have been on the manifests for these flights. And we were told that they were. According to counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, the FBI told him at about 10:00 that morning that it recognized the names of some al-Qaeda operatives on passenger manifests it had received from the airlines.77 As to how the FBI itself acquired its list, Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, said to the 9/11 Commission in 2004:


On the morning of 9/11, through an evaluation of data related to the passenger manifest for the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers. Within 45 minutes of the attacks, Customs forwarded the passenger lists with the names of the victims and 19 probable hijackers to the FBI and the intelligence community.78


Under questioning, Bonner added:


We were able to pull from the airlines the passenger manifest for each of the four flights. We ran the manifest through [our lookout] system. . . . [B]y 11:00 AM, I'd seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out to be, based upon further follow-up in detailed investigation, to be the 19.79


Bonner's statement, however, is doubly problematic. In the first place, the initial FBI list, as reported by CNN on September 13 and 14, contained only 18 names.80 Why would that be if 19 men had already been identified on 9/11?


Second, several of the names on the FBI's first list, having quickly become problematic, were replaced by other names. For example, the previously discussed men named Bukhari, thought to be brothers, were replaced on American 11's list of hijackers by brothers named Waleed and Wail al-Shehri. Two other replacements for this flight were Satam al-Suqami, whose passport was allegedly found at Ground Zero, and Abdul al-Omari, who allegedly went to Portland with Atta the day before 9/11. Also, the initial list for American 77 did not include the name of Hani Hanjour, who would later be called the pilot of this flight. Rather, it contained a name that, after being read aloud by a CNN correspondent, was transcribed "Mosear Caned."81 All in all, the final list of 19 hijackers contained six names that were not on the original list of 18---a fact that contradicts Bonner's claim that by 11:00 AM on 9/11 his agency had identified 19 probable hijackers who, in fact, "turned out to be. . . the 19."


These replacements to the initial list also undermine the claim that Amy Sweeney, by giving the seat numbers of three of the hijackers to Michael Woodward of American Airlines, allowed him to identify Atta and two others. This second claim is impossible because the two others were Abdul al-Omari and Satam al-Suqami,82 and they were replacements for two men on the original list---who, like Adnan Bukhari, turned up alive after 9/11.83 Woodward could not possibly have identified men who were not added to the list until several days later.84


For all these reasons, the claim that the names of the 19 alleged hijackers were on the airlines' passenger manifests must be considered false.


This conclusion is supported by the fact that the passenger manifests that were released to the public included no names of any of the 19 alleged hijackers and, in fact, no Middle Eastern names whatsoever.85 These manifests, therefore, support the suspicion that there were no al-Qaeda hijackers on the planes.


It might appear that this conclusion is contradicted by the fact that passenger manifests with the names of the alleged hijackers have appeared. A photocopy of a portion of an apparent passenger manifest for American Flight 11, with the names of three of the alleged hijackers, was published in a 2005 book by Terry McDermott, Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers.86 McDermott reportedly said that he received these manifests from the FBI.87 But the idea that these were the original manifests is problematic.


For one thing, they were not included in the evidence presented by the FBI to the Moussaoui trial in 2006.88 If even the FBI will not cite them as evidence, why should anyone think they are genuine?


Another problem with these purported manifests, copies of which can be viewed on the Internet,89 is that they show signs of being late creations. One such sign is that Ziad Jarrah's last name is spelled correctly, whereas in the early days after 9/11, the FBI was referring to him as "Jarrahi," as news reports from the time show.90 A second sign is that the manifest for American Flight 77 contains Hani Hanjour's name, even though its absence from the original list of hijackers had led the Washington Post to wonder why Hanjour's "name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight."91 A third sign is that the purported manifest for American Flight 11 contains the names of Wail al-Shehri, Waleed al-Shehri, Satam al-Suqami, and Abdul al-Omari, all of whom were added some days after 9/11.



In sum, no credible evidence that al-Qaeda operatives were on the flights is provided by the passenger manifests.


9. Did DNA Tests Identify Five Hijackers among the Victims at the Pentagon?


Another type of evidence that the alleged hijackers were really on the planes could have been provided by autopsies. But no such evidence has been forthcoming. In its book defending the official account of 9/11, to be sure, Popular Mechanics claims that, according to a report on the victims of the Pentagon attack by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology: "The five hijackers were positively identified."92 But this claim is false.


According to a summary of this pathology report by Andrew Baker, M.D., the remains of 183 victims were subjected to DNA analysis, which resulted in "178 positive identifications." Although Baker says that "[s]ome remains for each of the terrorists were recovered," this was merely an inference from the fact that there were "five unique post-mortem profiles that did not match any ante mortem material provided by victims' families."93


A Washington Post story made even clearer the fact that this conclusion---that the unmatched remains were those of "the five hijackers"---was merely an inference. It wrote: "The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process of exclusion, as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site" (emphasis added).94 All the report said, in other words, was that there were five bodies whose DNA did not match that of any of the known Pentagon victims or any of the regular passengers or crew members on Flight 77.


We have no way of knowing where these five bodies came from. For the claim that they came from the attack site at the Pentagon, we have only the word of the FBI and the military, which insisted on taking charge of the bodies of everyone killed at the Pentagon and transporting them to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.95


In any case, the alleged hijackers could have been positively identified only if samples had been obtained from their relatives, and there is no indication that this occurred. Indeed, one can wonder why not. The FBI had lots of information about the men identified as the hijackers. They could easily have located relatives. And these relatives, most of whom reportedly did not believe that their own flesh and blood had been involved in the attacks, would have surely been willing to supply the needed DNA. Indeed, a story about Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of Flight 93, said: "Jarrah's family has indicated they would be willing to provide DNA samples to US researchers, . . . [but] the FBI has shown no interest thus far."96


The lack of positive identification of the alleged hijackers is consistent with the autopsy report, which was released to Dr. Thomas Olmsted, who had made a FOIA request for it. Like the flight manifest for Flight 77, he revealed, this report also contains no Arab names.97


10. Has the Claim That Some of the "Hijackers" Are Still Alive Been Debunked?


Another problem with the claim that the 19 hijackers were correctly identified on 9/11, or at least a few days later, is that some of the men on the FBI's final list reportedly turned up alive after 9/11. Although Der Spiegel and the BBC claim to have debunked these reports, I will show this is untrue by examining the case of one of the alleged hijackers, Waleed al-Shehri---who, we saw earlier, was a replacement for Adnan Bukhari, who himself had shown up alive after 9/11.


In spite of the fact that al-Shehri was a replacement, the 9/11 Commission revealed no doubts about his presence on Flight 11, speculating that he and his brother Wail---another replacement---stabbed two of the flight attendants.98 But the Commission certainly should have had doubts.


On September 22, 2001, the BBC published an article by David Bamford entitled "Hijack "-Suspect' Alive in Morocco." It showed that the Waleed al-Shehri identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers was still alive. Explaining why the problem could not be dismissed as a case of mistaken identity, Bamford wrote:


His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack. He told Saudi journalists in Casablanca that . . . he has now been interviewed by the American authorities, who apologised for the misunderstanding.99


The following day, September 23, the BBC published another story, "Hijack "-Suspects' Alive and Well." Discussing several alleged hijackers who had shown up alive, it said of al-Shehri in particular: "He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach. . . . But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco."100


In 2003, an article in Der Spiegel tried to debunk these two BBC stories, characterizing them as "nonsense about surviving terrorists." It claimed that the reported still-alive hijackers were all cases of mistaken identity, involving men with "coincidentally identical names." This claim by Der Spiegel depended on its assertion that, at the time of the reports, the FBI had released only a list of names: "The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th."101 But that was not true. Bamford's BBC story of September 22, as we saw, reported that Waleed al-Shehri's photograph had been "released by the FBI" and "shown in newspapers and on television around the world."


In 2006, nevertheless, the BBC used the same claim to withdraw its support for its own stories. Steve Herrmann, the editor of the BBC News website, claimed that confusion had arisen because "these were common Arabic and Islamic names." Accordingly, he said, the BBC had changed its September 23 story in one respect: "Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "-A man called Waleed Al Shehri...' to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity."102 But Bamford's BBC story of September 22, which Herrmann failed to mention, had made it "as clear as possible" that there could not have been any confusion.



These attempts by Der Spiegel and the BBC, in which they tried to discredit the reports that Waleed al-Shehri was still alive after 9/11, have been refuted by Jay Kolar, who shows that FBI photographs had been published by Saudi newspapers as early as September 19. Kolar thereby undermines the only argument against Bamford's assertion, according to which there could have been no possibility of mistaken identity because al-Shehri had seen his published photograph prior to September 22, when Bamford's story appeared.103


The fact that al-Shehri, along with several other alleged hijackers,104 was alive after 9/11 shows unambiguously that at least some of the men on the FBI's final list were not on the planes. It would appear that the FBI, after replacing some of its first-round candidates because of their continued existence, decided not to replace any more, in spite of their exhibition of the same defect.


11. Is There Positive Evidence That No Hijackers Were on the Planes?


At this point, defenders of the official story might argue: The fact that some of the men labelled hijackers were still alive after 9/11 shows only that the FBI list contained some errors; it does not prove that there were no al-Qaeda hijackers on board. And although the previous points do undermine the evidence for such hijackers, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.


Evidence of absence, however, is implicit in the prior points in two ways. First, the lack of Arab names on the Pentagon autopsy report and on any of the issued passenger manifests does suggest the absence of al-Qaeda operatives. Second, if al-Qaeda hijackers really were on the flights, why was evidence to prove this fact fabricated?


Beyond those two points, moreover, there is a feature of the reported events that contradicts the claim that hijackers broke into the pilots' cabins. This feature can be introduced by reference to Conan Doyle's short story "Silver Blaze," which is about a famous race horse that had disappeared the night before a big race. Although the local Scotland Yard detective believed that Silver Blaze had been stolen by an intruder, Sherlock Holmes brought up "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." When the inspector pointed out that "[t]he dog did nothing in the night-time," Holmes replied: "That was the curious incident."105 Had there really been an intruder, in other words, the dog would have barked. This has become known as the case of "the dog that didn't bark."


A similar curious incident occurred on each of the four flights. In the event of a hijacking, pilots are trained to enter the standard hijack code (7500) into their transponders to alert controllers on the ground. Using the transponder to send a code is called "squawking." One of the big puzzles about 9/11 was why none of the pilots squawked the hijack code.


CNN provided a good treatment of this issue, saying with regard to the first flight:


Flight 11 was hijacked apparently by knife-wielding men. Airline pilots are trained to handle such situations by keeping calm, complying with requests, and if possible, dialling in an emergency four digit code on a device called a transponder. . . . The action takes seconds, but it appears no such code was entered.106


The crucial issue was indicated by the phrase "if possible": Would it have been possible for the pilots of Flight 11 to have performed this action? A positive answer was suggested by CNN's next statement:


[I]n the cabin, a frantic flight attendant managed to use a phone to call American Airlines Command Centre in Dallas. She reported the trouble. And according to "The Christian Science Monitor," a pilot apparently keyed the microphone, transmitting a cockpit conversation.107


If there was time for both of those actions to be taken, there would have been time for one of the pilots to enter the four-digit hijack code.


That would have been all the more true of the pilots on United Flight 93, given the (purported) tapes from this flight. A reporter at the Moussaoui trial, where these tapes had been played, wrote:


In those tapes, the pilots shouted as hijackers broke into the cockpit. "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!" a pilot screamed in the first tape. In the second tape, 30 seconds later, a pilot shouted: "Mayday! Get out of here! Get out of here!"108


According to these tapes, therefore, the pilots were still alive and coherent 30 seconds after realizing that hijackers were breaking into the cockpit. And yet in all that time, neither of them did the most important thing they had been trained to do---turn the transponder to 7500.


In addition to the four pilots on Flights 11 and 93, furthermore, the four pilots on Flights 175 and 77 failed to do this as well.



In "Silver Blaze," the absence of an intruder was shown by the dog that didn't bark. On 9/11, the absence of hijackers was shown by the pilots who didn't squawk.


12. Were bin Laden and al-Qaeda Capable of Orchestrating the Attacks?


For prosecutors to prove that defendants committed a crime, they must show that they had the ability (as well as the motive and opportunity) to do so. But several political and military leaders from other countries have stated that bin Laden and al-Qaeda simply could not have carried out the attacks. General Leonid Ivashov, who in 2001 was the chief of staff for the Russian armed forces, wrote:


Only secret services and their current chiefs---or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations---have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. . . . . Osama bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders.


Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, the former foreign minister of Egypt, wrote:


Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaida as if it was Nazi Germany or the communist party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there.


Similar statements have been made by Andreas von Bülow, the former state secretary of West Germany's ministry of defence, by General Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of staff of Pakistan's army, and even General Musharraf, the president of Pakistan until recently.109


This same point was also made by veteran CIA agent Milt Bearden. Speaking disparagingly of "the myth of Osama bin Laden" on CBS News the day after 9/11, Bearden said: "I was there [in Afghanistan] at the same time bin Laden was there. He was not the great warrior." With regard to the widespread view that bin Laden was behind the attacks, he said: "This was a tremendously sophisticated operation against the United States---more sophisticated than anybody would have ascribed to Osama bin Laden." Pointing out that a group capable of such a sophisticated attack would have had a way to cover their tracks, he added: "This group who was responsible for that, if they didn't have an Osama bin Laden out there, they'd invent one, because he's a terrific diversion."110


13. Could Hani Hanjour Have Flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon?


The inability of al-Qaeda to have carried out the operation can be illustrated in terms of Hani Hanjour, the al-Qaeda operative said to have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon.


On September 12, before it was stated that Hanjour had been the pilot of American 77, the final minutes of this plane's trajectory had been described as one requiring great skill. A Washington Post story said:


[J]ust as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet manoeuvre. . . . Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.111


But Hani Hanjour was not that. Indeed, a CBS story reported, an Arizona flight school said that Hanjour's "flying skills were so bad . . . they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license." The manager stated: "I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had."112 A New York Times story, entitled "A Trainee Noted for Incompetence," quoted one of his instructors as saying that Hanjour "could not fly at all."113


The 9/11 Commission even admitted that in the summer of 2001, just months before 9/11, a flight instructor in New Jersey, after going up with Hanjour in a small plane, "declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills."114 The Commission failed to address the question of how Hanjour, incapable of flying a single-engine plane, could have flown a giant 757 through the trajectory reportedly taken by Flight 77: descending 8,000 feet in three minutes and then coming in at ground level to strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon between the first and second floors, without even scraping the lawn.


Several pilots have said this would have been impossible. Russ Wittenberg, who flew large commercial airliners for 35 years after serving as a fighter pilot in Vietnam, says it would have been "totally impossible for an amateur who couldn't even fly a Cessna" to fly that downward spiral and then "crash into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."115 Ralph Omholt, a former 757 pilot, has bluntly said: "The idea that an unskilled pilot could have flown this trajectory is simply too ridiculous to consider."116 Ralph Kolstad, who was a US Navy "top gun" pilot before becoming a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, has said: "I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757's and 767's and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. . . . Something stinks to high heaven!"117


The authors of the Popular Mechanics book about 9/11 offered to solve this problem. While acknowledging that Hanjour "may not have been highly skilled," they said that he did not need to be, because all he had to do was, using a GPS unit, put his plane on autopilot.118 "He steered the plane manually for only the final eight minutes of the flight," they state triumphantly119---ignoring the fact that it was precisely during those minutes that Hanjour had allegedly performed the impossible.



14. Would an al-Qaeda Pilot Have Executed that Manoeuvre?


A further question is: Even if one of the al-Qaeda operatives on that flight could have executed that manoeuvre, would he have done so? This question arises out of the fact that the plane could easily have crashed into the roof on the side of the Pentagon that housed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and all the top brass. The difficult manoeuvre would have been required only by the decision to strike Wedge 1 on the side.


But this was the worst possible place, given the assumed motives of the al-Qaeda operatives: They would have wanted to kill Rumsfeld and the top brass, but Wedge 1 was as far removed from their offices as possible. They would have wanted to cause as much destruction as possible, but Wedge 1---and only it---had been renovated to make it less vulnerable to attack. Al-Qaeda operatives would have wanted to kill as many Pentagon employees as possible, but because the renovation was not quite complete, Wedge 1 was only sparsely occupied. The attack also occurred on the only part of the Pentagon that would have presented physical obstacles to an attacking airplane. All of these facts were public knowledge. So even if an al-Qaeda pilot had been capable of executing the manoeuvre to strike the ground floor of Wedge 1, he would not have done so.


15. Could al-Qaeda Operatives Have Brought Down the World Trade Centre Buildings?


Returning to the issue of competence, another question is whether al-Qaeda operatives could have brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7?


With regard to the Twin Towers, the official theory is that they were brought down by the impact of the airplanes plus the ensuing fires. But this theory cannot explain why the towers, after exploding outwards at the top, came straight down, because this type of collapse would have required all 287 of each building's steel columns---which ran from the basement to the roof---to have failed simultaneously; it cannot explain why the top parts of the buildings came straight down at virtually free-fall speed, because this required that the lower parts of the building, with all of their steel and concrete, offered no resistance; it cannot explain why sections of steel beams, weighing thousands of tons, were blown out horizontally more than 500 feet; it cannot explain why some of the steel had melted, because this melting required temperatures far hotter than the fires in the buildings could possibly have been; and it cannot explain why many fire-fighters and WTC employees reported massive explosions in the buildings long after all the jet-fuel had burned up. But all of these phenomena are easily explainable by the hypothesis that the buildings were brought down by explosives in the procedure known as controlled demolition.120


This conclusion now constitutes the consensus of independent physicists, chemists, architects, engineers, and demolition experts who have studied the facts.121 For example, Edward Munyak, a mechanical and fire protection engineer who worked in the US departments of energy and defence, says: "The concentric nearly freefall speed exhibited by each building was identical to most controlled demolitions. . . . Collapse [was] not caused by fire effects."122 Dwain Deets, the former director of the research engineering division at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Centre, mentions the "massive structural members being hurled horizontally" as one of the factors leaving him with "no doubt [that] explosives were involved."123


Given the fact that WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane, its vertical collapse at virtually free-fall speed, which also was preceded by explosions and involved the melting of steel, was still more obviously an example of controlled demolition.124 For example, Jack Keller, emeritus professor of engineering at Utah State University, who has been given special recognition by Scientific American, said: "Obviously it was the result of controlled demolition."125 Likewise, when Danny Jowenko---a controlled demolition expert in the Netherlands who had not known that WTC 7 had collapsed on 9/11---was asked to comment on a video of its collapse, he said: "They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . [I]t's been imploded. . . . A team of experts did this."126


If the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by explosives, the question becomes: Who would have had the ability to place the explosives? This question involves two parts: First, who could have obtained access to the buildings for all the hours it would have taken to plant the explosives? The answer is: Only someone with connections to people in charge of security for the World Trade Centre.


The second part of the question is: Who, if they had such access, would have had the expertise to engineer the controlled demolition of these three buildings? As Jowenko's statement indicated, the kind of controlled demolition to which these buildings were subjected was implosion, which makes the building come straight down. According to, an implosion is "by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions."127


Both parts of the question, therefore, rule out al-Qaeda operatives. The destruction of the World Trade Centre had to have been an inside job.


16. Would al-Qaeda Operatives Have Imploded the Buildings?


Finally, we can also ask whether, even if al-Qaeda operatives had possessed the ability to cause the World Trade Centre buildings to implode so as to come straight down, they would have done so? The answer to this question becomes obvious once we reflect upon the purpose of this kind of controlled demolition, which is to avoid damaging near-by buildings. Had the 110-story Twin Towers fallen over sideways, they would have caused massive destruction in lower Manhattan, destroying dozens of other buildings and killing tens of thousands of people. Would al-Qaeda have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings came straight down?




All the proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated. If that is determined indeed to be the case, the implications would be enormous. Discovering and prosecuting the true perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks would obviously be important. The most immediate consequence, however, should be to reverse those attitudes and policies that have been based on the assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11.






1. On the ways in which torture, extraordinary rendition, government spying, and the military tribunals have undermined US constitutional principles, see Louis Fisher, The Constitution and 9/11: Recurring Threats to America's Freedoms (Lawrence: Kansas University Press, 2008).


2. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, authorized edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), 160 (henceforth 9/11CR).


3. 9/11CR 154.


4. Kevin Fagan, "Agents of Terror Leave Their Mark on Sin City," San Francisco Chronicle, 4 October 2001 (click here


5. See ibid.; David Wedge, "Terrorists Partied with Hooker at Hub-Area Hotel," Boston Herald, 10 October, 2001 (click here and Jody A. Benjamin, "Suspects' Actions Don't Add Up," South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 16 September 2001 (click here


6. "Terrorist Stag Parties," Wall Street Journal, 10 October 2001 (


7. 9/11CR 248.


8. "Meet the Press," NBC, 23 September, 2001 (click here


9. "Remarks by the President, Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill and Secretary of State Powell on Executive Order," White House, 24 September 2001 (click here


10. Seymour M. Hersh, "What Went Wrong: The C.I.A. and the Failure of American Intelligence," New Yorker, 1 October 2001 (


11. "White House Warns Taliban: "-We Will Defeat You,'" CNN, 21 September 2001 (click here


12. Office of the Prime Minister, "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States," BBC News, 4 October 2001 (click here


13. "The Investigation and the Evidence," BBC News, 5 October 2001 (


14. Kathy Gannon, "Taliban Willing to Talk, But Wants U.S. Respect," Associated Press, 1 November 2001 (click here



15. Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Most Wanted Terrorists: Usama bin Laden" (


16. Ed Haas, "FBI says, "-No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'" Muckraker Report, 6 June 2006 (


17. See my discussion in The New Pearl Harbour Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 208-11.


18. BBC News, "Tape "-Proves Bin Laden's Guilt,'" 14 December 2001 (


19. See "The Fake 2001 bin Laden Video Tape" (


20. Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, with Benjamin Rhodes, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006).


21. 9/11CR 149, 155, 166.


22. See 9/11CR Ch. 5, notes 16, 41, and 92.


23. Kean and Hamilton, Without Precedent, 118.


24. Ibid., 122-24.


25. Ibid., 119.


26. Robert Windrem and Victor Limjoco, "The 9/11 Commission Controversy," Deep Background: NBC News Investigations, 30 January 2008 (click here


27. Tim O'Brien, "Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane," CNN, 11 September 2001 (


28. Charles Lane and John Mintz, "Bid to Thwart Hijackers May Have Led to Pa. Crash," Washington Post, 13 September 2001 (click here

29. Kerry Hall, "Flight Attendant Helped Fight Hijackers," News & Record (Greensboro, N.C.), 21 September 2001 (click here


30. 9/11CR 6.


31. Gail Sheehy, "Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show," New York Observer, 15 February 2004 (


32. "Calm Before the Crash: Flight 11 Crew Sent Key Details Before Hitting the Twin Towers," ABC News, 18 July 2002 (click here


33. A. K. Dewdney, "The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93," Physics 911, 9 June 2003 ( For discussion of this issue, see The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 112-14.


34. See Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts: An In-Depth Investigation by Popular Mechanics, ed. David Dunbar and Brad Reagan (New York: Hearst Books, 2006), 83-86.


35. Lechner FBI Affidavit; available at Four Corners: Investigative TV Journalism (click here Woodward and Sweeney are not identified by name in the affidavit, which refers simply to the former as "an employee of American Airlines at Logan" and to the latter as "a flight attendant on AA11." But their names were revealed in an "investigative document compiled by the FBI" to which Eric Lichtblau referred in "Aboard Flight 11, a Chilling Voice," Los Angeles Times, 20 September 2001 (click here


36. 9/11CR 453n32.


37. Gail Sheehy, "9/11 Tapes Reveal Ground Personnel Muffled Attacks," New York Observer, 24 June, 2004 (


38. Greg Gordon, "Prosecutors Play Flight 93 Cockpit Recording," McClatchy Newspapers,, 12 April 2006 (click here The quoted statement is Gordon's paraphrase of the testimony of "a member of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force."


39. See United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (click here This graphics presentation can be more easily viewed in "Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights" at 9-11 Research (click here


40. "The Final Moments of United Flight 93," Newsweek, 22 September 2001 (click here See "Interview with Deena Lynne Burnett (re: phone call from hijacked flight)," 9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11, 2001,, 14 March 2008 (click here Greg Gordon, "Widow Tells of Poignant Last Calls," Sacramento Bee, 11 September 2002 (click here and Deena L. Burnett (with Anthony F. Giombetti), Fighting Back: Living Beyond Ourselves (Longwood, Florida: Advantage Inspirational Books, 2006), where she wrote: "I looked at the caller ID and indeed it was Tom's cell phone number" (61).


42. William M. Arkin, "When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing," Washington Post, 1 February 1999 (click here Although Brickhouse Security's advertisement for Telephone Voice Changers (click here has been modified in recent years, it previously included a device called "FoneFaker," the ad for which said: "Record any call you make, fake your Caller ID and change your voice, all with one service you can use from any phone."


44. For Deena Burnett's reconstruction of the calls, see click here


45. See The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 122.


46. Lichtblau, "Aboard Flight 11, a Chilling Voice" (see note 34, above).

47. 9/11CR 4, 6.


48. See note 38, above.


49. 9/11CR 19.


50. Ibid.


51. "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events: September 11, 2001," FAA, 17 September 2001 (click here


52. Frank J. Murray, "Americans Feel Touch of Evil; Fury Spurs Unity," Washington Times, 11 September 2002 (click here


53. "Ashcroft Says More Attacks May Be Planned," CNN, 18 September 2001 (click here "Terrorist Hunt," ABC News (click here


54. Anne Karpf, "Uncle Sam's Lucky Finds," Guardian, 19 March 2002 (click here Like some others, this article mistakenly said the passport belonged to Mohamed Atta.


55. Statement by Susan Ginsburg, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, at the 9/11 Commission Hearing, 26 January 2004 (click here The Commission's account reflected a CBS report that the passport had been found "minutes after" the attack, which was stated by the Associated Press, 27 January 2003.


56. Sheila MacVicar and Caroline Faraj, "September 11 Hijacker Questioned in January 2001," CNN, 1 August 2002 (click here 9/11 Commission Hearing, 26 January 2004.


57. 9/11CR 14; Jere Longman, Among the Heroes: United 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back (New York: HarperCollins, 2002), 215.


58. In light of the absurdity of the claims about the passports of al-Suqami and Jarrah, we can safely assume that the ID cards of Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and Salem al-Hazmi, said to have been discovered at the Pentagon crash site (see "9/11 and Terrorist Travel," 9/11 Commission Staff Report [click here 27, 42), were also planted.


59. For a photograph of the headband, see 9-11 Research, "The Crash of Flight 93" (click here


60. Quoted in Ross Coulthart, "Terrorists Target America," Ninemsn, September 2001 (click here


61. Lechner FBI Affidavit (see note 34, above).


62. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 September 2001; Boston Globe, 18 September, 2001.

63. The 9/11 Commission's Staff Statement No. 16, dated 16 June 2004 (, said: "The Portland detour almost prevented Atta and Omari from making Flight 11 out of Boston. In fact, the luggage they checked in Portland failed to make it onto the plane."


64. 9/11CR 1-2.


65. 9/11CR 451n1; FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, "Statement for the Record," Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry, 26 September 2002 (click here


66. "Two Brothers among Hijackers," CNN Report, 13 September 2001 (click here


67. "Feds Think They've Identified Some Hijackers," CNN, 13 September 2001 (click here


68. "Portland Police Eye Local Ties," Associated Press, Portsmouth Herald, 14 September 2001 (click here


69. Joel Achenbach, "'You Never Imagine' A Hijacker Next Door," Washington Post, 16 September 2001 (click here Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2005), 181.


71. David Hench, "Ticket Agent Haunted by Brush with 9/11 Hijackers," Portland Press Herald, 6 March 2005 (


72. This photo can be seen at click here


73. Associated Press, 22 July 2004. The photo with this caption can be seen in Morgan and Henshall, 9/11 Revealed, 117-18, along with a genuine security video (with identification data), or at (scroll half-way down).


74. Rowland and Henshall, 9/11 Revealed, 118.


75. 9/11CR 452n11.


76. Jay Kolar, "What We Now Know about the Alleged 9-11 Hijackers," in Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11 (New York: Seven Stories, 2008), 3-44, at 8 (emphasis Kolar's).


77. Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (New York: Free Press, 2004), 13.


78. "Statement of Robert C. Bonner to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States," 26 January 2004 (click here


79. Ibid.

80. "FBI: Early Probe Results Show 18 Hijackers Took Part," CNN, 13 September 2001 (click here "List of Names of 18 Suspected Hijackers," CNN, 14 September 2001 (click here


81. "List of Names of 18 Suspected Hijackers."



82. Gail Sheehy, "Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show," New York Observer, 15 February 2004 (


83. Satam al-Suqami replaced a man named Amer Kamfar, and Abdulaziz al-Omari replaced a man with a similar name, Abdulrahman al-Omari; see Kolar, "What We Now Know," 12-15.


84. Another problem with the claim that Woodward had identified these three men is that the seat numbers reportedly used to identify Atta and al-Omari (see Gail Sheehy, "Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early") did not match the numbers of the seats assigned to these two men (9/11CR 2).


85. All four passenger manifests can be found at click here


86. Terry McDermott, Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), photo section after p. 140.


87. This is stated at "The Passengers," (


88. Although discussions on the Internet have often claimed that these manifests were included in the FBI's evidence for the Moussaoui trial, several researchers failed to find them. See Jim Hoffman's discussion at click here


89. To view them, see "Passenger Lists," 9-11 Research (click here To download them and/or read cleaned-up versions, see "The Passengers," (


90. "Hijackers Linked to USS Cole Attack? Investigators Have Identified All the Hijackers; Photos to Be Released," CBS News, 14 September 2001 (click here Elizabeth Neuffer, "Hijack Suspect Lived a Life, or a Lie," Boston Globe, 25 September 2001 (click here


91. "Four Planes, Four Coordinated Teams," Washington Post, 16 September 2001 (click here


92. David Dunbar and Brad Reagan, eds., Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (New York: Hearst Books, 2006), 63.


93. Andrew M. Baker, M.D., "Human Identification in a Post-9/11 World: Attack on American Airlines Flight 77 and the Pentagon Identification and Pathology" (click here


94. Steve Vogel, "Remains Unidentified for 5 Pentagon Victims," Washington Post, 21 November 2001 (click here See my discussion in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, revised & updated edition (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 268-69.


96. "Ziad Jarrah," Wikipedia, as the article existed prior to September 8, 2006. On that date, that passage was removed. However, the earlier version of the article, containing the passage, is available at


97. Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D. "Still No Arabs on Flight 77,", 23 June 2003 (


98. 9/11CR 5.


99. David Bamford, "Hijack "-Suspect' Alive in Morocco," BBC, 22 September 2001 (click here


100. "Hijack "-Suspects' Alive and Well," BBC News, 23 September 2001 (click here "Panoply of the Absurd," Der Spiegel, 8 September 2003 [click here


102. Steve Herrmann, "9/11 Conspiracy Theory," The Editors, BBC News, 27 October 2006 (click here


103. Jay Kolar, "Update: What We Now Know about the Alleged 9-11 Hijackers," Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11: 293-304, at 293-94.


104. For discussion of some of these other men, see ibid., 295-98.


105. The story "Silver Blaze" is available at Wikisource (


106. "America Under Attack: How could It Happen?" CNN Live Event, 12 September 2001 (click here


107. Ibid. This was the "radio transmission" discussed earlier.


108. Richard A. Serrano, "Heroism, Fatalism Aboard Flight 93," Los Angeles Times, 12 April 2006 (click here


109. All of these statements are contained in the section headed "Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials" at Patriots Question 9/11 (


110. "9/12/2001: CIA Veteran Doubts Bin Laden Capable of 9/11 Attacks, Suspects Larger Plot," Aidan Monaghan's Blog, 11 March 2008 (


111. Marc Fisher and Don Phillips, "On Flight 77: "-Our Plane Is Being Hijacked,'" Washington Post, 12 September 2001 (click here


112. "FAA Was Alerted To Sept. 11 Hijacker," CBS News, 10 May 2002 (click here


113. Jim Yardley, "A Trainee Noted for Incompetence," New York Times, 4 May 2002 (click here 9/11CR 242.

115. Greg Szymanski, "Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job," Arctic Beacon, 17 July 2005 (click here Email from Ralph Omholt, 27 October 2006.


117. Alan Miller, "U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 911 Pentagon Story,", 5 September 2007 (click here Dunbar and Reagan, eds., Debunking 9/11 Myths, 6.


119. Ibid.


120. These problems and more are discussed in The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, Ch. 1.


121. For such people who have been willing to go public, see Patriots Question 9/11 (


122. Patriots Question 9/11 (


123. Stated at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (


124. For anyone aware of the facts, NIST's report on the collapse of WTC 7, issued August 22, 2008, is laughable. For one thing, as I had predicted (Ch. 1 of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited), NIST simply ignored all the facts to which its fire theory cannot do justice, such as the melted steel, the thermite residue, and the reports of explosions in the building.


125. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (click here This interview can be seen at "Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7" ( A portion is contained in the film Loose Change Final Cut.


127. "The Myth of Implosion" (


David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, where he taught philosophy of religion and theology, with special emphases on the problem of evil and the relations between science and religion, theology and ecology, religion and politics, and modernity and post-modernity. He has published 34 books, including seven about 9/11, most recently The New Pearl Harbour Revisited: 9/11, The Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Olive Branch, 2008). Dr. Griffin's previous books about 9/11 include The New Pearl Harbour: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God (2005, co-authored with John B. Cobb, Jr., Richard Falk, and Catherine Keller), Christian Faith and the Truth about 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006), 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006, co-edited with Peter Dale Scott), Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (2007), and 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (2008).



Comments (116)


 Does it matter that the government killed almost 3000 of it's own citizens?...I guess not, because people are coward or don't care for their country.

jerry | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 6:45 pm | #


 One point that remains unanswered. Just how was some outside force able to get control of the airlines and guide them into the sides of the World Trade Center.


The answer lies in what was once the 26th floor of building #7. That was Mayor Guiliani's nerve center. It was supplied with lots of state-of-the-art electronic equipment. Just what was the equipment and what was its aim? Let's suppose that it had remote control devices that could command the control of the planes and steer them into the sides of the buildings. That is a plausible hypothesis. That's why building #7 had to be destroyed before anyone discovered the equipment.


If someone has a better explanation I should like to hear it.

eagleeye | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 11:00 pm | #


 O.K. - let's go on from where you left off. Where does the finger point? To the Bush Administration? To Cheney? Neo-cons? Which ones? Or the Israelis - Mossad? CIA? Or ... just who?


Did the the group concerned have the RESOURCES you claim Al Qaeda did not have, to organise 9/11? If the answer is they had government resources - how did they get to use them without permission and without someone finding out?


What was the MOTIVE of the group? To be able invade Afghanistan, or Iraq? Or both? Or to 'take over' the US by undermining he constitution? To bolster Israel?


And, if a cabal in government in the US was responsible, why have there been no leaks in leaky America?


And why on earth plan such a devious and devilish plot with all the risks of being found out (with devastating consequences) for any of the above motives when there were much simpler, far less dangerous, ways of achieving the desired end?


Surely you can't just leave it there - having purportedly shown that Al Qaeda couldn't have done it, surely we need to know be shown who could have, and why.

John Pedler | Homepage | 09.11.08 - 1:04 am | #


17 Visitors Online

 have read and agree to comments policy as posted here


Amazing how they rigged the buildings to explode huh


Interesting how many Zionists got very rich off the events


Interesting how th Zionists have never been put jail and they own both political parties.


Wake up USA citizens you were set up and don't think you will get justice when the new government takes power when Bush and his Neocons(Zionists) are gone.


and you give how many Billion to Isreal each year? like they need it. NOT!

ZionistSlayer | 09.10.08 - 12:02 am | #


 It was said that the passport of Atta was found on Broadway after the attack:

has it been on display lately?

Yompi | 09.10.08 - 12:05 am | #


 It should be obvious by now that not only the official explanation for 9/11 isn't worth shit, but also, and perhaps more importantly, that those who told that story didn't bother too much about making it really plausible. They barely covered their tracks! Why such a botched job?


Perhaps the real criminals know this for sure, that they have nothing to fear.

tsk_tsk | 09.10.08 - 12:54 am | #


 "Much of America's foreign policy since 9/11 has been based on the assumption that it was attacked by Muslims on that day."So states the article.


You can also state that Israel's foreign policy since the holohoax has been based on the assumption that 6000,000 or more perished in gas chambers.


So ,basically to question the official holocaust story is to be accussed of "Anti-semitism" and a "denier",and to question the official story of 9/11 is to be labelled a "terrorist" and "Anti-American".


It appears to me that the only people who have hijacked anything is the government of these two countries and are both diliginately trying their darnest and hardest to stifle intelligent and genuine debate.


It is interesting that denying the existence of God,Jesus,Mohommed etc etc is encouraged and applauded,but question the holocaust or 9/11 is like committing personal suicide and forever at the reseiving end of scorn and ridicule.

informer | 09.10.08 - 2:03 am | #


 I have read most of Griffin's books on the subject, if anyone still supports the 'Official Bushbelievers nutty conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs did it', I suggest you read Griffin's books. If Griffin was English I would suggest that he should be knighted for his work to encourage the truth relating to 911.

Everyone should get a hold of the Italian video; "Zero, an nvestigation into 9/11", it is to be shown to 20-30 million Russians on 12th September, fancy that and how ironic, those Ruskies are going to be better informed than the US dumbos.

(It is also know on the net)

My US cousins: You do really need to call on God now and bloody urgently!

God bless.

Bruce | 09.10.08 - 3:00 am | #


 Bruce: Do you have a link for Zero?...I live in Italy, yet I can't find this film...also, if it is available in english or with english subtitles that would be great. I've checked google video but they just have a preview for it. Any info would be much appreciated!

lily | 09.10.08 - 3:56 am | #


 David Ray Griffin runs down the fact corellations and timing of events of 911 and lists discrepencies found and changes made to the investigators documentary evidences in his,'" Was America Attacked By Muslims On 911"?


Good Question and adequately challenged by Griffin's researches of the central case presented and corroberated by the 911 commission.


Griffin often cites the FBI as the force agency which draws attention to or refutes evident not supported by the facts or common circumstances associated with timing and possible fabrications.


The 911 commision was headed by an obfuscator with ulterior motives and an agenda to complete (with out mentioning any names), but what stirs the most skepticism of the official "story" line of 911 is the FBI having been called off of an apprehension of suspects that they uncovered in flight training with dubious reasons for entering the training and suspisious questions concerning hypothetical high speed turns.


If we ignore the details and look more broadly at the pre 911 scene and then at the post 911 results we can see some probale cause for a false flag and the ensueing results based outcomes.


Pre 911 Bush and Cheney were under intense pressure to get their war with Iraq underway to forestall the conomic disaster that Bernanke had warned them was impending and imminent. We now see that this occurance has very large implications in world wide banking and has the possible outcome of the ruination of the US amd wolrd economies.


With the spector of a US financial sector meltdown imminent,Cheney and his "team" were working quickly to create the scenario which provided the cover up first of 911 then detailed the actual "event" based on the available paradigms of public perception that provided the least evidentiary fabrication with the highest probability of acceptance from the public and wary agency heads which would surely know if 911 was in inside or an outside job.


Pre 911 Oliver North and Zibigniew Brezinski were both supportive of the policy centered on imperialist unipolar rule by the US and Israel, post 911, North immmediatly decreed that 911 was a one shot stab abd no overlying conspiracy to undermine the US government was extant. Zibigniew Brezinski stated that 911 was an inside job(being out of the loop)and the result of "rougue elements" in the Clandestine service branches with which he worked closely during the Mujahedin insurgency in Afghanistan during the Carter administration.


Bresinsky shut up quickly and his muse in declaring this false flag, Lyndon Larouch was deported to Italy immediatly, where he is their darling analyst.


Rice threw off the FBI's assertions that a collar was in order to gather infornmation to disseminate a possible conspiracy, her throw off was delayed after she may have consulted with Bush or Cheney.


The planes did not fly themselves into the towers and some credible evidence exists to indicate that planes did in fact kill their inhabitants and crash into these two towers. The evidence of missing persons is eneough to make it plausable. Psssanger manifests list the dead and they are indeed dead, but the fact that the capitol dome was spared and not the pentago, and that the twin towers were dropped and along with them the command and control emergency center (building 7) was downed may show where the ruse was perpetrated and by whom(Guiliani)it was covered after the fact.


A few names of Goldman Sachs operatives in the financial sectors of the Bush "team" and their preknowledge of the sub prime meltdown would indicate that the central bank consortiums were the reason for 911 but perhaps out of the poolps of its planning, leaving the deatils to those with the skills to produce them.


Simplicity is the key to this ruse and it is indeed a simple minded affair,by nessecity.Clinton was in on the ground floor and had to take the reigns from Bush JR if the cover was to stick which is why the Obama campaign is such an obamination to those rendering him as a Muslim or radical liberal. Obama's presidency blows this sky high and rolling haeds will be many. McCain might well do the same as Romney was the Guy of the Zionists and their cover post Bush.


The USA may yet get luckey eneough to know the truth and it's uglier than Griffin thinks it is with really mean people in place to interrupt any true exposure of the evidence against them, so if we want to know the truth we had better be ready to kill a few bad guys when it comes out or see a few good guys get dead before they can testify,which is why we wait until dark to do this when better cover is there to shield the innocent from harm.


Go for every scrap od conflicting evidence, timing irregularities, motive based pre moves and cover based post moves with the ensuing press subtleties as support. Look closely at the results of the antrax investigation and see that the only providence for revelation is dead as is true in 911 and also that the cabal of planning is also a tiny group with origins outside of our borders but in place to make videos for their bosses celebration party.


Palestine was videod in celebration of this event and broadcast widely to show them to be enemies, as ws true of other Islamic nations, CIA black ops were in place to make the films and get them to the media centers quickly to make hay while the sun shone and instill the hate and fear that was the cause celebre of this false flags inception.


I love my country, people, but I am frustrated and ashamed of this administration's zealots who knew that deregulation of the US Central banks and fannie and freddies criteium for morgages and high interst credit cards would lead to this and they went there anyway, spilling big blood to get richer than God. The big blood they Got, But richer than God? We shall see.

jerrygates | 09.10.08 - 4:46 am | #


 The ones behind 911 love a good theatric, they always have. That's why they created Hollywood. You don't have to go back all that far to see them on Crystal Night dressing in Nazi uniforms and killing 8,000 Germans in order to inflame the world for WWII.


Staging 911 must have been fairly easy. The technology is way better to Wag the Dog.


Do you think this Congress is subliminally controlled? Or drugged? No, it's the power of the purse, and they'll never bring out the truth of 911.


Or maybe I'm just in an uncharitable mood this morning...hmmm

cornsilk | 09.10.08 - 5:15 am | #


 A person would have to be deluded to believe that a man in a cave organized the complex plot of 9/11 with the controlled demolition of buidings , profit from the stock market , standing down of the air force and possible holographic projections displaying planes hitting the WTC . The so called people in charge will have to invent a better fable becasue the original does not make sense . At the time , I thought that 9/11 was what america deserved , I still believe so . America deserves many 9/11 performed by real terrorists not the CIA or AL Ciada , only war on US soil will wake up amerikan sheeple .

occultist | 09.10.08 - 5:18 am | #


 i can not beleive that some peoplein the US still think that the 911 attack was caused by muslims.

its amazing how ignorant the public is.

its heart breaking to know how much hatred exist for anything muslim in this land and that a lone makes it easy to beleive that the are capable of anything evil.

disgusting to say the least,how ever guilty the administration looks it does not matter.

what mateers is that we hate muslims and a man like the monkey Bush would never do anything to harm his people.

is their something wrrong with this picture or is it me thats ignorant.

no matter how much evidence you put befor this sheep herd it just isnt enough to make them change the way they think.

but thats very good news for the people that hate this country.this is one way to bring down the US and get it out of the way for long as people are so dumb and stupid this country will never be great a gain.

fuck every one.

citizen | 09.10.08 - 5:54 am | #



Time to sign in at:


and support the following demands:


support the following demands:


1) Impeachment proceedings against US President Bush and US Vice President Cheney before the 2008 election, a demand raised in solidarity with large parts of the US public and some members of US Congress. Furthermore prosecution by the International Court of Justice of G. W. Bush, R. Cheney and other officials from various countries for waging wars of aggression contrary to international law and committing crimes against humanity.


2) International investigation of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. They are used as the central justification for the "War on Terror", but well documented evidence shows that the official explanation of 9/11 cannot be correct. International personalities in science, politics, and culture, including high-ranking military veterans, have called for a new investigation.


3) Immediate military withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, and no attack against Iran. International prohibition of war as a means of conflict resolution. Military intervention and export of weapons should be criminalized.

In a civilized society torture must be prohibited in any form.


4) Conversion of military industries to civilian purposes and the development of ecological and sustainable energy resources. According to the UN environmental agency, a fraction of the annual global defence expenditure could ensure that all humans have access to clean water and a basic supply of food and healthcare.



friendofpeace | 09.10.08 - 6:00 am | #


 The caption should read..


Was America Attacked by Israel on 9/11? Yesssssss..LARRY SILVERSTEIN=4 BILLION US DOLLARS.a zionist traitor talks that zionist fraudster bibi nathen yajew..

Lowry | 09.10.08 - 6:09 am | #


 Zionists are still the ENEMY.


Believe it.

anonymous | 09.10.08 - 6:10 am | #


 The attack probably was carried out by Muslims.

But Muslims working for who?

Were they all Manchurian candidates?

Anonymous | 09.10.08 - 6:25 am | # v=o6I4EtUT0HI




as for the mastermind Atta; he was fond of Jewish food, and enjoyed Russian Vodak, on his frequent visits to Shokum (Jewish Restaurant).


Not bad for a fundamentalist Muslim, whose will had precise instructions for his burial,during which no female was allowed to touch his remains. Although in life his mistress a married woman, kept going with him to Vegas, and needless to say only for the reading of the good book in that sin city.


However, fact that nineteen Arabs armed with box cutters (not even knives) managed to conjure up two homemade cruise missiles, made out of passenger liners managed to wreak havoc on US soil, as per the official line of the stories, has never given rise to the question of; what the fuck for have they been spending all the monies on Army, Navy, and Ari force, and Nukes and things when all the enemy needs is some box cutters, and few homemade cruise missiles to change the course of the history, and US?

Anonymous | 09.10.08 - 6:32 am | #


 @lily | 09.10.08 - 3:56 am


English narration on the video, Zero: An Investigation Into 9-11 - part 1: YqET96OO0

yrjo | 09.10.08 - 6:32 am | #


 Saddam Hussein gets found in a spider hole many months after the invasion,surely long enough for the powers that be agents to clear is mind of any harmful information he might have. Then release him to be found.

Then mass phyops operations to cover the truth and tie up any loose ends.

Including using the media to spread half truths and destortions.

The idea is to keep the public and constant state of chaos so that they cannot possible know what the truth is..Or for that matter care.

Spin,spin, spin is the strategy..

Anonymous | 09.10.08 - 6:37 am | #


 Out of all the arguments offered, I feel the first one is the weakest. I can entirely believe that individuals, Muslim or not (but particularly somewhat Westernized Muslims) would be willing to "partake" and go on a bender in the days or hours prior to killing themselves spectacularly. Hell, maybe they really weren't all that devout, but were REALLY pissed off with US colonial crimes in the ME in general, and in Iraq and wrt Israel/Palestine.


It is at least some of the other arguments that actually give me pause. The red bandanna idiocy, the supposed finding of flimsy items like paper passports and bandannas at a wreck site where virtually NOTHING of an aircraft is found either due to 100% obliteration is absurd.


A fighter plane crashes into the ground at high speed and yet you ALWAYS find aircraft debris, even if they lawn dart in, but in this case with HUGE airliners, not even a turbine fan blade is found...but you DO find an incriminating piece of clothing and just happen to find one of the hijacker's passports. BULLSHIT.

Praedor Atrebates | 09.10.08 - 6:43 am | #


 Attack was carried out by the zionist mossad jews and local christian terrorist groups.


lose change...

larry craig | 09.10.08 - 6:50 am | #


 Here is the list.. anynemouse..


Jewish-Zionist-Soviet Anti-American Spies

AIPAC/Pentagon Spies, Jonathan Pollard, Julius & Ethel Rosenberg, Mordechai Venunu, Harry Gold, Morton Sobell, Ehud Yatom, Klaus Fuchs, William Perl, Elizabeth Terrill Bentley, Aleksander Fetlisov, David Greenglass, Ruth Greenglass, Max Elitcher, Theodore Hall, Robert Oppenheimer, Jewish Mafia, The Mossad, Shin Bet, Israel's terror group....

larry craig | 09.10.08 - 6:54 am | #


 Zionists are still the ENEMY.


Believe it.

anonymous | 09.10.08 - 6:10 am | #


agree 100% -


zionist perpetrated 9-11 is the means to their agenda


9-11 = ' war on terror ' = invasion of oil-rich Muslim countries

pippi | 09.10.08 - 6:54 am | #


 The US has 750+ military bases in more than 100 countries many of them Muslim countries. How many Muslim military bases, or how many bases of any nations are there in the US?

ZERO!!! Understandably, some people are fed up with US occupation and exploitation of their lands.

ernieson | 09.10.08 - 6:56 am | #


 You’ve got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million


Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership.


Mr. Silverstein’s first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines — two key players in the 9/11 attacks.


The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec. needs your help to keep going in 2008. After 18 months of sole reliance on unpaid voluntary work, we need to be able to pay for part-time editors, translators, graphic designers, I.T. and legal expenses.


Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.


Another little “coincidence” -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against “terrorist attacks”.


Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion — a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million.


There’s more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?


The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.


The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!


In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.


WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed — exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.


How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:


"I remember getting a call from department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."


As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, “Pull” is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.


One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history — including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building’s tenants:


US Secret Service






NAIC Securities

Salomon Smith Barney

American Express Bank International

Standard Chartered Bank

Provident Financial Management

ITT Hartford Insurance Group

Federal Home Loan Bank

The Securities and Exchange Commission has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed by the collapse of WTC 7. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."


Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.


Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.


What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.


Incidentally, it’s worth noting that one of Lucky Larry’s closest friends — a person with whom it’s said he speaks almost daily by phone — is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


More on that cozy little relationship later...

Ben Franklin | 09.10.08 - 6:58 am | #


 in isrealhell as occupying entity is concerned


they reap many awards via above


usury of zionist controlled us military


neutralizes (breaks apart) drives a spear thru heart of Islam countries


in readying for zionist jew infiltration and plundering

pippi | 09.10.08 - 7:00 am | #


 Ben Franklin:


While I do have strong suspicions about 9/11 (and WTC 7 and the fully controlled way all the buildings came down), I do not believe that Silverstein taking out terrorism insurance on the WTC is suspicious in and of itself. The WTC had only a few years prior been the target of a real Al Qaeda-style attack (car bombs in the basement parking lot). It was a proven target, so sure, if I were to buy such a thing I would insure it against future such attacks as well.


Now, combined with the rest it ALL is suspicious but don't make too big a deal over the insurance angle alone. It signifies nothing without all the rest of the information.

Praedor Atrebates | 09.10.08 - 7:07 am | #


 The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé

David Ray Griffin's latest Book



Global Research, September 9, 2008


Message to authors of the NIST Report:


The charade is over!”---Richard Gage, member of American Institute of Architects, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth


“Citizens in many countries are waging a war on the cover-up of the basis for the so-called war on terror---this basis being the official interpretation of the 9/11 attacks. Along with the Internet, which has equipped both public figures and ordinary citizens to wage this war on the cover-up, David Ray Griffin has revealed dozens of omissions, distortions, and contradictions in the official story in a way that provides undeniable evidence of its falsity. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited presents a powerful exposé of the false narrative that has been driving the mainstream political agenda since 9/11. It is now up to politicians and journalists around the world to expose this truth to our peoples.”---Yukihisa Fujita, member of the House of Councilors, the Diet of Japan


“With this work, Dr. Griffin cements his place as the preeminent spokesperson for the growing number of people who demand answers to an expanding list of questions about 9/11. . . . Even those members of the 9/11 Truth Movement who have immersed themselves thoroughly in the subject will find new information here, presented in the precise and very readable style Dr. Griffin has brought to each of his books. . . . Absent a revival of investigative journalism---a dim prospect at best, in view of the media ownership concentration--- books like this one, arming the informed citizen with solid information and providing a basis for demanding direct action, appear to be our best hope.”---Shelton F. Lankford, Lt. Col. US Marine Corps (Ret.)


“In The New Pearl Harbor, Dr. Griffin raised serious questions about the destruction of the World Trade Center---the part of the official conspiracy theory about 9/11 with which I have been especially concerned. Now, in The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, he continues to pierce the heart of the official story with his signature penetrating research, this time sharpened with arguments provided by physical scientists, architects, and engineers. He definitely delivers the technical goods. Message to authors of the NIST Report: The charade is over!”---Richard Gage, member of American Institute of Architects, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth aid=10131


many more articles on

9-11 culprits and coverup


access :

pippi | 09.10.08 - 7:09 am | #


 uncle Putin will contain zionists nefarious agenda

pippi | 09.10.08 - 7:25 am | #


 New article today:


"So, what do you think will happen now?" The question was posed by the taller of two young Israelis, my sole companions in this section of Liberty State Park on the Jersey City side of the Hudson River, the morning of September 11, 2001.


"Everything has changed," I replied, unaware that the same phrase was simultaneously forming on the lips of millions around the globe.


"Yes, everything has changed," said the Israeli, looking not at all displeased. He turned to resume taking photos of the great smoking space that had been the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and of the huge, low cloud that drifted across New York Bay to Brooklyn.


My fellow witnesses to the collapse of the second tower were already positioned at the riverbank when I arrived at the scene on foot after having rushed past police who blocked all vehicular entrance to the park. The athletic, military age duo were clicking away with two very expensive-looking cameras. They spoke excitedly to each other in Hebrew - a language I instantly recognized from my two decades as a Manhattanite - but clumsily claimed to be "Polish" when I asked where they were from. I pretended to believe they were visitors from Poland... Itemid=1

atheo | 09.10.08 - 7:55 am | #


 Preador the theodor..My greek friend..


Why would muslim attack two old jewish owned towers??who would benefit from such acts??the irish??Did silversten collected the insurance money??yess..FACT.


Look at the pantegones budget??



1. It is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains: war will thus be brought on to the economic ground, where the nations will not fail to perceive in the assistance we give the strength of our predominance, and this state of things will put both sides at the mercy of our international AGENTUR; which possesses millions of eyes ever on the watch and unhampered by any limitations whatsoever. Our international rights will then wipe out national rights, in the proper sense of right, and will rule the nations precisely as the civil law of States rules the relations of their subjects among themselves.


2. The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world. As is well known to you, these specialists of ours have been drawing to fit them for rule the information they need from our political plans from the lessons of history, from observations made of the events of every moment as it passes. The GOYIM are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them - let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed. For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledges and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.

Ben Franklin | 09.10.08 - 8:25 am | #


 The Zionist planned with Europe and the US, all the wars of the last century and even before.


Their history does not give them a right to Palestine or anywhere in the Middle East.


Here is their real and entire history, written during the worst World Wars from an insider. rev.html


What this suggests is the entire Western world has signed on with the Zionists and all of our Presidents over the last 110 yrs were Zionists.


And all wars and provocations of war were created by the our government funding in conjuntion with the Zionist banking and media.

Truth&Justice | 09.10.08 - 8:56 am | #


 Ben Franklin

Evidence are overwhelming,

So what can we do about it?


Can we do anything about it?


Can anybody do anything about it?


Answer is Nothing! and no one


How can you seek Justice from the Authority...? Any Authority... when your complain is to that Authority, about its Authority being guilty ! They could not convict themselves...incriminate themselves, impeach themselves, Now can they?

They know that, and they know that we know that

raymond /anonymous 23 | 09.10.08 - 9:18 am | #


 One of my (macabre) favourites, is the call which a certain Mark Bingham is said to have made from the hijacked plane, which of course also was used by the propaganda and lies spouting CNN as 'evidence'. CNN wrote this: "Because the government hopes to introduce the calls as evidence at the trial of alleged September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, those who attended the briefing were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prohibits them from discussing the contents of the tapes or the briefings. They were not allowed to make recordings or take notes during the session."


And Zacarias Moussaoui, wearing a stun belt able to give him 50.000 Volt chocks, of course - and like all others who abhor torture but have to endure this - 'confessed' to all and everything. - Url.:


In other words, everybody had to shut up: "The one thing that the [Justice Department] made irrefutably clear to us was that to the extent we disclose any information, we are only aiding the terrorists," said Hamilton Peterson, whose father and stepmother were on United Flight 93."


CNN: But one relative, Alice Hoaglan - whose son Mark Bingham called her from one of the flights - recounted for reporters her final call from her son. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham. I just want to tell you that I love you. I am on a flight from Newark to San Francisco. There are three guys on board who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb. You believe me don't you, Mom? I'm calling you from the air phone.' And then we were disconnected," Hoaglan said, her voice breaking.


She quickly added, "That's not information I got today. That's information I got at 6:44 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time [on September 11, 2001] from the lips of Mark Bingham." - CNN Url.:


Earlier David Ray Griffin wrote this about it: "In addition to the question of the feasibility of cellphone calls from UA 93, the content of some of the messages makes their authenticity seem highly improbable. In the most notorious case, a man claiming to be Mark Bingham called Bingham’s mother. When she answered, he said: "Mom? This is Mark Bingham." Have any of us, even in the most stressful situation, identified ourselves to our own mothers by giving our last name?


The remainder of the call, moreover, provides nothing to assure us that the call was authentic. The caller next said: "I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb." His mother then asked, "Who are these guys?" After a pause, the caller said: "You believe me, don't you?" After she said, "Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?" the line went dead.


Given the caller’s failure to respond to any questions, we might assume this to have been a pre-recorded statement. If it had been pre-recorded, however, the "Mark Bingham" goof would surely have been corrected. Also, some of the other alleged calls did seem to contain a little genuine interaction.


But these two facts present no problem, given the existence, since at least the mid-1990s, of voice transformers. Dewdney, explaining how they work, writes: "One speaks into a microphone, the sound pattern is digitized and, in real time the computer within the device produces a signal that is reconstituted as sound, a voice that can be entirely different from your own. Everything you say will be spoken by the synthesized voice and with . . . the specific 'sound' of a particular person's voice." We can thus understand how callers were able to interact - albeit in limited ways - with the people who were called.


If voices were morphed to produce apparent cellphone calls from UA 93 (and other flights), this gives us additional reason to suspect that the NORAD and FAA tapes have also been produced by means of such technology. Also, given the fact that Bronner was involved in the production of United 93, in which cellphone calls play a major role, the fact that his article raises no question about the authenticity of the tapes provides no evidence against this hypothesis." - [end excerpt] The rest is here at Url.:


And of course 9/11 was an inside job too. Isn't it proof enough that in all those years nobody has come forward and - with evidence - has shown that the 9/11 scholars are wrong? It's an eternal shame however, that the pro war and compliant propagandists in the major global media still keep saying that the DC version of 9/11 is OK, thus giving so many the possibility of a denial.


What the creatures behind the curtains do, is not human.


HR & 9/11 - Url.:

Henk Ruyssenaars | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 9:27 am | #


 It looks like the 19 supposed hijackers were enjoying life as young men and didn't sound at all religious. And if they all died with their deed, why punish and kill over a million innocent people for it -- that's if they were guilty, which I seriously doubt.


The war profiteers of the U.S. and Israel have been making a fortune from war profiteering -- using 9/11 as an excuse. It smells very fishy. What did Bush say afterwards, he was so happy, that 9/11 was his "trifecta." He couldn't conceal his glee.

anonymous | 09.10.08 - 9:28 am | #


 We all need to know this history:


In the September edition of the Barnes Review.


you will learn what really ahppened to Russia after 1917, and what willhappen to America if it is not faced up to.


These people are really strange. They are truly bloodthirsty - as if they actually drink blood.


Also, it is really worth while to read the article on


about the German historian Wolfgang Eggert.


It is about the very peculiar Jewish cult which has some of the same ideas of the End of the World as the crazy people in the US who call themselves Christians, but are not. They believe in the "Rapture" and all that - but these weird "Lubavitchers" believe that the entire World must be destroyed - even the Earth.


All getting stranger and stranger.


Please watch the Youtube video called

"Vladimir Putin told me a personal story in the Kremlin." just to see them in action. Dont know hw to describe it - men in black in black hats jumping up and down. It looks mad.

Isabella | 09.10.08 - 9:41 am | #


 The TRUTH will eventually EMERGE.


Those who are guilty must be accountable and brought to JUSTICE.


Time will tell whether than happens!?

anonymous | 09.10.08 - 9:59 am | #


 No religious group ought to be centered out.


No ethnic group ought to be centered out as well.


All human beings should be appreciated and valued.


All human beings should be shown dignity and respect.


Failing this, we are all in trouble.


The man-made economic and political systems are the true ENEMY.


They are breaking up too. We should all be excited.


Those who do evil.... a pox on you! (Couldn't resist!)



anonymous | 09.10.08 - 10:09 am | #


 I'm very interested in the claim that Lyndon LaRouche was immediately sent to Italy? I need more info. on LaRouche since I am being contacted by his people and sent his executive intelligence reports. Henk - do you have any info. about LaRouche? I sincerely appreciate any effort.

whatever | 09.10.08 - 10:18 am | #


 ICH readers apparently exist in an alternate universe. Although I don't believe the official 9-11 story one bit, I rarely hear alternative opinions about 9-11 outside of the fevered comment pages of internet sites like ICH. You would think that after 7 years we would have made some headway, but I'm willing to bet that at least some of the commentators here will be reluctant to share their critical views about 9-11 tomorrow at work or with their friends and family, for fear of the dreaded blank stare or of the summary dismissal from those who never question authority. Just an observation about the power of the Psy Op that was administered to the American public by the United States Military-Industrial-Neocon Cabal in 2001.


The ongoing mainstream blackout -- a blackout so total that it will not even permit a debate about 9-11 --perpetuates this gaping chasm in perception. It is a surreal and incredibly frustrating time to be living in an allegedly "free" country that is in such a media lockdown about a betrayal so massive. But back to reality now; I'll don my baseball cap backwards, crack a cold one, and return to the news of Britney’s latest pregnancy and who's on American Idol this week.

rd | 09.10.08 - 10:23 am | #


 Flight Manifests suggest that there were no Arabs on the 4 airliners who crashed on the 9-11 false flag terrorist atacks


9-11 was an inside job. And the neocons official story about 9-11 is a lie, but every media repeated it so American citizens bought it.


Flight manifests are not artistic creations presented in different versions and creatively altered now and again. They are precise documents showing just exactly who is onboard. There were no Arabs listed on any of the 911 flight manifests. Zero. None. Nor were there any Arabs listed on the passenger list that Bush’s FBI alleges it recreated from the DNA that it allegedly found in the wreckage of the passenger plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon. Zero. None. Nor were there any pictures of any Arabs taken by any of the omnipresent security videocams at any of the 911 airports. Zero. None. Nor was there any testimony by any metal detector checkpoint personnel explaining how they let through all of those alleged Arabs with all of their alleged hijack gear - guns, knives, bombs, mace, gas masks, navigational equipment. Zero. None.


The first task of Obama should be to investigate the 9-11 event, who and why and who benefited from it, and why did they do it? for what purpose? who was behind 9-11? Israeli Mossad agents? Neocons? etc.

Socialism: solution for USA !! | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 10:25 am | #


 Jerry Gates: "Palestine was videod in celebration of this event and broadcast widely to show them to be enemies, as ws true of other Islamic nations, CIA black ops were in place to make the films "


My understanding that the supposed pictures of the Palestinian celebration after the collapse of the WTCs were actually pictures from a previous celebration and not on 9/11/01, as was implied.

Thomas | 09.10.08 - 10:37 am | #


 My first reaction as I watched was "the CIA did this."


I don't suppose for one minute they thought the towers would collapse so neatly though.

Marilyn | 09.10.08 - 10:52 am | #


 Jerry Gates the film was 10 years old.

Marilyn | 09.10.08 - 10:53 am | #


 @whatever - 09.10.08 - 10:18 am - concerning LaRouche.


If I were you I'd keep looking at LaRouche's 'Executive Intelligence Review' (EIR) and go on digging!


You'll be surprised maybe, but have to read in between the lines to get the message. LaRouche mostly is damn clever, even if he apparently doesn't write all himself.


Check it out at Url.:


Here's what Google has concerning LaRouche and Italy. - Url.:


It's quite a good take on many things.


I can understand why 'they' prefer him being abroad...


Like many.

Henk Ruyssenaars | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 10:53 am | #


 Get the real pro goods on the 911 false flag demolition of the Twin Towers. Pearl Harbor for Mid-East Wars for OIL. Brought by US-Zionist Whitehouse and International Capitalists. omnitv...v_interview.htm


Put an end to such future madness. Establish;


Bill Johnson


On With The War of Ideas | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 10:54 am | #


 Brett Hume, from Fox News had reported on some Israeli art students caught taking pictures and celebrating while the towers were demolished by, what we now know was explosives. That report quickly went away. But the FBI questioned these "art students" and when all flights were grounded they managed to get sent, immediately, back to Israel. They were described as being defiant and saying now America knows what it's like to be attacked by terrorists!


Similar to the way the Bin Laden family, that were partners in George Bush Sr.'s, Carlyle Group, and were at a Carlyle meeting in Washington, DC on 9/11,were all sent safely back to Saudi Arabia. All this, while nobody else, including ex-President Clinton and Al Gore, could get near a plane. Gads, what a sham!


No newsies ever mentioned the "celebrating Israeli art students" ever again!

Truth&Justice | 09.10.08 - 11:04 am | #



23. With us the standard that must be introduced is the cost of working-man power, whether it be reckoned in paper or in wood. We shall make the issue of money in accordance with the normal requirements of each subject, adding to the quantity with every birth and subtracting with every death.


24. The accounts will be managed by each department (the French administrative division), each circle.


25. In order that there may be no delays in the paying out of money for State needs the sums and terms of such payments will be fixed by decree of the ruler; this will do away with the protection by a ministry of one institution to the detriment of others.


26. The budgets of income and expenditure will be carried out side by side that they may not be obscured by distance one to another.


27. The reforms projected by us in the financial institutions and principles of the GOYIM will be clothed by us in such forms as will alarm nobody. We shall point out the necessity of reforms in consequence of the disorderly darkness into which the GOYIM by their irregularities have plunged the finances. The first irregularity, as we shall point out, consists in their beginning with drawing up a single budget which year after year grows owing to the following cause: this budget is dragged out to half the year, then they demand a budget to put things right, and this they expend in three months, after which they ask for a supplementary budget, and all this ends with a liquidation budget. But, as the budget of the following year is drawn up in accordance with the sum of the total addition, the annual departure from the normal reaches as much as 50 per cent in a year, and so the annual budget is trebled in ten years. Thanks to such methods, allowed by the carelessness of the GOY States, their treasuries are empty. The period of loans supervenes, and that has swallowed up remainders and brought all the GOY States to bankruptcy. (The United States was declared "bankrupt" at the Geneva Convention of 1929! [see 31 USC 5112, 5118, and 5119).


28. You understand perfectly that economic arrangements of this kind, which have been suggested to the GOYIM by us, cannot be carried on by us.


29. Every kind of loan proves infirmity in the State and a want of understanding of the rights of the State. Loans hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of rulers, who, instead of taking from their subjects by a temporary tax, come begging with outstretched palm to our bankers. Foreign loans are leeches which there is no possibility of removing from the body of the State until they fall off of themselves or the State flings them off. But the GOY States do not tear them off; they go on in persisting in putting more on to themselves so that they must inevitably perish, drained by voluntary blood-letting.



30. What also indeed is, in substance, a loan, especially a foreign loan? A loan is - an issue of government bills of exchange containing a percentage obligation commensurate to the sum of the loan capital. If the loan bears a charge of 5 per cent, then in twenty years the State vainly pays away in interest a sum equal to the loan borrowed, in forty years it is paying a double sum, in sixty - treble, and all the while the debt remains an unpaid debt.


31. From this calculation it is obvious that with any form of taxation per head the State is baling out the last coppers of the poor taxpayers in order to settle accounts with wealthy foreigners, from whom it has borrowed money instead of collecting these coppers for its own needs without the additional interest.


32. So long as loans were internal the GOYIM only shuffled their money from the pockets of the poor to those of the rich, but when we bought up the necessary persons in order to transfer loans into the external sphere, (Woodrow Wilson and F.D. Roosevelt) all the wealth of States flowed into our cash-boxes and all the GOYIM began to pay us the tribute of subjects.


33. If the superficiality of GOY kings on their thrones in regard to State affairs and the venality of ministers or the want of understanding of financial matters on the part of other ruling persons have made their countries debtors to our treasuries to amounts quite impossible to pay it has not been accomplished without, on our part, heavy expenditure of trouble and money.


34. Stagnation of money will not be allowed by us and therefore there will be no State interest-bearing paper, except a one per-cent series, so that there will be no payment of interest to leeches that suck all the strength out of the State. The right to issue interest-bearing paper will be given exclusively to industrial companies who find no difficulty in paying interest out of profits, whereas the State does not make interest on borrowed money like these companies, for the State borrows to spend and not to use in operations. (Now we know why President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 when he refused to borrow any more of the "Bank Notes" from the bankers of the Federal Reserve Bank and began circulating non-interest bearing "Notes" of the "United States of America"!!!).


35. Industrial papers will be bought also by the government which from being as now a paper of tribute by loan operations will be transformed into a lender of money at a profit. This measure will stop the stagnation of money, parasitic profits and idleness, all of which were useful for us among the GOYIM so long as they were independent but are not desirable under our rule.


36. How clear is the undeveloped power of thought of the purely brute brains of the GOYIM, as expressed in the fact that they have been borrowing from us with payment of interest without ever thinking that all the same these very moneys plus an addition for payment of interest must be got by them from their own State pockets in order to settle up with us. What could have been simpler than to take the money they wanted from their own people?


37. But it is a proof of the genius of our chosen mind that we have contrived to present the matter of loans to them in such a light that they have even seen in them an advantage for themselves.


38. Our accounts, which we shall present when the time comes, in the light of centuries of experience gained by experiments made by us on the GOY States, will be distinguished by clearness and definiteness and will show at a glance to all men the advantage of our innovations. They will put an end to those abuses to which we owe our mastery over the GOYIM, but which cannot be allowed in our kingdom.


39. We shall so hedge about our system of accounting that neither the ruler nor the most insignificant public servant will be in a position to divert even the smallest sum from its destination without detection or to direct it in another direction except that which will be once fixed in a definite plan of action. (Is this why a "private corporation," known as the "Internal Revenue Service," is in charge of collecting the "payments" of the "Income Taxes" and the IRS always deposits those "payments" to the Federal Reserve bank and never to the Treasury of the United States??)


40. And without a definite plan it is impossible to rule. Marching along an undetermined road and with undetermined resources brings to ruin by the way heroes and demi-gods.


41. The GOY rulers, whom we once upon a time advised should be distracted from State occupations by representative receptions, observances of etiquette, entertainments, were only screens for our rule. (Like the House of Windsor (Guelph) and the rest of the "Black Nobility"?) The accounts of favorite courtiers who replaced them in the sphere of affairs were drawn up for them by our agents, and every time gave satisfaction to short-sighted minds by promises that in the future economies and improvements were foreseen .... Economies from what? From new taxes? - were questions that might have been but were not asked by those who read our accounts and projects.


42. You know to what they have been brought by this carelessness, to what pitch of financial disorder they have arrived, notwithstanding the astonishing industry of their peoples ....

Ben Franklin | 09.10.08 - 11:58 am | #


 I'm a telecommunications engineer by training and an information & communications technology writer and I have serious doubts that cellular phone calls can be made from flying aircraft.


Firstly, passengers are requested to turn off their cellular phones during flight so as not to interfere with the aircraft's sensitive electronic systems.


Secondly, cellular coverage from base stations are designed to radiate outwards and slightly downward over a sector from a height of about four storeys.


I've been up in a 42 storey building and have had problems communicating from my GSM phone and here these passengers allegedly can make cellular cals from a flying airliner.


Any explanation?

Charles Moreira | 09.10.08 - 12:03 pm | #


 "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."


I think that quote is attributable to Daniel Hopsicker, but I'm not sure. After reading various 9/11 theories and sundry blah, blah, blah for at least the last five years now, I think the quote pretty well sums up why there's been no movement towards justice.

Justice Chickens | 09.10.08 - 12:26 pm | #







Socialism: solution for USA !! | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 1:16 pm | #


 Here is a link to the english version of the Italian documentary on this subject called Zero. Unfortunately, you have to watch it in 10 segments...but there are some great interviews in the film, including Gore Vidal, Stephen Jones, and many others. The film is to be shown on Al-Jazeera and Russian network television this week. I read that the producers of the film expect 20,000,000 people to watch the film on these two networks. It also is available on DVD's in newsstands all over Italy. Watch it here: v=u...feature=related

It's also interesting to note that the writer of the documentary, and one of the people featured in the film is an Italian member of the EU Parliment. The Italian nobel prize winner Dario Fo is also heavily featured. Interesting stuff!

lily | 09.10.08 - 1:24 pm | #


 Truth&Justice | 09.10.08 - 8:56 am | #

“What this suggests is the entire Western world has signed on with the Zionists and all of our Presidents over the last 110 yrs were Zionists.”


True, many american presidents have been de-facto zionists in behavior and policy. However, former president Kennedy cannot be counted among them. I for one have developed a belated appreciation for this most unfortunate of recent presidents.


His sins ?

-              a desire to dismantle the CIA after the disastrous Cuban invasion mission he inherited from Eisenhower (Bay of Pigs). His dislike and low regard for the CIA was, in retrospect, very dangerous. With billion dollar black budgets, and control and oversight a joke, would you want the CIA as an enemy ?

-              His refusal to accept a nuclear Israel (Mossad was likely not amused)

-              His signing of Executive Order 11110 on June 4, 1963 basically stripping the Federal Reserve of its power to loan money to the Federal Government at interest. (A direct challenge to the Fed.)

-              His tentative groping for an exit to the escalating conflict in Vietnam (military-industrial complex)

-              Atty General Robert Kennedy’s aggressive hearings into organized crime


Kennedy rocked the boat of many powerful interests for what he saw as the country’s best interests and paid the ultimate price. Contrast his actions with those of recent presidents.

tacitus | 09.10.08 - 1:35 pm | #


 Socialism: blah blah.... What's with the ALL CAPITALS? What do you think the answer to your own question might be?

Sullivan | 09.10.08 - 1:43 pm | #


 Reminds of the History channel propaganda of 9 /11 .

One glaring fraudulent assertion from the NBC reporter in the pro government conspiracy was , the fire chief never said the word "bomb " . However he did say "PLANTED" and " explosives ".

So what the fire chief was asserting they planted tulips ?

Plus they left out the FACT, over 25 police and fire chiefs say the same thing , " we heard explosions " Some even said BEFORE the planes hit .

The other canard apologists claim, everybody in the white house would have been involved or that the government " Can't keep ANY secrets " well we know the government keeps many files MILLIONS, many documents MILLIONS secret. So it's nonsensical the government can't keep "ANY " secrets . THEY DO !

Kahoneez | 09.10.08 - 1:46 pm | #


 To Socialism:solution for usa!

Al-Qaida is a mythical Organisation created by CIA and hyped up by MEDIA !

Regarding the Bombing in Nairobi!

GUS ( Kenya's home security Service knew this in advance! And clearly shows HALLMARK of MOSSAD )

So deos Dar es Salaam and Mombasa Hotel!

Why did Isreali EMPTIED the hotel in A HURRY with flimsy excuse! Was it used as operational HQ for the three jobs?

S.Balu | 09.10.08 - 1:55 pm | #


 Thanks to David Ray Griffin and ICH, heroes both.

John Hatch | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 2:05 pm | #


 From Griffins article.


"We cannot suppose her to have been mistaken about this. We also, surely, cannot accuse her of lying."


Why not? Many people are in on this lie for whatever reason it benefits them. The simpler solution is not voice morphing technology but Woodward, Olsen, Burnett and the others are lying about the calls.

Anonymous | 09.10.08 - 2:26 pm | #


 tacitus | 09.10.08 - 1:35 pm | #


"Kennedy rocked the boat of many powerful interests for what he saw as the country’s best interests and paid the ultimate price. Contrast his actions with those of recent presidents."


To read the 911 Commission report is to read the whitewash Warren Commission report all over again. Both coverups filled with inconsistencies and contradictions and attempts to distract from the real perpetrators. And the perpetrators were the same ones who controlled both "investigations."

Anonymous | 09.10.08 - 2:57 pm | #


 They say the proof is in the pudding. Follow the money, right? Who has profited from the 9/11 bombings? Let's look at the Bush and Cheney family holdings which have all increased since 9/11. The war in Iraq was based in part upon the deliberate disinformation that Bush broadcast linking Saddam Hussein with 9/11. The war in Iraq has made billions for the Bushes, Cheney's, owners of Haliburton, Blackwater Security, and of course the weapons manufacturers that Daddy Bush works for as a global arms dealer.


The US has been taken over by psychopaths and it is up to us, the citizens, to do something about it.

baruch | 09.10.08 - 3:49 pm | #


 i came across this video last week, its a long one but worth the time.. September11

this lecture by Michel Chossudovsky is about the blueprint of 9/11

elisa | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 3:56 pm | #


 i only have one comment about 9/11, the collapse of the towers and building #7...

never in the history of the world that a building of the magnitude of the towers,or any other structure collapsed one in 11 seconds, and the other in 12 seconds..

for me to believe that that was caused by the impact of the plane and the jet feul which burns at 1.300 degree is like beliving that the easter bunny lay chocolate eggs...and then they want me to believe that A PIECE OF PAPER SURVIDED THE INFERNO...

i wonder what part MARVIN BUSH played in this..and i wonder if NEAL BUSH help like he helped with the S&L deal...when will america wake up....?

elisa | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 4:18 pm | #


 In the light of 9/11 we are looking at a presidency that favours the total destruction of all opposition, domestic and foreign; we are looking at a presidency that favours the unbridled expansion of egregiously corrupt government into every aspect of world affairs; we are looking at an administration that is driven by infinite avarice, and a relentless drive towards world government.


The lesson of history is that humanity does not learn the lesson of history. Cheney considers himself to be the superior of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Tamurlane (1336-1405).


Here’s part of the entry for Tamurlane from see if you recognise any current and possible future parallels with Cheney:


“Tamurlane conducted offensives against new territories and suppressed all internal strife. …Tamurlane focused on looting the lands he conquered and returning their riches to his palace. … Instead of uniting new states as part of his greater empire … Tamurlane led field operations that encouraged barbarism and atrocities.


“Focusing first on controlling neighbouring tribes, Tamurlane then turned toward Persia and, between 1380 and 1389, conquered Iran, Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Georgia. In 1390, Tamurlane invaded Russia and in 1392 moved back through Persia, putting down a revolt by killing all those who opposed him, murdering their families, and burning their cities.


“For no apparent reason other than a love of fighting and a desire to increase his royal coffers, Tamurlane invaded India in 1398. His army captured Delhi and remained only long enough to massacre its inhabitants and destroy what they did not remove to Samarkand. Destruction was so complete that it took more than a century for Delhi to return to its preinvasion stature. Tamurlane did not limit his victims to civilians. After the Battle of Panipat on December 17, 1398, Tamurlane put one hundred thousand captured Indian soldiers to the sword.


“In 1401, Tamurlane conquered Syria and slaughtered twenty thousand residents of Damascus and the following year defeated the Ottoman sultan Bayazid I. Tamurlane's empire now rivalled that of Genghis Khan, and he had a palace laden with treasures. As an old warrior in his sixties, Tamurlane was not yet satisfied, however, and began planning an invasion of China. Before he could execute his plan, he died on January 19, 1405, at about the age of sixty-eight.”


Do not doubt that Cheney’s ambitions are any less than those of Tamurlane. Tamurlane lived in a time where no pretexts were necessary for the barbaric annihilation of countries and peoples and nations. However, even Cheney recognised that the compliant, unthinking, obese sadbags of America wouldn’t accept the ruthless and savage military domination of the Middle East for its oil without some kind of “reason.”


Hence 9/11. I’m pleased that a few of us have got it. Though much good will it do us.

John Watson | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 4:26 pm | #


 it is said that thermite was used..

that would explain the beams..they seem to be all the same size...just long enough for the semi truck..

and then we have the pentagon..only one question about that...WHERE THE HECK IS THE PLANE....there was one tire..a small one at small engine, but a 757 has two roll royce engine, and they are not small...but..what do i know...

and what happen to the 24- 26 israeli man whom were arrested for questioning not long after the collapse..?

elisa | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 4:28 pm | #


 Please don't lump all Canadians into being duped by the 9/11 fable. Many of us are trying to fight George Bush's lapdog Stephen Harper and I would welcome any contact from others about exposing this lie. I do not know how Bush could go down to ground zero and put his arm around workers there and say that they are going to get the ones responible. I could not look in the eyes of any of those brave rescue workers, some of those who would get ill or die to try to save others and tell the whoppers that Bush did.

Rod Morley | 09.10.08 - 4:35 pm | #


 not for one second had i believed that 9/11 was an "outside" job...

something about bush....when he,s telling a lie, you can see it allover his face....

elisa | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 4:39 pm | #


 Hey, these people are still selling the crap that the head shot that killed Kennedy was fired from the Book Depository. And a lot of sheeple still by that junk. If they killed a president in front of the whole world, what's the difference in risk with 3,000 civilians? It got them all they wanted, with the majority of sheeple anxious to enable them. One hell of a black op, and any dissent is squashed by the chants of, "USA, USA." I wonder how long they will rot in hell for this.

robtierney123 | 09.10.08 - 4:39 pm | #


 Your articles, and the comments logged by your readers, would be much more credible if they were not so one-side and predictable.

Anonymous | 09.10.08 - 4:49 pm | #


 Why Should Jews-Zionists-Israelis Be Exonerated for

Perpetrating The Horrific-Vile-Evil Crime of 9/11 ?


More than 60+ Israeli explosive-demolition experts were arrested and detained in NYC immediately following 9/11. However, they were quietly sent back to Israel and granted impunity shortly thereafter. 339398.shtml jewis...raeli_spies.htm spies.phtml


Here’s a brief list of Israeli-Jew-Zionist False Flag Ops in the past - also they have been granted exoneration for these horrific crimes against humanity:


OKC Bombing

U.SS Liberty

Pan Am/Lockerbie

King David Hotel


240 U.S. Marines Ambushed in Beruit



See a definitive pattern of criminal behavior emerge?


9/11 Was Yet Another Jewish-Zionist-Israeli False Flag Ops to augment this vile list


More Information Re: Jew-Zionist-Israeli False Flag Ops: False_Fl...ags_summary.htm


Mr. Mike Delaney over at has a new 9/11

video out. Please watch his video: Jewish-Zionist-Israeli perpetrators of 9/11 have been identified: links.html


Thus far, Jews-Zionists-Israelis got away with 9/11 without a hitch. However, Jews-Zionists-Israelis must be held accountable and brought to justice for 9/11 and all their False Flag Ops. All of those in the U.S. who participated as co-conspirators with Jews-Zionists in the commission of this crime committed blatant treason against the U.S. and must also be held accountable and brought to justice.


Here's hoping that the truth is promulgated and the perpetrators of 9/11 are brought to justice. The future of this planet depends on it, literally.


Peace out.

xzp | 09.10.08 - 4:58 pm | #


 What is preventing this from ever becoming mainstream? That is the one thing that will always make me insane...the width and breadth of the conspiracy is to huge to comprehend. How can they keep just one of the insiders, the planners or the workers from cracking? I cannot fathom it.

b | 09.10.08 - 5:18 pm | #


 I have it on good authority that McGiver, using a minto and a can of coke conspired with secret agent Smart to bring down the twin towers because the powers that be couldn't afford to clean the windows. Why not? It is about as plausible as the official version.

Paddy | 09.10.08 - 5:40 pm | #


 Jews, Zionists and Israelis are not the same thing. xzp your post is racist.


Judaism is a religion. Zionism is a political ideology. Israel is a country.


There are Jews who are neither Zionist or Israeli. There are Zionists who are neither Jewish or Israeli. There are Israeli's who are neither Zionist or Jewish.


Remember the old adage "you become what you hate."

baruch | 09.10.08 - 5:56 pm | #


 If only the public would read and understand what has happened.

Aside from tha massive amount of evidence accumulated over the years, ironically, what I consider to be the only smoking gun we need came with the international crime of the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan with "insufficient hard evidence" that bin Laden was involved, as admited by the FBI. The Taliban offered to give over bin Laden if the US would provide evidence of his guilt. Bush refused. Case closed.

Hal O'Leary | 09.10.08 - 6:00 pm | #


 Glen Ford and his group,, is one of the few that speaks the the truth where corporate puppets tell nothing but lies.

Old red dog | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 6:03 pm | #


 tacitus | 09.10.08 - 1:35 pm | #



" To read the 911 Commission report is to read the whitewash Warren Commission report all over again. Both coverups filled with inconsistencies and contradictions and attempts to distract from the real perpetrators. And the perpetrators were the same ones who controlled both "investigations." "

Anonymous | 09.10.08 - 2:57 pm |


That is why they have progressed up the criminal ladder while everybody was asleep and still ASLEEP even now as we write, carrying out the horrendous crimes against humanity, all in line with the Talmudic principles plus the well researched truthful article on TAMURLANE.


Like one commentator said, 'What are we going to do about it ?"


Well, I for one, and I feel others too, who for despite looking like men from outer space, spread the news to the sheeple before in the past and even now. I have told them about the internet sites to visit and read alternate views. But as far as stats are concerned, the majority, are either stunned with nightmarish disbelief, and to those whose minds resemble a donkey's brain, stubbornly proud, to actually believe that their own governments would NOT sell them down the river. Who needs Frankenstein, when there are perfect clones/sheeples who are born every minute to lick the asses of these zionist monsters.


Over the years since 9/11, today, I am glad to say, that some of those very people have changed their stance/tunes and are rejecting the fake bogus news run by the right wing jewish crime syndicate. This I feel is rather evident, but Please hang on for a minute, we still have a long way to go to convince and motivate them. That important factor is financial security. And we can see from the zionist greed and the illegimate children that are being bred that money has to come from somewhere, you guessed it, from the PEOPLE/SHEEPLE.


And to be totally honest folks, majority of the people who are so highly conditioned by a way of life to having great deal of financial security, beer/drugs, illicit or non illicit sex will NOT budge till its TAKEN FROM THEM. Now when the shit hits the fans, as it is now evident that the sands of time are moving against them, that things will change either for the better or for the worse. They (the sheeple) will decide to make that MOVE as a society of 'haves' and 'have nots' is emerging.


Oh what a selfish society mankind IS ?

Please observe this phenomena unveil in front of your eyes, but please before you turn your guns on me, I didnt say ALL, just a majority who are totally conditioned to the HILT by this selfishness, please do not use non-tangible, airy fairy religious mumbo jumbos to solve this affliction.

Richard | 09.10.08 - 6:07 pm | #


 baruch | 09.10.08 - 5:56 pm


Wait - this is my favorite type of post to respond to.....


Your post: and it's "racist" indictments are well, quite frankly, hilarious and funny given the fact that the Jews that committed the vile crime of 9/11 are from both Israel and U.S. Oh, and the Zionists involved in 9/11 are from both Israel and the U.S. Some, even have dual nationality.


Mostly non Jews were the recipients of the violence of 9/11 committed by Jews-Zionists-Israelis. Mostly non Jews have been the recipients of all the Jew's false flag operations as listed upthread in my post. Doesn't that make the Jew's racist?


Got it?


To state that you're hypocritical is a gross understatement.



xzp | 09.10.08 - 6:36 pm | #


 We (the people of the U.S. of A. and the rest of the world) will never come to know what REALLY happened on 11 September 2001.


At the same time: never is relative,

Maybe (if planet earth and/or the human inhabitants thereon still exists/exist): 200 years from now some hapless soul might come across documents about this occurrence.

However: this person will, most possibly, scratch his/her head and think: "About which is this? Skyscrapers? Never heard of it".


Thank you.

Have-Had-It | 09.10.08 - 6:41 pm | #


 What's really curious is that it is obvious to millions of people that it was an inside job and yet millions of others believe the Bush goons are entirely innocent. A few million even believe that O.J. Simpson is innocent. Some people simply cannot see what is right before their eyes.

Anonymous | 09.10.08 - 6:43 pm | #


 The Emperor has no clothes. Worse, the Emperor is a mass murderer or is at least complicit. The whole story about the 911 event is a pack of ridiculous lies from beginning to end. The people who perpetrated this crime are so contemptuous of the public that they don't even bother to get the story straight. The intact passports ejected from exploding planes is enough to shout LIE. This is America's version of the Reichstag fire.

Lars | 09.10.08 - 6:45 pm | #


 xzp...Yup I got it...I learned long ago that it is pointless to try to persuade a racist not to be's like trying to reason with someone who's I won't try with you. It is sad to me, however, that you do not seem to have the ability to discern. Black and white thinking is something that, hopefully, you will outgrow.


I am a person of Jewish ethnicity, I am a pagan, I have been to Israel and worked there with Israeli Arab Christians and Muslims, and Israeli Jews in peacemaking.


There are racist Jews of course, but when you say "the Jews" you are being racist. The world is made up of individuals, not monolithic groups with group mind policies. That is the illusion the fascists want you to believe in, and you are doing exactly what they want by holding the attitudes you are holding.

baruch | 09.10.08 - 7:14 pm | #


 zion is jew - isr policies is jew - if there are those elitists neocons etc who bought into zionism ideology - if there are religious orgs that have been subverted by jews and zion and who now work to bring about newworldorder under talmud


if there are govts that are infiltrated by jews and zion and who now work to bring about newworldorder under talmud


if there are militaries

if there is media

if there are judiciaries

if there is academia


infiltrated and subverted by jews and zionism -


as a worm infiltrates an apple and causes it to rot from the inside out


so is above


as are people - but zionism is jew and jew is zionism


there may be those jews on the fringe who are not zionists

there may be zionists who are not jew


but over and above MOST ARE -



pippi | 09.10.08 - 7:23 pm | #


 Wow...I had no idea when I came to this comment board that it was populated by racists. There are a bunch of you who seem to be filled with racist hatred. pippi, xzp, are poisoning yourselves and those around you with your hate. I wish you healing.


I won't be back to this site. I choose to put my energy into constructive activity, not sit around and spew negativity.

baruch | 09.10.08 - 7:25 pm | #





9/11: Distinguishing The Propaganda From The Smoking Guns

By CB_Brooklyn

September 2008 Itemid=60


CB_Brooklyn | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 7:29 pm | #


 Griffin and all the 911 Truth sayers should be commended. People have lost their jobs and lives over this. After reading so much about 911 there can be no denying the truth, that the rogue and terrorist governments are the U.S., Israel, Canada, and U.K.

No person working with only half a brain can fail to see the truth here.


Having said that I really don't think that those responsible will ever be doled out the justice they so deserve. These are people in the highest places, well protected by layers of others and those of the masses who will not look for fear of what they will see. The crime is too deep. Even explaining to a neighbor that physicists, architects and engineers have publicly come out with proof does nothing to open their eyes.

desert flower | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 7:39 pm | #


 I've always thought that the 'attack' on the USS Cole in the Port of Yemen was an inside job designed to bring Bin Laden's name into the public domain shortly before the 9/11 false flag attack.


It's been a while since I read much on John O'Neil but he was trying to track down Bin Laden and investigate the USS Cole attack - he was practically shut down by higher ups and coincidentally (duh?) was killed in the Twin Towers attack. Who hired him as head of security for the towers? I don't know - does anyone out there know this detail?


Also, did any of the 911 family members ever see the 'phone calls' made from the planes on the detailed billing from their cell carriers? If one of my family members had died in the attacks and called me during the hijacking, I'm sure I would have looked at my bill to see their last connection to me. Just a thought.

bohewasp | 09.10.08 - 7:44 pm | #




Interesting I don't find my post racist.. Zionism is a political movement not a race and not a religion. I suggest you learn what things mean before you come on to a site and make an ignorant post as you just did.


oh that is right your not coming back. Forgot sorry.


Good luck with your ignorance surfing the net enjoy!

ZionistSlayer | 09.10.08 - 7:47 pm | #


 baruch | 09.10.08 - 7:14 pm


You are better off calling people here "bigots", although that is way off also. Jews are a religion. There is nothing racial there, as jews come in all stripes and colors of races. Just like Christians and Muslims.


If I am a christian and someone is denouncing me for that, calling me a "christian" can I say they are being racist?


Jews in Israel ARE RACIST. They attack the Palestinians, a semitic race, and discriminate against them accordingly. Jews are no different than anyone else. The "chosen ones" is something they invented themselves.


Nobody cares if you are offended here.

anonymous | 09.10.08 - 7:49 pm | #




John O'neill was employed by the premier spook front, Kroll and Associates. This private security company is the nexus coordinating the key operatives outside of the official channels.


Keep going--you're on the right track.

Now we're talking | 09.10.08 - 7:54 pm | #


 desert flower, I showed my neighbor 'Patriots question 9/11' and articles from this site and he is convinced. Some people will listen.


Thanks Henk, for the LaRouche links!

whatever | 09.10.08 - 7:54 pm | #


 isr policy returns the world to middle ages


it is isr policy under which us uk conducts its foreign policy

pippi | 09.10.08 - 7:55 pm | #


 I love David Ray Griffin's logical style. Together, he and Steven Jones make a great team. But, all the whistleblowers, experts and other believers who have been awakened are no match for the money and power of the M I complex and their ownership of the MSM. But at least we have the internet (until they buy that out too).

kellysgarden | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 8:12 pm | #


 Griffin can't be serious!

George | 09.10.08 - 8:23 pm | #


 "It was said that the passport of Atta was found on Broadway after the attack:

has it been on display lately?"


- Yompi.


I *saw* a passport, in nearly pristine condition, that was purported to belong to Atta, shortly after the attacks on the WTC. Obviously, I cannot attest to it's authenticity, for a picture can tell a thousand lies.


But I haven't seen it since.

rgl | 09.10.08 - 8:28 pm | # l=e



A damning film on the American war criminals' occupation of Iraq

Imad Khadduri, Free Iraq



September 10, 2008


printed on upsidedown us flag held up by us soldier




No End In Sight (1 hour 42 minutes), if you have the time.





:: Article nr. 47131 sent on 11-sep-2008 04:18 ECT


Link: american-war-criminals.html

pippi | 09.10.08 - 8:37 pm | #


 Regarding some of the posts about WTC Tower 7, nobody has yet to date, been able to supply me with an acceptable explanation of just how the BBC was able to report it's crumbling seven minutes before it actually imploded.


When somebody can explain that wee descrepancy, then perhaps I might believe that Muslim *terrorists* flew complex passenger jets into WTC Towers 1 & 2, and the Pentagon with only the most rudimentary flight training. And very little a/c wreakage resultant from those impacts.


When I hear a reasonable explanation for the utter disappearance of all three aircraft's black boxs, perhaps I can then accept the fact that 2 skyscrapers over 100 stories in height can, agin all laws of averages, not to mention physics, freefall directly into their own footprints.


Tom Clancy couldn't, wouldn't even write this particular script.


The entire official story, start to bloody finish is fabrication. A lie.

rgl | 09.10.08 - 8:47 pm | #


 I don't believe going over and over the events of Sept 11 helps the American people. No, I don't believe the official version of guilty people, however I just don't know.

Americans cannot afford to remain stuck in the past, looking backwards, but have to consider the future of the USA. Let it go, and look forward.

Anonymous | 09.10.08 - 8:49 pm | #


 "Americans cannot afford to remain stuck in the past, looking backwards, but have to consider the future of the USA. Let it go, and look forward."


- ?


So very wrong, chum. You only learn from your past experiences, not from an unexperienced future. If this is allowed to be swept under the rug, as was Pearl Harbour, as was the assassination of JF Kennedy, then your nation is doomed to repeats of these events again, and again, and again.


And then there is the simple concept of justice. Are you willing to allow the most heinous of criminal acts in recent American history to simply fade to black? I would very much like to hear you explain your rationale for that when you explain it to the relatives of the some 3000 human beings that were murdered on that day.


Will you be able to confront the millions of Iraqis who've lost millions of their people, likewise murdered, in the name of the holy grail that is 9/11?


I do not think you possess the courage to do that.


Because if you do not confront this head-on, if you don't excise the evil in your midst, then as a nation, and as a people, you will be utterly lost.


And you will receive mercy and sympathy from no quarter.

rgl | 09.10.08 - 9:04 pm | #


 I wonder why the names of the alleged hijackers are not on the passengers list of any of the planes? Why did building 7 collapse?

mars | 09.10.08 - 9:08 pm | #


 "But, all the whistleblowers, experts and other believers who have been awakened are no match for the money and power of the M I complex and their ownership of the MSM."


- Kellysgarden.


If you really believe that, if you truly, in your heart of hearts, believe that, than why bother coming here. Grab a book, climb into bed, and stay there till you die.


There are a lot more of us, btw, than there are of them.


We just gotta get our shit together.

rgl | 09.10.08 - 9:14 pm | #


 "I wonder why ..."


- mars.


I wonder how many great, and not so great things have been discovered by asking that one simple question.


"I wonder why ..."

rgl | 09.10.08 - 9:19 pm | #


 desert flower, I showed my neighbor 'Patriots question 9/11' and articles from this site and he is convinced. Some people will listen.


whatever | 09.10.08 - 7:54 pm |


I had not seen that patriots question 911 site. thanks for including it. I really don't see much on ich about 911 or the NWO, which is behind everything. Very little about the European NWO elites either. They have a big role in everything too.

Thanks for that site.

desert flower | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 9:31 pm | #


 feelin the heat isrealhell


feelin a little vulnerable


you're finally being cornered - you're finally being contained curtailed and forced to heel


it's about time !! sunburn.html


Russia Ready to Vaporize the Jewish State

And then kick America out of the Eastern Hemisphere’s oilfields


Copyright Joe Vialls, 28 October 2003             


“When the end finally comes for Israel, it will all be over in microseconds. Flying faster than rifle bullets,

the Sunburns will approach Tel Aviv and Haifa at twice the speed of sound, detonating in blinding white

200 Kiloton flashes designed to instantly transform animal vegetable and mineral into heat and light.”              


the threat of it will contain their schemes and deceit

pippi | 09.10.08 - 9:59 pm | #


 It is very obvious for any clever person - whether interested in politics or not - that the USA is behind every battle, fight or war in the whole world ....after 8 years of war between Iraq abd Iran ... and for no logical reason ....suddenly it was announced on 8/8/1988 that the war will end ,,,,I , myself, was so surprised to hear this .....happy yes ( as an Iraqi who suffered from that war) ,,,but no one ever till this moment know why it started from the first place ,,,,,BUT one day a year or so after that I was listening to the BBC ,,,,and there it was a 50 minutes programme about Iraq/ Iran war ...I was amazed ...shocked ,,,,I just do not know the right word here....BECAUSE THAT PROGRAMME REVEALED ALL THE FACTS about that war and how it was planned for years before ...when to start and when to end .....I was so surprised and one of the speakers was Petrus Ghali who was the UN head at that time ,,,,,,of course the USA 's esteemed name was there ...AS USUAL ,,,and ever since that time ..I realized the dirty role the USA plays all over the world .

As for the terror and accusations of Islam and Muslims ..this is another story or shall I say another plan ,,,the USA , Israel and other benifiteers are so clever as to set some naive or shall I say ignorant people who call themselves Muslims ...BUT WHO DO NOT REALLY KNOW WHAT ISLAM IS ,,,to be the tool in these hands in order to do whatever the 3 musketeers order

Hence comes the role of Bloody Bin Laden ,,,the ignorant Afghanis ,,,and other anti-islamic movements such as the wahabis + salafis who havew deviated the Qur'an and deviated all the Hadiths of Prophet Mohammed .

Nidhal Al- Nakkash | 09.10.08 - 10:18 pm | #




There is heros and there is terrorists. I come from the land of heros. do you

rgl | 09.10.08 - 10:19 pm | #


 oooohhh they're soooo worried now


not REQUESTS Russia - not ASKS Russia


but WARNS Russia !!!


Meridor warned Russia that selling armaments to Syria and Iran is “destabilizing and dangerous for Israel and for peace in the region”.


on the contrary - it will stabalize and is good for isrealhell - they need stabalizing and containment - that is good for Palestinian People


Russia DO IT !



Israel Warns Russia to Halt Arms Sales to Iran, Syria


Posted September 10, 2008


In an interview with the Washington Times, Israeli Ambassador Sallai Meridor warned Russia that selling armaments to Syria and Iran is “destabilizing and dangerous for Israel and for peace in the region”.


After Syrian President Bashar Assad expressed support for Russia in last month’s Georgia conflict, Russia expressed a willingness to sell further arms to Syria. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov assured that the sales would be strictly of “a defensive character”. The move is seen by some as retaliation for Israel’s strong military ties to Georgia.


ongoing concern for Israel is Iran’s rumored acquisition of Russia’s highly advanced S-300 anti-aircraft system. Though Iran has denied purchasing the system, and the Pentagon has said they don’t expect Iran to acquire it “any time soon,” Israel has continually warned Russia about the potential sale. Last month, they threatened to develop an “electronic warfare device” which would neutralize the system, which is also the backbone of Russia’s air defense.

pippi | 09.10.08 - 10:19 pm | #


link to above

pippi | 09.10.08 - 10:20 pm | #


 Ooops. Accidental post there. Started as a Zionist thing, then the phone rang.


It wasn't Mossad. I don't think.

rgl | 09.10.08 - 10:20 pm | #


 David Ray Griffin is one of the few detectives who will ask the right questions without drawing the wrong conclusions. That's good, honest, respectful work in my opinion, puts just about any politician to shame.


America was hijacked on 9.11, and so far the guilty "patriots" are still running around hating what's left of our Freedom. As Howard Zinn points out from experience, it's time for a Rebellion. Or is it?

daffy | 09.10.08 - 10:28 pm | #


 Interesting story over at the BBC. Apparently blacksmiths "had exploited this property for hundreds of years; it allows iron to become pliable at temperatures much lower than its melting point". They're saying that office fires can destroy a steel-framed building. Too bad all those blacksmiths didn't warn us back in the 1920s. Hold your nose as you check this link: 7607473.stm

yrjo | 09.10.08 - 10:49 pm | #


 The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Atta and other hijackers had made "at least six trips" to Las Vegas, where they had "engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures." These activities were "un-Islamic" because, as the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada pointed out: "True Muslims don't drink, don't gamble, don't go to strip clubs.


The author of this crap shows his ignorance (or is being willingly deceptive) of what happened by not knowing of the existence of the Takfir, a very extreme segment of the the Islamic terrorist movement. The Takfir are willing to go to any extreme to gain what they want; they'll shave their beards, eat pork, anything prohibitied by the Quran in order to blend in so they won't be found by the police.

Anonymous | 09.10.08 - 11:57 pm | #


 Remember the old adage "you become what you hate."

baruch | 09.10.08 - 5:56 pm | #


To become what I hate I'd have to move to Israel convert to Judaism and murder innocent women and children as they sleep. Bit of a stretch really wouldn't you say. To tell you the truth I have never heard that particular aphorism if indeed it is an aphorism, or adage as you Americans say. I hate brussels sprouts but I doubt I'll become one. If we became all the things we hate we would never get any sleep for the constant changing.

Paddy | 09.11.08 - 12:09 am | #


 I have been saying this since 2001!! It is now 2008!!! Why is this point even being argued?? You can NOT make a cell phone call from an airliner above 4000 feet. And that would be today!! At 4000 feet....if you get a will be on the ground in less than 4 minutes for a normal landing. This would be in 2008!! In 2001?? Seriously....come on would be lucky to get a signal at 2000 feet. Wake up people!!!

xmastri | 09.11.08 - 12:17 am | #


 It was the work of the Israeli ZIONIST and the MOSAD. All the wars in the world is caused by them for profit. Look at Georgia's attack on South Oscetia,the ZIONIST had been providing the georgians with weapons and training.


Zionism is racism. Down with the zionist. Look at them as the enemy of humanity not the poor Palestanian who have no weapons but stones to defend against the savage ZIOISTS.

M.Johnson | 09.11.08 - 12:21 am | #


 @ baruch | 09.10.08 - 7:25 pm


before you leave for good. Take a gander at what Albert Einstein said about Zionism at; Einstein.htm


Bill Johnson


On With The War of Ideas | Homepage | 09.11.08 - 12:42 am | #


This the link to the movie Zero which will be televised in Russia tomorrow.

anonymous | 09.11.08 - 12:50 am | #


 "Your articles, and the comments logged by your readers, would be much more credible if they were not so one-side and predictable.

Anonymous | 09.10.08 - 4:49 pm |"


There is no other side. The facts speak for themselves, and we speak of the facts. Nothing more. Nothing less.

lily | 09.11.08 - 1:10 am | #


 If you want to bash Israel, bash Israel, but remember it is a country. If you want to bash Zionism, feel free, but remember that it is a political movement and that there are Christian as well as Jewish Zionists.


A problem I see here is that some are bashing Jews and Judaism when I think they should be bashing Israel or Zionists. American Jews died in the Towers on 9/11 while Israeli's were messaged by Odigo to evacuate before the attack - no Israeli's were reported as perishing.


I'm a Christian, and there are Jews that support the 9-11 Truth movement - I don't think they deserve to be served up anti-Jewish sentiments.

Lamarr | 09.11.08 - 1:10 am | #


 This is interesting too: International Poll: No Consensus On Who Was Behind 9/11


Thursday September 11th, 2008 - A project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. A new poll of 17 nations finds that majorities in only nine of them believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. - (Photo: Tamara Beckwith via link below)


In no country does a majority agree on another possible perpetrator, but in most countries significant minorities cite the US government itself and, in a few countries, Israel. These responses were given spontaneously to an open-ended question that did not offer response options. On average, 46 percent say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four say they do not know.


Given the extraordinary impact the 9/11 attacks have had on world affairs, it is remarkable that seven years later there is no international consensus about who was behind them," comments Steven Kull, director of


Even in European countries, the majorities that say al Qaeda was behind 9/11 are not overwhelming. Fifty-six percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans cite al Qaeda. However, significant portions of Britons (26%), French (23%), and Italians (21%) say they do not know who was behind 9/11. Remarkably, 23 percent of Germans cite the US government, as do 15 percent of Italians.


Publics in the Middle East are especially likely to name a perpetrator other than al Qaeda. In Egypt 43 percent say that Israel was behind the attacks, as do 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories. The US government is named by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians. The numbers who say al Qaeda was behind the attacks range from 11 percent in Jordan to 42 percent in the Palestinian Territories.


The only countries with overwhelming majorities citing al Qaeda are the African countries: Kenya (77%) and Nigeria (71%). In Nigeria, a large majority of Muslims (64%) also say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks (compared to 79% of Nigerian Christians). The poll of 16,063 respondents was conducted between July 15 and August 31, 2008 by, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world and managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. Margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percent.


Interviews were conducted in 17 nations, including most of the largest nations--China, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, the Palestinian Territories, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and the Ukraine.


Respondents were asked "Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?" and their answers were categorized into four response groups: "Al Qaeda," "the US government," Israel," or "Other." Any answers that approximated al Qaeda, such as "bin Laden" or "Islamic extremists," were categorized along with those who said al Qaeda. Those who simply characterized the perpetrators as "Arabs," "Saudis," or "Egyptians" (3% on average) were included in the "Other" category.


Respondents in Asia have mixed responses. Bare majorities in Taiwan (53%) and South Korea (51%) name al Qaeda, but 17 percent of South Koreans point to the US government and large numbers in both countries say they do not know (Taiwan 34%, South Korea 22%). Majorities of Chinese (56%) and Indonesians (57%) say they do not know, with significant minorities citing the US government (Indonesia 14%, China 9%).


A clear majority of Russians (57%) and a plurality of Ukrainians (42%) say al Qaeda was behind the attacks. But significant minorities identify the US government (15% in both cases) and large numbers do not provide an answer (Ukrainians 39%, Russians 19%). Out of all countries polled, Mexico has the second-largest number citing the US government as the perpetrator of 9/11 (30%, after Turkey at 36%). Only 33 percent name al Qaeda.


Though people with greater education generally have greater exposure to news, those with greater education are only slightly more likely to attribute 9/11 to al Qaeda. Steven Kull comments, "It does not appear that these beliefs can simply be attributed to a lack of exposure to information."


A stronger correlate of beliefs about 9/11 are respondents' attitudes about the United States. Those with a positive view of America's influence in the world are more likely to cite al Qaeda (on average 59%) than those with a negative view (40%). Those with a positive view of the United States are also less likely to blame the US government (7%) than those with a negative view (22%). - [and end]


Questionnaire/Methodology (PDF) + Press Release (PDF) via link below.


Source: 2005 World Public Opinion: Global Public Opinion on International Affairs | 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20036 - Url.:


Google: Web Results 1 - 10 of about 928,000 for 9/11 +"inside job". - Url.:


Of course it was an inside job.

Henk Ruyssenaars | Homepage | 09.11.08 - 1:25 am | #


Source: and