Guest guest Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 115 Myths, Lies, Ommissions, and Obfuscations Your Government (and Its Media >>115 Myths, Lies, Ommissions, and Obfuscations Your Government (and Its >>Media) Have Told You -- and Sold You – About The Terror Event of >>September 11, 2001 by Dr. David Ray Griffin >> >>(Numbers in parentheses refer to Griffin’s book, THE 9/11 COMMISSION >>REPORT: Omissions and Distortions. Griffin's comments follow List. >>Word Document attached should you wish to disseminate this.) >> >>1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged >>hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably >>to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into >>the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20). >> >>2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported >>fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with >>the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious >>(20-21). >> >>3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a >>pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22). >> >>4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests >>contain no Arab names (23). >> >>5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, >>caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25). >> >>6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not >>very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several >>steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26). >> >>7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the >>collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later >>than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have >>collapsed first (26). >> >>8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an >>airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an >>occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26). >> >>9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like >>that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of >>controlled demolition (26-27). >> >>10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow >>steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive >>steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and >>that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still >>been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28). >> >>11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire >>department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28). >> >>12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was >>quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it >>could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30). >> >>13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated >>before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the >>steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the >>steel---made no sense in this case (30). >> >>14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received >>word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31). >> >>15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and >>his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in >>charge of security for the WTC (31-32). >> >>16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would >>have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, >>for several reasons (33-34). >> >>17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the >>Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several >>hundred miles per hour (34). >> >>18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the >>west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike >>and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to >>have entered (34). >> >>19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on >>whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside >>the Pentagon (34-36). >> >>20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a >>anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial >>airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda >>terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed >>that it would be thus defended (36). >> >>21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security >>cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the >>Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI >>immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of >>what really hit the Pentagon (37-38). >> >>22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the >>missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39). >> >>23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the >>question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to >>remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, >>they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to >>crash into the school (41-44). >> >>24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon >>fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46). >> >>25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, >>no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48). >> >> >>26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was >>warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50). >> >>27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of >>information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower >>Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney >>General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51). >> >>28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly >>claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in >>advance (51-52). >> >>29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that >>the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply >>advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57). >> >>30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some >>Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57). >> >>31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was >>America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an >>American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the >>local CIA agent (59). >> >>32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US >>military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape >>(60). >> >>33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama >>bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, >>that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned >>by his family and his country (60-61). >> >>34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s >>testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal >>family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day >>period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 >>attacks (61-65). >> >>35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding >>of al-Qaeda (65-68). >> >>36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence >>that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda >>operatives (69-70). >> >>37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between >>private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis >>from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US >>airspace in effect at the time (71-76). >> >>38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States >>shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82). >> >>39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special >>permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86). >> >>40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI >>headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams >>(89-90). >> >>41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI >>headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used >>intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his >>experiences (91). >> >>42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the >>attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a >>warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94). >> >>43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by >>former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her >>later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related >>cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101). >> >>44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of >>Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week >>prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US >>officials (103-04). >> >>45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 >>to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07). >> >>46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign >>government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda >>operatives (106). >> >>47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured >>Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the >>story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09). >> >>48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was >>behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of >>Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the >>week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112). >> >>49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and >>murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113). >> >>50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed >>that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely >>connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the >>9/11 attacks (114). >> >>51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas >>that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114). >> >>52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of >>his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as >>“opportunities” (116-17). >> >>53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American >>Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush >>administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl >>Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid >>technological transformation of the US military (117-18). >> >>54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the >>commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding >>for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such >>funding (119-22). >> >>55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided >>over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, >>General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of >>the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122). >> >>56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban >>could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its >>oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and >>Pakistan (122-25). >> >>57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US >>representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US >>proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war >>against them would begin by October (125-26). >> >>58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book >>had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it >>needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum >>reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the >>US public to support this imperial effort (127-28). >> >>59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush >>administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul >>Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years >>(129-33). >> >>60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing >>that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with >>Iraq (131-32). >> >>61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American >>Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the >>Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34). >> >>62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming >>process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even >>though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158). >> >>63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in >>NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in >>particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or >>Andrews (159-162). >> >>64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep >>several fighters on alert at all times (162-64). >> >>65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had >>to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled >>from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66). >> >>66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s >>transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s >>radar to track that plane (166-67). >> >>67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s >>response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69). >> >>68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven >>minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not >>know where to go (174-75). >> >>69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of >>Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower >>(181-82). >> >>70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, >>according to which the FAA had notified the military about the >>hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) >>how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then >>left uncorrected for almost three years (182). >> >>71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 >>that morning (183). >> >>72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says >>that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it >>included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186). >> >>73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 >>(186-88). >> >>74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not >>deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports >>had said 8:46 (189-90). >> >>75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed >>in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, >>was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s >>counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190). >> >>76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American >>airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s >>radar (191-92). >> >>77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was >>notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous >>report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying >>or simply confused for almost three years (192-93). >> >>78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously >>said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in >>response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller >>at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington >>(193-99). >> >>79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the >>probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck >>(204-12). >> >>80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s >>videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210). >> >>81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in >>coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because >>“none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the >>Defense Department”---although Richard Clarke says that his >>videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of >>Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the >>joint chiefs of staff (211). >> >>82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense >>Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference---although Clarke’s >>book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212). >> >>83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill >>during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory >>account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in >>Clarke’s videoconference (213-17). >> >>84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account >>of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts >>(217-19). >> >>85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s >>testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney >>and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an >>aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220). >> >>86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft >>approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a >>few minutes before the building was hit (223). >> >>87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft >>that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward >>spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention >>of this maneuver (222-23). >> >>88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly >>scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere >>near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24). >> >>89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that >>hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25). >> >>90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about >>Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253). >> >>91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated >>conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the >>NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31). >> >>92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know >>everything that the FAA knows (233). >> >>93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own >>teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not >>standard protocol (234). >> >>94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield >>not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s >>Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear >>that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36). >> >>95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service >>between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards >>Washington (237). >> >>96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down >>authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had >>crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US >>military until 10:31 (237-41). >> >>97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot >>down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53). >> >>98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested >>shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240). >> >>99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he >>received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240). >> >>100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the >>PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44). >> >>101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman >>Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before >>9:20 (241-44). >> >>102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the >>president (245). >> >>103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of >>Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the >>NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252). >> >>104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the >>air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from >>Washington (251). >> >>105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with >>fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States >>(257-58). >> >>106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its >>mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad >>(258-62). >> >>107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not >>recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners >>as missiles (262-63). >> >>108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in >>the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD >>had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used >>as missiles (264-67). >> >>109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled >>for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the >>hijacked airliners (268-69). >> >>110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation >>Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71). >> >>111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get >>information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA >>personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 >>times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, >>227, 237, 272-75). >> >>112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed >>“independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive >>director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush >>administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84). >> >>113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to >>prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles >>in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85). >> >>114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of >>the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious >>conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95). >> >>115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented >>its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably >>possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most >>critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of >>“looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to >>accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House >>forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming >>quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291). >> >> >>COMMENTS BY GRIFFIN: >> >>In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: >>Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a >>better title might have been “a 571-page lie.” (Actually, I was saying >>“a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of >>the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that >>the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the >>official story about 9/11 is true. >> >>Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall >>lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular >>issues. This point is implied by my critique’s subtitle, “Omissions and >>Distortions.” It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of >>problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated >>“distortions” can be considered lies. >> >>It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two >>types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the >>Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a >>hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not >>give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have >>an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 >>alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them >>have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to >>mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. >>Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the >>Commission did not honor its stated intention “to provide the fullest >>possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.” They are also lies >>insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the >>issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the >>case in at least most instances. >> >>Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are >>contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding >>to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had >>identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to >>me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article. >> >>One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the >>Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the >>book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the >>interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to >>be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable >>lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in >>The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in >>doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on >>which the various issues are discussed. >> >>(SOURCE: >>http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php) >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.