Discovering the Truth about 9/11

One of the primary difficulties (other than intentional governmental obfuscations and media assisted distortions) in understanding what happened on 9/11 is the complexity of the overall situation and the ever-growing cast of characters involved. For example, just coming to terms with the sheer amount of evidence alone is noticeably demanding. Fortunately for us, David Ray Griffin has distilled and compiled a good deal of the most credible evidence available into his The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004). As he explains:

"[T]his evidence is so extensive and of such a nature that no individual – especially no individual with very limited time and resources – could check out its accuracy. . .[However, if] a significant portion of the evidence summarized here holds up, the conclusion that the attacks on 9/11 succeeded because of official complicity would be virtually inescapable (xxiii)."

Having read this book in reverse chronological order, i.e., last chapter first, I found this statement – perhaps the strongest judgment in the whole book – very powerful indeed. What Griffin's work provides us with is a detached and scholarly approach to evaluating the evidence and various theories offered to explain what that evidence means. For him to make such a conclusion after having experienced his methodological and judicious assessment of what I would call very damning evidence, makes his tentative conclusion very compelling. Most of the research behind Griffin's work is due to the indefatigable efforts of Nafeez Ahmed and Paul Thomson in documenting the available evidence. Additional work by Thierry Meyssan and Michel Chossudovsky (and others whose work can be accessed on the web) round out the over-all completeness of the evidence showing the extreme improbability of the official version of the story of what happened on September 11, 2001. That is the great strength of The New Pearl Harbor: its aim is to show the fraudulence of the official "incompetence" theory of 9/11 which allows it to plausibly identify more credible scenarios which seem to answer many more of the outstanding questions surrounding the attacks that occurred on 9/11/2001.

Anyone seriously interested in getting to the bottom of 9/11 will be very grateful for what Griffin has done and all in two-hundred odd pages including an Afterword along with readable and relevant footnotes that can easily be fact-checked (unlike the nearly 600 page bloated and pretentious, indexless 9/11 Commission Report with its difficult to read -- let alone try to fact-check -- footnotes). The New Pearl Harbor doesn't set out to explain "what really happened," instead it attempts (and succeeds) in exposing the ludicrousness of the official version of events.

I will warn you that I found this book painful reading. The remarkable judiciousness with which Griffin handles the evidence makes the case against the Bush Administration all the more compelling. In reading some of the chapters, I felt as though I was ingesting broken glass. For me, the painfulness arose not so much because of the details of the gruesome tale itself and the falsehoods perpetuated by the Bush Administration, but because of the dawning realization that the Nation has been (and continues to be) lied to by the media. This present state of affairs could never have gotten to this point without sustained assistance from the major US media outlets, midwiving the fraud every step of the way. Although I suspected the CIA, the ISI and Mossad from the very beginning, the reason why a good deal of information, I believe, in this book is news to me (even though I thought I had some general idea of what probably happened) is because the U.S. media has also been deeply complicit in this attempt to cover-up what happened on 9/11. Although I could not accept the fact that those incredibly stalwart steel structures collapsed due to fires that raged within because of the jet fuel that melted the 47 steel beams in the core and 240 around the perimeter, all U.S. media sources "confirmed" that this is what indeed happened. I thought that the probability for that being "faked" was so remote that I trusted the story on its face. The media had largely contained the story until about eighteen (18) months later when the inconsistencies of the official version started emerging and the White House was seen actively obstructing any investigation making the public suspicious. This eventually led to the formation of the 9/11 Commission on Terrorist Attacks.

As the main emphasis of The New Pearl Harbor is exposing the fraudulence of the official version(s) of what happened on 9/11, Griffin closely considers the evidence and consistency of the government's story. What the author finds is that, although the Bush Administration could weaken some of the individual claims regarding some of the specific events and theories, the cumulative evidence buries them. This is what makes the book "a must read:" You really have to feel the burden of the evidence as it accumulates to see how seriously the government's version of the events utterly collapses. Just like the investigations into Abu Ghraib, what finally remains is a determination of exactly how high up the food chain the culpability goes. Yet from the very beginning of the events on 9/11, it is obvious who is to blame.

WHO GAVE THE NO GO?

Forty (40) minutes passed between when Fight 11 deviated from its scheduled flight path and when the first jets were sent to intercept it. Standard Operating Procedures require that jets be scrambled within minutes (one or two) of such abnormalities. The only way such standard operating procedures could be changed would require an order for them not to be scrambled which requires a command from on high.

"[T]hat would mean that NORAD did absolutely nothing for almost thirty minutes while a hijacked commercial airliner flew off course through some of the most congested airspace in the world. Presumably, that would warrant some very serious charges. Again, no one associated with NORAD or the FAA has been punished (Wood and Thompson quoted on p. 9)"

Then when they do scramble the jets (if it can still be called that so late in the game), they have them sent from Cape Cod and Virginia. Their constantly evolving stories in the face of such starkly culpable evidence is truly dismal reading with each new version becoming more and more irreconcilable with the previous one. The first version was that no plans had been scrambled, and, in the second version, they were scrambled but, because of "communication problems," they were sent up late. As Andreas von Bűlow, former State Secretary in the German Defense Ministry, said "For 60 decisive minutes, the military and intelligence agencies let the fighter planes stay on the ground (11)." ' So this raises the question of who suspended the standard operating procedures:

"The sabotage of routine protective systems [which, incidentally, have never had a single problem until 9/11] controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme US military command. This includes at least US President George Bush, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Meyers (Bykov and Israel quoted on p. 11).

But it should be remembered that Cheney was the most senior member in Washington during the time of the attacks. By the way, the commander of NORAD then and now is General Ralph E. Eberhart

STEEL MELTS AT 1700 C, AND CONVENIENTLY TOO

The physical impossibilities and improbabilities associated with the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are case studies in gross stupidity. Hydrocarbon based jet fuel (1700C) does not burn at temperatures sufficiently high enough to melt steel (2770 C), especially in the short amount of time that passed – less than two hours. There were no signs of long-term intensely burning fires within the towers; as a matter of fact, after the initial fireball that was created when the planes struck their targets, the fires were seen to quickly die out. Calculations made on the amount of dust that was created in the collapse, show that the buildings were demolished through controlled demolition; there were innumerable reports of hearing, feeling and seeing the effects of explosives just before the collapse by people in the building (e.g., firemen); the collapse occurred in free-fall time (hence not due to fire); the second building that was struck came down before the first building (hence, not consistent with the fire story); there is seismological evidence from Columbia University that show a series of well-timed explosions exactly when the towers began to collapse; slow-motion videos of the collapsing building are entirely consistent with the way buildings collapse during controlled demolition; the evidence goes on and on like this. Once you add the implausible versions offered by the government agents and the beneficiaries (Larry Silverstein) of the insurance policy drawn up weeks before the collapse, and the fact that all of the steel beams were immediately removed from the crime scene and sold, the story quickly becomes sinister.

One final point on the collapse of the WTC. How in hell were they able to transport these melted and twisted steel beams after the alleged fire, unseen, which raged inside the collapsed steel buildings? The organization responsible for the cleanup, Controlled Demolition, just so happened to have moving trucks that were exactly the size needed to move the uniformly broken pieces of steel. How about that? Somehow, God-knows-how, the fire melted the beams at each of the steel fixtures all the way down in only a matter of seconds (the amount of time it took for the buildings to fall). What a miraculous coincidence! All 287 steel beams managed to break precisely so that they would perfectly fit onto the back of Controlled Demolition trucks! Additionally, WTC7 wasn't even hit by one of those jet fuel-laden planes and yet it too collapsed. Thus, three steel buildings collapse due to fires – for the first time in history – on the same day.

HIJACKED BOEING JET ELUDES A TRILLION DOLLAR AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM

Flight 77 which purportedly hit the Pentagon made a small hole in what was the only section that had been re-enforced; too small to have been a commercial airline; and get this – there were no large pieces of the plane left (in the first version of the story), i.e., it completely vaporized! But they still found human remains!! The fireball was hot enough to instantly melt an entire 757 but, somehow, not so hot that parts of passengers could still be found! Apparently, what happened was that a military missile followed Flight 77 (which strangely got a single call from the now-resigned Solicitor General Olson's wife just before "impact") and stayed on course to impact the only re-enforced wall of the Pentagon where only civilian workers were killed (with the exception of one general while Donald Rumsfeld just happened to be on the farthest side of the Pentagon during the "attack") while the 757 with Mrs. Wilson probably veered away and landed at the nearest military airport. (To decide for yourself what it was that hit the Pentagon, see "Hunt for the Boeing . Test Your Perceptions". Most of the conflicting eye-witness accounts can be explained if there was both a missile and a Boeing 757 – attested to by one eye-witness.

PLANE, WHAT PLANE?

And of course the one plane, Flight 93, where the passengers managed to wrest control away from the terrorists (because they had found out what happened with Flight 11 through their cell phones, i.e., that the hijackers were on a suicide mission) was shot down by the jets that were scrambled apparently under that dog Cheney 's order.

'At 9:54, Tom Burnett called his wife again. . .[and] said, "I know we're all going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it." [. . .] At 9:58, a passenger talking on the phone to her husband said: "I think they're going to do it. They're forcing their way into the cockpit." A little later, she exclaimed "They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" But her husband then heard screaming in the background followed by a "whooshing sound, a sound like the wind," then more screaming, after which he lost contact. Another passenger, calling from the restroom, reportedly said just before contact was lost that he heard "some sort of explosion" and saw white smoke coming from the plane.' (Months later, the FBI denied that the recording of this call contained any mention of smoke or an explosion, but the person who took the call was not allowed to speak to the media) (50).'

"It was also reported that as the fighter got nearer Flight 93, Cheney was asked two more times to confirm that the fighter should engage, which Cheney did (51)."

"On October 16, the government released flight control transcripts of the airplanes – except for Flight 93 (50)."

"Thompson concludes that while some of the [first-hand] accounts have conflicting elements, they 'virtually all support a missile strike (52)' . . .This evidence suggests that when the authorities wanted a flight shot down, they were not hindered by lack of either competence or coordination (53)."

AN INSPIRING EXAMPLE OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP

There is very telling governmental oversight in their response to the attacks on 9/11. Immediately after hearing of the attacks on 9/11, why wasn't George Bush scurried to a secure location instead of dawdling around at the elementary school (reading the original accounts of what Bush actually said and did in his thirty minute hang-out is quite disturbing), i.e., his whereabouts at the time were public knowledge, so why wasn't he evacuated? Also, most heinously, while Cheney and Condi were removed to their secure locations, the rest of their staff in White House was not warned until nearly an hour later.

'Evacuation of the US Capitol building did not begin until 9:48, which was 23 minutes after an unidentified aircraft had been spotted flying across Washington and 10 minutes after it hit the Pentagon. What if Flight 93 had been more nearly on time? Thompson says. "It is later reported that the target for flight 93 was the Capitol building, so had their flight not been delayed 40 minutes [affording the passengers access to the news about Flight 11, i.e., that it was probably also a suicide mission] before takeoff, it is possible most senators and congress people would have been killed."
'. . .[T]he other main hypothesis about Flight 93's intended target is that it was the White House, [where] critics also wonder why it was not evacuated sooner. According to many news reports, both Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor Rice were taken to the White House's underground bunker by the Secret Service at 9:03. However, it was over 40 minutes later, at 9:45, when a general evacuation of the White House was begun (54)." '

OUR COURAGEOUS LEADER

"As President Bush continued with his reading lesson, life within the burning towers of the World Trade Center was becoming ever more desperate. . .Within minutes, people began jumping, preferring a quick death to burning alive or suffocating [. . . ]" (quoted from Bamford on p. 60)

"Besides joking, the president lingered, not at all acting like a commander in chief with [a national] emergency on his hands. . .When the lesson was over, according to Sammon's account, Bush said:

>>Hoo! These are great readers. Very impressive! Thank you so much for showing me your reading skills. I bet they practice too. Don't you? Reading more than they watch TV? Anybody do that? Read more than you watch TV? [Hands go up] Oh that's great! Very good. Very important to practice! Thanks for having me. Very impressed.<<

"Bush then continued to talk, advising the children to stay in school and be good citizens. And in response to a question he talked about his education policy. Sammon describes Bush as smiling and chatting with the children "as if he didn't have a care in the world," and "in the most relaxed manner imaginable." After a reporter asked if the president had heard about what happened in New York, Bush said, "I'll talk about that later," then in Sammon's words, "stepped forward and shook hands with [the classroom teacher] Daniels, slipping his left hand behind her in another photo-op pose. He was taking his good old time. . .Bush lingered until the press was gone. (61)"

Which is how Part One of Griffin's book concludes though I left out some other sickening details, e.g., Bush having said he saw Flight 11 crash into the WTC apparently in real time. In Part Two the following Questions are considered: 1) Did US Officials have advanced information about 9/11?; Did they obstruct investigations prior to 9/11?; Did they have reasons for allowing 9/11?; and, Did they block captures and investigations after 9/11? Part Three, the Conclusion, considers the question of whether complicity by US Officials provides the best explanation. In the Introduction Griffin provides a nuanced and incremental way of determining various levels of complicity from Level 1 -- Constructing a false account even though they did not facilitate the attacks to Level 8 -- The White House was involved in planning the attacks.

The New Pearl Harbor (a $15 paperback) concludes appropriately by pointing out the present need for a Full Investigation.

RETROSPECT

One of the things that struck me after I wrote the above – on my way to lunch – as possibly the most damaging aspect (if that's possible) of the unending parade of culpabilities offered, is that a missile was used to attack the Pentagon. It seems as though Rumsfeld (or whoever) got to thinking how suspicious it might look if the WTC and the Capitol Building (or the White House) was attacked but not the Pentagon. What I'm trying to suggest is that, as numerous serial killers have been caught by attempting to cover-up their tracks, so with Rumsfeld, who-- being the stupid prick that he obviously is – had the Pentagon attacked (an extremely improbable occurrence) with missiles! (Guess they figured a Boeing may really do too much damage to their beloved Pentagon.) Therefore, I believe, military officials have shown not only that they had advanced knowledge of the "attacks," but that Rumsfeld and, most likely, the White House were involved in the planning of 9/11! The "terrorists" didn't have access to missiles, or did they?

CIA INVOLVEMENT?

Robert Baer wrote in his Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude after having finished describing an imagined attack on Saudi Arabia's Abqaiq stabilization tower (which turns "sour" crude into "sweet" salable fuel):
"I'm thinking like a saboteur here, just as the CIA trained me to do. One of the benefits of having spent a career as an agency case officer in some of the world's most volatile regions was a thorough education in how to destroy things (xxiv-xxv)."