<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16981" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=tanstl@aol.com href="mailto:tanstl@aol.com">David Sladky</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=undisclosed-recipients:
href="mailto:undisclosed-recipients:">undisclosed-recipients:</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:49 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9 /11
Truth Movement</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial color=black size=2><BR><BR>
<DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT
face=Verdana><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 20pt" size=5><B>The Media Response to the
Growing Influence of the 9 /11 Truth Movement</B></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in"><FONT size=4><B>Reflections on a Recent
Evaluation of Dr. David Ray Griffin</B></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in"><FONT size=3><A
href="http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16505">http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16505</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt" size=4>Part
I</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt" size=4>by
Elizabeth Woodworth</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The cover story of the September 24, 2009, issue of The New Statesman,
the venerable left-leaning British magazine, was entitled “The 50 People who
Matter Today.”(1) Any such list, necessarily reflecting the bias and limited
awareness of the editors, would surely contain choices that readers would find
surprising. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>That is true of this list – which includes families as well as
individuals. A good number of names are, to be sure, ones that would be
contained in most such lists created by British, Canadian, or American political
commentators, such as the Obamas, the Murdochs, Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden,
Angela Merkel, Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, Pope Benedict XVI, and
Gordon Brown. But about half of the names reflected choices that I, and probably
most other readers, found surprising. One of these choices, however, is beyond
surprising - it is astounding. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=3>I
refer to the person in the 41st position: David Ray Griffin, a retired professor
of philosophy of religion and theology who, in 2003, started writing and
lecturing about 9/11, pointing out problems in the official account of the
events of that day. By the time the New Statesman article appeared, he had
published 8 books, 50 articles, and several DVDs. Because of both the quantity
and quality of his work, he became widely regarded as the chief spokesperson of
what came to be called “the 9/11 Truth Movement.” It was because of this role
that the New Statesman included him in its list, calling him the “top truther”
(the “conspiracy theorist” title went to Dan Brown, who was placed in the 50th
slot). </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>In saying Griffin “matters”, however, the New Statesman was not praising
him. Here is how the magazine explained its choice:</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.2in; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.39in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"
align=justify>“<FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=3>Conspiracy theories are
everywhere, and they always have been. In recent years, one of the most
pernicious global myths has been that the US government carried out, or at least
colluded in, the 11 September 2001 attacks as a pretext for going to war.
David Ray Griffin, a retired professor of religion, is the high priest of the
‘truther’ movement. His books on the subject have lent a sheen of respectability
that appeals to people at the highest levels of government - from Michael
Meacher MP to Anthony ‘Van’ Jones, who was recently forced to resign as Barack
Obama's ‘green jobs’ adviser after it emerged that he had signed a 9/11 truth
petition in 2004.”</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=3>I
wish to raise two questions about the New Statesman’s treatment of Griffin.
First, is its evaluation of him as one of the most important people in the world
today simply absurd, as it certainly seems at first glance, or is there a
perspective from which it makes sense? Second on what basis could the editors
justify their claim that the 9/11 truth movement is promoting a “myth” – and a
“pernicious” one at that?</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3><B>The Inclusion of Griffin in the List: Does It Make
Sense?</B></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Why would Griffin’s role as “top truther” – as the intellectual leader of
the 9/11 truth movement - lead the magazine’s editors to consider him one
of the “50 people who matter today”? Unlike a president, a prime minister, or a
pope, he has no political clout; unlike a billionaire, he has no financial
clout; and his book sales do not begin to rival those of Dan Brown. Indeed, his
books do not even get reviewed in the press. The idea that he is one of the 50
people who matter most in the world today is, as he himself has said, absurd –
at least from most angles. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>There is, however, one angle from which it does make sense: Given the
enormity of the 9/11 attacks and of the policies, both foreign and domestic,
that have been justified as responses to those attacks, a movement challenging
the official story of the attacks certainly could, in principle, become so
influential that its intellectual leader would be a person of consequence.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>And the movement has, in fact, grown enormously in both size and
credibility since 2004 and 2005, when Griffin published his first two books on
the subject – “The New Pearl Harbor” and “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions
and Distortions” – and began working, with colleague Peter Dale Scott, on an
edited volume that was published in 2006 as “9/11 and the American Empire:
Intellectuals Speak Out.”</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Due in large part to these volumes - plus the national exposure Griffin
received when his 2005 lecture at the University of Wisconsin in Madison was
carried by C-SPAN - a small group of academics formed Scholars for 9/11 Truth,
which led in turn to the formation of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, the
leaders of which launched the Journal of 9/11 Studies in 2006.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The existence of these scholarly organizations stimulated the creation of
three professional organizations: Veterans for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11
Truth, and the destined giant of the movement, Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth, which was formed after architect Richard Gage, a conservative Republican,
heard an interview with Professor Griffin on his car radio that would change his
life. In it, Griffin was describing the newly released oral testimonies from the
dozens of New York firefighters a who had heard booming explosions in the Twin
Towers.(2) After looking into the evidence for himself and concluding that the
destruction of the World Trade Center buildings could not have resulted from
anything other than explosives, Gage formed his organization of architects and
engineers, which now has almost 1000 licensed members. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>While these developments were occurring, translations were made of some
of Griffin’s books, beginning with “The New Pearl Harbor,” which was published
in Italian, Chinese, Danish, Czech, French, Dutch, Japanese, and Arabic. Thanks
in part to these translations, a worldwide movement is now calling for 9/11
truth. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Also, this movement, which at one time was discounted as crazy conspiracy
theorists playing around on the Internet, has now become widely
professionalized, with Griffin again a critical influence in his consultant role
to the emerging organizations of journalists, lawyers, medical professionals,
religious leaders, and political leaders. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>One of those organizations, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, includes in
its membership British MP Michael Meacher, who has, according to the New
Statesman, succumbed to the “sheen of respectability” given to “the ‘truther’
movement” by Griffin’s books. The New Statesman would presumably look equally
askance at other members of this organization, including Senator Yukihisa
Fujita, one of the leading members of the new ruling party of Japan, who made a
nationally televised presentation questioning the official account or 9/11, and
Ferdinando Imposimato, a former Italian senator and judge who presided over the
trial of the assassination of President Aldo Moro and the attempted
assassination of Pope John Paul II.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>If political leaders are so easily taken in by a “pernicious global myth”
about 9/11 because of the “sheen of respectability” lent to it by Griffin’s
books, one could hopefully look to firefighters, who are generally practical,
sensible people, for reassurance about the truth of the official account of
9/11. This hope is dashed, however, by the testimonies about explosions in the
Twin Towers by dozens of firefighters, some of whom Richard Gage heard Griffin
discussing on that interview in 2006. New York firefighters lost 343 of their
own on September 11. The members of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth are demanding
the investigation and prosecution of those involved in arranging explosions,
destroying evidence, and orchestrating a cover-up. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>One thing bringing Griffin to the attention of the editors of the New
Statesman may have been the selection of his seventh book about 9/11, “The New
Pearl Harbor Revisited,” by America’s foremost book trade reviewer, Publishers
Weekly, as its “Pick of the Week” on November 24, 2008. This honor, which is
bestowed on only 51 books a year, perhaps increased the sheen of respectability
these editors attribute to Griffin’s books. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>And, if the New Statesman did its homework in researching its #41
position, it would have found that Griffin was nominated in both 2008 and 2009
for the Nobel Peace Prize.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Whatever the case, there can be no doubt that the 9/11 truth movement,
which Griffin has done more than any other single person to bring to its present
level of professionalism and credibility, now poses a significant threat to the
public narrative about 9/11, which has been accepted as a basis for policy by
virtually all governments and news organizations around the world.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The decision of the New Statesman to include Griffin on the list of
people who matter today does make sense, therefore, insofar as it was saying
that the movement he represents is important. This way of understanding it was,
in fact, Griffin’s own, as soon as he learned about the article. In a letter to
fellow members of the 9/11 truth community, he said: “We should take this [New
Statesman] article as a reluctant tribute to the effectiveness of our
movement.”(3)</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3><B>Does the 9/11 Truth Movement Promote a Pernicious
Myth?</B></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>My second questions is: On what basis could the New Statesman editors
justify their claim that this 9/11 truth movement promotes a “myth” - a
“pernicious” one at that?</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>To call it a “myth” implies that it is not true. But why is it
“pernicious”? </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>If the New Statesman were a right-wing magazine, we could assume that it
would regard the 9/11 truth movement’s central claim – “that the US government
carried out, or at least colluded in, the 11 September 2001 attacks as a pretext
for going to war” – as pernicious because it seeks to undermine the imperialist
wars justified by 9/11. But surely the left-leaning New Statesman does not share
that view. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The word “pernicious” might simply mean that the myth “that the US
government carried out, or at least colluded in, the 11 September 2001 attacks
as a pretext for going to war,” is too morally repugnant to accept. But
that gut reaction does not bear on the truth or falsity of the possibility,
especially in light of all the morally repugnant things carried out by the
Bush-Cheney administration that have already been publicly
documented.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>More likely, the New Statesman shares the view of left-leaning
intellectuals, such as Alexander Cockburn and George Monbiot, that the 9/11
movement is distracting many left-leaning people from dealing with truly
important issues. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>However, would many people who regard 9/11 as a false-flag operation – in
which forces within the US government orchestrated the attacks to have a pretext
for, among other things, going to war against oil-rich Muslim countries -
consider the attempt to reveal this truth a distraction from important issues?
Surely not. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>For the Statesman to call the central claim of the 9/11 truth movement
“pernicious,” therefore, seems to be simply another way of calling it a “myth” –
of saying that it is false. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>If so, the question becomes: On what basis would the editors of the New
Statesman argue that the position of the 9/11 truth movement, as articulated in
Griffin’s writings, is false? </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=3>I
will suggest a possible way they could do this: They could use the pages of
their magazine to explain why the cumulative case Griffin has constructed
against the official story is unconvincing. To assist them in this task, I have
provided below a summary of some of the main points in Griffin’s case, with page
references to his most comprehensive work, “The New Pearl Harbor Revisited”
(2008), and his most recent book, “The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center
7.” </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3><B>Elements in Griffin’s Cumulative Case Against the Official Account of
9/11</B></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3><B>Evidence that the attacks were carried out by Arab Muslims belonging
to al-Qaeda </B></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The FBI, which does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which
Osama bin Laden is wanted, has explicitly admitted that it “has no hard evidence
connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” (NPHR 206-11).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Mohamed Atta and the other alleged hijackers, far from being devout
Muslims ready to die as martyrs, regularly drank heavily, went to strip clubs,
and paid for sex (NPHR 153-55).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The main evidence for hijackers on the planes was provided by phone
calls, purportedly from passengers or crew members on the airlines, reporting
that the planes had been taken over by Middle-Eastern men. About 15 of these
calls were specifically identified as cell phone calls, with Deena Burnett, for
example, reporting that she had recognized her husband’s cell phone number on
her Caller ID. But after the 9/11 truth movement pointed out that cell phone
calls from high-altitude airliners would have been impossible, given the cell
phone technology available in 2001, the FBI changed its story, saying that all
the calls, except two made from a very low altitude, had been made using onboard
phones. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Although US Solicitor General Ted Olson claimed that his wife, Barbara
Olson, phoned him twice from AA 77, describing hijackers with knives and
box-cutters, his widely reported story was contradicted by FBI evidence
presented to the Moussaoui Trial in 2006, which said that the only call
attempted by her was “unconnected” and (therefore) lasted “0 seconds” (NPRH
60-62).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Although the decisive evidence proving that Al-Qaeda was responsible for
the attacks was originally said to have been found in a rented Mitsubishi that
Mohamed Atta had left in the airport parking lot in Boston, the present story
says that it was found in luggage that did not get loaded onto American Flight
11 from the commuter flight that Atta took that morning from Portland, Maine.
This story changed after it emerged that Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, originally
said to have been the hijackers who boarded American 11 after taking that
commuter flight from Portland, had not died on 9/11. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The other types of reputed evidence for Muslim hijackers, such as
security videos at airports, passports discovered at the crash sites, and a
headband discovered at the crash site of United 93, show clear signs of having
been fabricated (NPHR 170-73).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>In addition to the absence of evidence for hijackers on the planes, there
is also evidence of their absence: Although the pilots could have easily
“squawked” the universal hijack code in two or three few seconds, not one of the
eight pilots on the four airliners did this (NPHR 175-79).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The Secret Service, after being informed that a second World Trade Center
building had been attacked---which would have meant that unknown terrorists were
going after high-value targets---and that still other planes had apparently been
hijacked, allowed President Bush to remain at the unprotected school in
Sarasota, Florida, for another 30 minutes. The Secret Service thereby betrayed
its knowledge that the airliners were not under the control of hostile
hijackers. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3><B>Evidence of a “stand-down” order preventing interception of the four
planes</B></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Given standard operating procedures between the FAA and the military,
according to which planes showing signs of an in-flight emergency are normally
intercepted within about 10 minutes, the military’s failure to intercept any of
the flights implies that something, such as a stand-down order, prevented
standard procedures from being carried out (NPHR 1-10,
81-84).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta reported an episode in which
Vice President Cheney, while in the bunker under the White House, apparently
confirmed a stand-down order at about 9:25 AM, which was prior to the strike on
the Pentagon. (NPHR 94-96). </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The 9/11 Commission did not include this testimony from Mineta in its
report and claimed that Cheney did not enter the bunker until almost 10:00,
which was at least 40 minutes later than Mineta and several other witnesses
reported his being there (NPHR 91-94).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The 9/11 Commission’s timeline for Cheney that morning even contradicted
what Cheney himself had told Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” five days after
9/11 (NPHR 93).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3><B>Evidence that the official story about the Pentagon cannot be
true</B></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Hani Hanjour, who according to his flight instructors could not safely
fly a single-engine airplane, could not have possibly executed the extraordinary
trajectory reportedly taken by American Flight 77 in order to hit Wedge 1 of the
Pentagon (NPHR 78-80).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Wedge 1 would have been the least likely part of the Pentagon to be
targeted by foreign terrorists: It was remote from the offices of the top brass;
it was the only part of the Pentagon that had been reinforced; and it was still
being renovated and hence was only sparsely occupied (NPHR
76-78).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3><B>Evidence that the official story about the destruction of the World
Trade Center cannot be true</B></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Because the Twin Towers were supported by 287 steel columns, including 47
massive core columns, they could not have come straight down, largely into their
own footprints, unless these columns had been severed by explosives. Therefore,
the official theory - according to which the buildings were brought down solely
by fire plus, in the case of the Twin Towers, the impact of the planes – is
scientifically impossible (NPHR 12-25). </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Many other things that occurred during the destruction of the Twin
Towers, such as the horizontal ejections of steel beams from the top floors and
the liquefying of steel and other metals with melting points far above any
temperature that could have produced by fire, can only be explained by powerful
explosives (NPHR 30-36).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The almost perfectly symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, which was supported
by 82 steel columns, could only have occurred if all 82 of those columns had
been sliced simultaneously (MC Ch. 10). </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>In its final report on WTC 7, issued in November 2008, NIST admitted that
this building had come down in absolute free fall for over two seconds. NIST,
however, was still affirming a theory of progressive collapse caused by fire,
which, as NIST had explained the previous August, could not possibly result in
absolute free fall, because the lower floors would offer resistance. NIST was
able to avoid admitting that explosives had brought the building down, in other
words, only by continuing to affirm its fire theory after admitting that it
could not explain one of the empirical facts it had come to acknowledge (MC Ch.
10). </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Journalists, city officials, WTC employees, and over 100 members of the
Fire Department of New York testified to having witnessed massive explosions in
the World Trade Center buildings (NPHR 27-30, 45-48, 51). </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=3>A
scientist who had formerly worked for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), which produced the official reports on the world Trade
Center, reported in 2007 that it had been “fully hijacked from the scientific to
the political realm,” so that its scientists had become little more than “hired
guns” (NPHR 11, 238-51).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>The fact that NIST in writing its reports functioned as a political
rather than a scientific agency is illustrated with special clarity by its
report on WTC 7, in which it not only omitted all the evidence pointing to the
occurrence of explosives (MC Chs. 3-5), but also falsified and even fabricated
evidence to support its claim that the building was brought down by fire (Chs.
7-10). </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3>Until the editors of the New Statesman are able to refute Griffin’s
cumulative argument, we can agree with their view that Griffin, by virtue of his
role in the 9/11 truth movement, has become a person of global importance, while
rejecting as groundless their charge that the growing importance of this
movement is pernicious. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=justify><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=3><B>Notes</B><BR> </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=left><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=2>1.New Statesman. “The 50 People Who Matter Today,” September 24, 2009
(</FONT></FONT><A
href="http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2009/09/world-fashion-gay-india-church"><FONT
color=#0066cc><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=2>http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2009/09/world-fashion-gay-india-church</FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3> </FONT></FONT><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=2>).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=left><A name=_Hlt247958844></A><FONT
face=Verdana><FONT size=2>2. New York Times. “The Sept. 11 Records. A rich vein
of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral
histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency
medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has
published all of them.” </FONT></FONT><A
href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html"><FONT
color=#0066cc><FONT face=Verdana><FONT
size=2>http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html</FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3> </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.1in" align=left><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=2>3.
New Statesman Cover Story: David Ray Griffin 41st Most Influential Person in the
World!” 911 Blogger, September 26, 2009, posted by Adam Syed (</FONT></FONT><A
href="http://www.911blogger.com/node/21468"><FONT color=#0066cc><FONT
face=Verdana><FONT
size=2>http://www.911blogger.com/node/21468</FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT
face=Verdana><FONT size=2>).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="CLEAR: both"></DIV></FONT><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</BODY></HTML>