<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17063" 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> Friday, June 25, 2010 11:00 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan? </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial color=black size=2>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: arial,helvetica">
<DIV id=AOLMsgPart_2_d334cb0d-bd65-4af9-85e0-491245a3fc5a><FONT face=arial
color=black size=2><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></FONT>
<DIV style="CLEAR: both"><A
href="http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19891">http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19891</A></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV style="CLEAR: both">
<TABLE id=ViewArticleTable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2>
<DIV class=articleTitle><STRONG></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV class=articleTitle><STRONG>Did 9/11 Justify the War in
Afghanistan?</STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV class=articleSubTitle>Using the McChrystal Moment to Raise a
Forbidden Question </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=articleAuthorName>by Prof. David Ray Griffin</DIV><BR></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD align=left width=1><IMG
src="http://globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/19891.jpg" border=0></TD>
<TD align=right>
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>
google_ad_client = "pub-1591488516340780";
/* 200x200, created 11/9/09 */
google_ad_slot = "9178639779";
google_ad_width = 200;
google_ad_height = 200;
</SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"
type=text/javascript>
</SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/expansion_embed.js"></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT
src="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/test_domain.js"></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/render_ads.js"></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT>google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);</SCRIPT>
<INS
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; VISIBILITY: visible; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 200px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; POSITION: relative; HEIGHT: 200px"><INS
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; DISPLAY: block; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; VISIBILITY: visible; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 200px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; POSITION: relative; HEIGHT: 200px"></INS></INS>
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>google_ad_client = "pub-1591488516340780";/* 200x200, created 5/22/09 */google_ad_slot = "1471974688";google_ad_width = 200;google_ad_height = 200;</SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"
type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT>google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);</SCRIPT>
<INS
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; VISIBILITY: visible; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 200px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; POSITION: relative; HEIGHT: 200px"><INS
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; DISPLAY: block; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; VISIBILITY: visible; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 200px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; POSITION: relative; HEIGHT: 200px"></INS></INS></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2>
<DIV class=bigArticleText12><A href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/">Global
Research</A>, June 25, 2010</DIV></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2>
<DIV class=bigArticleText12>- 2010-06-24</DIV></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2><BR>
<DIV class=bigArticleText12><A id=printLink
href="javascript:printarticle(19891);"><I></I></A> </DIV></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2><BR>
<TABLE id=digTable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD width=60>
<SCRIPT src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js"
type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
</TD>
<TD vAlign=baseline width=60>
<SCRIPT>reddit_url='http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19891'</SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT>reddit_title='Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan? '</SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT src="http://www.reddit.com/button.js?t=2"
type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
</TD>
<TD width=60><A
href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Findex.php%3Fcontext%3Dva%26aid%3D19891"></A></TD>
<TD vAlign=bottom align=left> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD align=left colSpan=2>
<DIV class=bigArticleText style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 10px"><BR>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>There are many questions to ask about the war in Afghanistan.
One that has been widely asked is whether it will turn out to be “Obama’s
Vietnam.” This question implies another: Is this war winnable, or is it
destined to be a quagmire, like Vietnam? These questions are motivated in
part by the widespread agreement that the Afghan government, under Hamid
Karzai, is at least as corrupt and incompetent as the government the
United States tried to prop up in South Vietnam for 20
years.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Although there are many similarities between these two wars,
there is also a big difference: This time, there is no draft. If there
were a draft, so that college students and their friends back home were
being sent to Afghanistan, there would be huge demonstrations against this
war on campuses all across this country. If the sons and daughters of
wealthy and middle-class parents were coming home in boxes, or with
permanent injuries or post-traumatic stress syndrome, this war would have
surely been stopped long ago. People have often asked: Did we learn any of
the “lessons of Vietnam”? The US government learned one: If you’re going
to fight unpopular wars, don’t have a draft – hire mercenaries!
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>There are many other questions that have been, and should be,
asked about this war, but in this essay, I focus on only one: Did the 9/11
attacks justify the war in Afghanistan? <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>This question has thus far been considered off-limits, not to
be raised in polite company, and certainly not in the mainstream media. It
has been permissible, to be sure, to ask whether the war during the past
several years has been justified by those attacks so many years ago. But
one has not been allowed to ask whether the original invasion was
justified by the 9/11 attacks. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>However, what can be designated the “McChrystal Moment” – the
probably brief period during which the media are again focused on the war
in Afghanistan in the wake of the Rolling Stone story about General
Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan,
which led to his resignation – provides the best opportunity for some time
to raise fundamental questions about this war. Various commentators have
already been asking some pretty basic questions: about the effectiveness
and affordability of the present “counterinsurgency strategy” and even
whether American fighting forces should remain in Afghanistan at all. But
I am interested in an even more fundamental question: Whether this war was
ever really justified by the publicly given reason: the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>This question has two parts: First, did these attacks provide a
legal justification for the invasion of Afghanistan? Second, if not, did
they at least provide a moral justification? <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>I. Did 9/11 Provide Legal Justification for the War in
Afghanistan?<o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, international
law with regard to war has been defined by the UN Charter. Measured by
this standard, the US-led war in Afghanistan has been illegal from the
outset. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Marjorie Cohn, a well-known professor of international law,
wrote in November 2001: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>“[T]he bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the
United Kingdom are illegal.”2 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>In 2008, Cohn repeated this argument in an article entitled
“Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War.” The point of the title was that,
although it was by then widely accepted that the war in Iraq was illegal,
the war in Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that many Americans did not
realize it, was equally illegal.3 Her argument was based on the following
facts: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>First, according to international law as codified in the UN
Charter, disputes are to be brought to the UN Security Council, which
alone may authorize the use of force. Without this authorization, any
military activity against another country is illegal.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Second, there are two exceptions: One is that, if your nation
has been subjected to an armed attack by another nation, you may respond
militarily in self-defense. This condition was not fulfilled by the 9/11
attacks, however, because they were not carried out by another nation:
Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Indeed, the 19 men charged
with the crime were not Afghans. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The other exception occurs when one nation has certain
knowledge that an armed attack by another nation is imminent – too
imminent to bring the matter to the Security Council. The need for
self-defense must be, in the generally accepted phrase, "instant,
overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”
Although the US government claimed that its military operations in
Afghanistan were justified by the need to prevent a second attack, this
need, even if real, was clearly not urgent, as shown by the fact that the
Pentagon did not launch its invasion until almost a month later.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>US political leaders have claimed, to be sure, that the UN did
authorize the US attack on Afghanistan. This claim, originally made by the
Bush-Cheney administration, was repeated by President Obama in his West
Point speech of December 1, 2009, in which he said: “The United Nations
Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the
9/11 attacks,” so US troops went to Afghanistan “[u]nder the banner of . .
. international legitimacy.”4 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>However, the language of “all necessary steps” is from UN
Security Council Resolution 1368, in which the Council, taking note of its
own “responsibilities under the Charter," expressed its own readiness “to
take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11
September 2001.”5 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Of course, the UN Security Council might have determined that
one of these necessary steps was to authorize an attack on Afghanistan by
the United States. But it did not. Resolution 1373, the only other
Security Council resolution about this issue, laid out various responses,
but these included matters such as freezing assets, criminalizing the
support of terrorists, exchanging police information about terrorists, and
prosecuting terrorists. The use of military force was not mentioned.6
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The US war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security
Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war
and remains an illegal war today. Our government’s claim to the contrary
is false. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>This war has been illegal, moreover, not only under
international law, but also under US law. The UN Charter is a treaty,
which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of
the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of
the “supreme law of the land.”7 The war in Afghanistan, therefore, has
from the beginning been in violation of US as well as international law.
It could not be more illegal. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>II. Did 9/11 Provide Moral Justification for the War in
Afghanistan?<o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The American public has for the most part probably been unaware
of the illegality of this war, because this is not something our political
leaders or our corporate media have been anxious to point out.8 So most
people simply do not know. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>If they were informed, however, many Americans would be
inclined to argue that, even if technically illegal, the US military
effort in Afghanistan has been morally justified, or at least it was in
the beginning, by the attacks of 9/11. For a summary statement of this
argument, we can turn again to the West Point speech of President Obama,
who has taken over the Bush-Cheney account of 9/11. Answering the question
of “why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in
Afghanistan in the first place,” Obama said:
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>“We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001,
nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly
3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers.
They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard
to their faith or race or station. . . . As we know, these men belonged
to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled
Islam. . . . [A]fter the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -
we sent our troops into
Afghanistan.”9<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>This standard account can be summarized in terms of three
points: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>1. The attacks were carried out by 19 Muslim members of
al-Qaeda. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>2. The attacks had been authorized by the founder of al-Qaeda,
Osama bin Laden, who was in Afghanistan. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>3. The US invasion of Afghanistan was necessary because the
Taliban, which was in control of Afghanistan, refused to turn bin Laden
over to US authorities.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>On the basis of these three points, our political leaders have
claimed that the United States had the moral right, arising from the
universal right of self-defense, to attempt to capture or kill bin Laden
and his al-Qaeda network to prevent them from launching another attack on
our country. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The only problem with this argument is that all three points
are false. I will show this by looking at these points in reverse order.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>1. Did the United States Attack Afghanistan because the
Taliban Refused to Turn Over Bin Laden?<o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The claim that the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden has
been repeatedly made by political leaders and our mainstream media.10
Reports from the time, however, show the truth to be very different.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>A. Who Refused
Whom?<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, CNN reported:
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>“The Taliban . . . 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 Taliban ambassador to Pakistan . . . said
Friday that deporting him without proof would amount to an ‘insult to
Islam.’"<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>CNN also made clear that the Taliban’s demand for proof was not
made without reason, saying: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>“Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do
with the attacks, and Taliban officials repeatedly said he could not
have been involved in the attacks.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Bush, however, “said the demands were not open to negotiation
or discussion.”11 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>With this refusal to provide any evidence of bin Laden’s
responsibility, the Bush administration made it impossible for the Taliban
to turn him over. As Afghan experts quoted by the Washington Post pointed
out, the Taliban, in order to turn over a fellow Muslim to an “infidel”
Western nation, needed a “face-saving formula.” Milton Bearden, who had
been the CIA station chief in Afghanistan in the 1980s, put it this way:
While the United States was demanding, “Give up bin Laden,” the Taliban
were saying, “Do something to help us give him up.”12 But the Bush
administration refused. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>After the bombing began in October, moreover, the Taliban tried
again, offering to turn bin Laden over to a third country if the United
States would stop the bombing and provide evidence of his guilt. But Bush
replied: "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's
guilty." An article in London’s Guardian, which reported this development,
was entitled: “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand Bin Laden Over.”13 So it
was the Bush administration, not the Taliban, that was responsible for the
fact that bin Laden was not turned over. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>In August of 2009, President Obama, who had criticized the US
invasion of Iraq as a war of choice, said of the US involvement in
Afghanistan: “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.”14
But the evidence shows, as we have seen, that it, like the one in Iraq, is
a war of choice. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>B. What Was the Motive for the
Invasion?<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>This conclusion is reinforced by reports indicating that the
United States had made the decision to invade Afghanistan two months
before the 9/11 attacks. At least part of the background to this decision
was the United States’ long-time support for UNOCAL’s proposed pipeline,
which would transport oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea region to
the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan and Pakistan.15 This project had been
stymied through the 1990s because of the civil war that had been going on
in Afghanistan since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>In the mid-1990s, the US government had supported the Taliban
with the hope that its military strength would enable it to unify the
country and provide a stable government, which could protect the pipeline.
By the late 1990s, however, the Clinton administration had given up on the
Taliban.16 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>When the Bush administration came to power, it decided to give
the Taliban one last chance. During a four-day meeting in Berlin in July
2001, representatives of the Bush administration insisted that the Taliban
must create a government of “national unity” by sharing power with
factions friendly to the United States. The US representatives reportedly
said: “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you
under a carpet of bombs.”17<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>After the Taliban refused this offer, US officials told a
former Pakistani foreign secretary that “military action against
Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started falling in
Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”18 And, indeed, given
the fact that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
occurred when they did, the US military was able to mobilize to begin its
attack on Afghanistan by October 7.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>It appears, therefore, that the United States invaded
Afghanistan for reasons far different from the official rationale,
according to which we were there to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>2. Has Good Evidence of Bin Laden’s Responsibility Been
Provided?<o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>I turn now to the second point: the claim that Osama bin Laden
had authorized the attacks. Even if it refused to give the Taliban
evidence for this claim, the Bush administration surely – most Americans
probably assume – had such evidence and provided it to those who needed
it. Again, however, reports from the time indicate otherwise.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>A. The Bush
Administration<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that
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.”19 But at a joint press conference with President Bush the
next morning, Powell withdrew this pledge, saying that “most of [the
evidence] is classified.”20 Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the
CIA and the Department of Justice, said the real reason why Powell
withdrew the pledge was a “lack of solid
information.”21<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>B. The British
Government<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The following week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a
document to show that “Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network
which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September
2001.” 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.”22 So, the case was good enough to go to war, but not good enough
to take to court. The next day, the BBC emphasized this weakness, saying:
“There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden
to the 11 September attacks.”23<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>C. The FBI<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>What about our own FBI? Its “Most Wanted Terrorist” webpage on
“Usama bin Laden” does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for
which he is wanted.24 When asked why not, the FBI’s chief of investigative
publicity replied: “because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin
Laden to 9/11.”25 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>D. The 9/11
Commission<BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN lang=FR-CA>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><BR>What
about the 9/11 Commission? Its entire report is based on the assumption
that bin Laden was behind the attacks. However, the report’s evidence to
support this premise has been disowned by the Commission’s own co-chairs,
Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>This evidence consisted of testimony that had reportedly been
elicited by the CIA from al-Qaeda operatives. The most important of these
operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – generally known simply as “KSM” –
who has been called the “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks. If you read the
9/11 Commission’s account of how bin Laden planned the attacks, and then
check the notes, you will find that almost every note says that the
information came from KSM.26<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>In 2006, Kean and Hamilton wrote a book giving “the inside
story of the 9/11 Commission,” in which they called this information
untrustworthy. They had no success, they reported, in “obtaining access to
star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”27
Besides not being allowed by the CIA to interview KSM, they were not
permitted to observe his interrogation through one-way glass. They were
not even allowed to talk to the interrogators.28 Therefore, Kean and
Hamilton complained: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>“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?”29<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>They could not. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Accordingly, neither the Bush administration, the British
government, the FBI, nor the 9/11 Commission ever provided good evidence
of bin Laden’s responsibility for the attacks. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>E. Did Bin Laden
Confess?<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Some people argue, to be sure, that such evidence soon became
unnecessary because bin Laden admitted his responsibility in a videotape
that was discovered by the US military in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in
November 2001. But besides the fact that bin Laden had previously denied
his involvement many times,30 bin Laden experts have called this later
video a fake,31 and for good reasons. Many of the physical features of the
man in this video are different from those of Osama bin Laden (as seen in
undoubtedly authentic videos), and he said many things that bin Laden
himself would not have said.32<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The FBI, in any case, evidently does not believe that this
video provides hard evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11, or it
would have revised its “Most Wanted Terrorist” page on him after this
video surfaced. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>So, to review the first two points: The Taliban said it would
turn over bin Laden if our government would give it good evidence of his
responsibility for 9/11, but our government refused. And good evidence of
this responsibility has never been given to the public.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>I turn now to the third claim: that, even if there is no proof
that Osama bin Laden authorized the attacks, we have abundant evidence
that the attacks were carried out by Muslims belonging to his al-Qaeda
organization. I will divide the discussion of this third claim into two
sections: Section 3a looks at the main support for this claim: evidence
that Muslim hijackers were on the airliners. Section 3b looks at the
strongest evidence against this claim: the collapse of World Trade Center
7. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>3a. Evidence Al-Qaeda Muslims Were on the
Airliners<o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>It is still widely thought to have been established beyond
question that the attacks were carried out by members of al-Qaeda. The
truth, however, is that the evidence entirely falls apart upon
examination, and this fact suggests that 9/11 was instead a false-flag
attack - an attack that people within our own government orchestrated
while planting evidence to implicate Muslims.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>A. Devout
Muslims?<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Let us begin with the 9/11 Commission’s claim that the men who
(allegedly) took over the planes were devout Muslims, ready to sacrifice
their lives for their cause. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>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.”
The Chronicle then quoted the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada as
saying: "True Muslims don't drink, don't gamble, don't go to strip
clubs.”33<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The contradiction is especially strong with regard to Mohamed
Atta. On the one hand, according to the 9/11 Commission, he was very
religious, even “fanatically so.”34 This characterization was supported by
Professor Dittmar Machule, who was Atta’s thesis supervisor at a technical
university in Hamburg in the 1990s. Professor Machule says he knew his
student only as Mohamed Al-Emir – although his full name was the same as
his father’s: Mohamed Al-Emir Atta. In any case, Machule says that this
young man was “very religious,” prayed regularly, and never touched
alcohol.35<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>According to the American press, on the other hand, Mohamed
Atta drank heavily and, one night after downing five glasses of Vodka,
shouted an Arabic word that, Newsweek said, “roughly translates as ‘F--k
God.’”36 Investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker, who wrote a book about
Atta, stated that Atta regularly went to strip clubs, hired prostitutes,
drank heavily, and took cocaine. Atta even lived with a stripper for
several months and then, after she kicked him out, she reported, he came
back and disemboweled her cat and dismembered its kittens.37
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Could this be the same individual as Professor Machule’s
student Mohamed Al-Emir, who would not even shake hands with a woman upon
being introduced, and who never touched alcohol? “I would put my hand in
the fire,” said the professor, “that this Mohamed El-Amir I know will
never taste or touch alcohol.” Could the Atta described by Hopsicker and
the American press be the young man whom this professor described as not a
“bodyguard type” but “more a girl looking type”?38 Could the man who
disemboweled a cat and dismembered its kittens be the young man known to
his father as a “gentle and tender boy,” who was nicknamed
“nightingale”?39 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>We are clearly talking about two different men. This is
confirmed by the differences in their appearance. The American Atta was
often described as having a hard, cruel face, and the standard FBI photo
of him bears this out. The face of the Hamburg student was quite
different, as photos available on the Internet show.40 Also, his professor
described him as “very small,” being “one meter sixty-two” in height41 –
which means slightly under 5’4” – whereas the American Atta has been
described as 5’8” and even 5’10” tall.42<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>One final reason to believe that these different descriptions
apply to different men: The father of Mohamed al-Emir Atta reported that
on September 12, before either of them had learned of the attacks, his son
called him and they “spoke for two minutes about this and
that.”43<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>There are also problems in relation to many of the other
alleged hijackers. For example, the BBC reported that Waleed al-Shehri,
who supposedly died along with Atta on American Flight 11, spoke to
journalists and American authorities in Casablanca the following week.44
Moreover, there were clearly two men going by the name Ziad Jarrah – the
name of the alleged hijacker pilot of United Flight
93.45<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Accordingly, besides the fact the men labeled “the hijackers”
were not devout Muslims, they may not have even been Muslims of any type.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>And if that were not bad enough for the official story, there
is no good evidence that these men were even on the planes - all the
evidence for this claim falls apart upon examination. I will illustrate
this point with a few examples.46<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>B. Passports at the Crash
Sites<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>One of the purported proofs that the 19 men identified as the
hijackers were on the planes was the reported discovery of some of their
passports at crash sites. But the reports of these discoveries are not
believable. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>For example, the FBI claimed that, while searching the streets
after the destruction of the World Trade Center, they discovered the
passport of Satam al-Suqami, one of the hijackers on American Flight 11,
which had crashed into the North Tower.47 But for this to be true, the
passport would have had to survive the collapse of the North Tower, which
evidently pulverized almost everything in the building into fine particles
of dust – except the steel and al-Suqami’s passport.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>But this claim was too absurd to pass the giggle test: “[T]he
idea that [this] passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged,”
remarked a British commentator, “would [test] the credulity of the
staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.”48 By 2004, the
claim had been modified to say that “a passer-by picked it up and gave it
to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers
collapsed.”49 So, rather than needing to survive the collapse of the North
Tower, the passport merely needed to escape from al-Suqami’s pocket or
luggage, then from the plane’s cabin, and then from the North Tower
without being destroyed or even singed by the giant fireball.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>This version was no less ridiculous than the first one, and the
other stories about passports at crash sites are equally absurd.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>C. Reported Phone Calls from the
Airliners<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>It is widely believed, of course, that we know that there were
hijackers on the airliners, thanks to numerous phone calls from passengers
and crew members, in which they reported the hijackings. But we have good
reasons to believe that these calls never occurred.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Reported Calls from Cell Phones: About 15 of the reported calls
from the airliners were said to have been made on cell phones, with about
10 of those being from United Flight 93 – the one that reportedly crashed
in Pennsylvania. Three or four of those calls were received by Deena
Burnett, who knew that her husband, Tom Burnett, had used his cell phone,
she told the FBI, because she recognized his cell phone number on her
Caller ID. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>However, given the cell phone technology available in 2001,
high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were not possible. They were
generally not possible much above 1,000 feet, and were certainly
impossible above 35,000 or even 40,000 feet, which was the altitude of the
planes when most of the cell phone calls were supposedly made. Articles
describing the impossibility of the calls were published in 2003 and 2004
by two well-known Canadians: A. K. Dewdney, formerly a columnist for
Scientific American, and economist Michel Chossudovsky.50
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Perhaps in response, the FBI changed the story. In 2006, it
presented a report on the phone calls from the planes for the trial of
Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. In its report on United
Flight 93, it said that cell phones were used for only two of the calls,
both of which were made the plane, shortly before it crashed, had
descended to a low altitude.51 These two calls were, in fact, the only two
cell phone calls made from any of the airliners, the FBI report said.52
The FBI thereby avoided claiming that any high-altitude cell phone calls
had been made. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>But if the FBI’s new account is true, how do we explain that so
many people reported receiving cell phone calls? Most of these people said
that they had been told by the caller that he or she was using a cell
phone, so we might suppose that their reports were based on bad hearing or
faulty memory. But what about Deena Burnett, whose statement that she
recognized her husband’s cell phone number on her Caller ID was made to
the FBI that very day?53 If Tom Burnett used a seat-back phone, as the
FBI’s 2006 report says, why did his cell phone number show up on his
wife’s Caller ID? The FBI has not answered this question.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The only possible explanation seems to be that these calls were
faked. Perhaps someone used voice morphing technology, which already
existed at that time,54 in combination with a device for providing a fake
Caller ID, which can be ordered on the Internet. Or perhaps someone used
Tom’s cell phone to place fake calls from the ground. In either case, Tom
Burnett did not actually call his wife from aboard United Flight 93. And
if calls to Deena Burnett were faked, we must assume that all of the calls
were – because if there had really been surprise hijackings, no one would
have been prepared to make fake phone calls to her.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The Reported Calls from Barbara Olson: This conclusion is
reinforced by the FBI’s report on phone calls from American Flight 77 –
the one that supposedly struck the Pentagon. Ted Olson, the US Solicitor
General, reported that his wife, Barbara Olson (a well-known commentator
on CNN), had called him twice from this flight, with the first call
lasting “about one (1) minute,”55 and the second call lasting “two or
three or four minutes.”56 In these calls, he said, she reported that the
plane had been taken over by hijackers armed with knives and box-cutters.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>But how could she have made these calls? The plane was far too
high for a cell phone to work. And American Flight 77 was a Boeing 757,
and the 757s made for American Airlines – the 9/11 Truth Movement learned
in 2005 – did not have onboard phones.57 Whether or not for this reason,
the FBI’s report to the Moussaoui trial did not endorse Ted Olson’s story.
Its report on telephone calls from American Flight 77 did mention Barbara
Olson, but it attributed only one call to her, not two, and it said that
this call was “unconnected,” so that it lasted “0 seconds.”58
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>This FBI report allows only two possibilities: Either Ted Olson
engaged in deception, or he, like Deena Burnett, was duped by faked calls.
In either case, the story about Barbara Olson’s calls, with their reports
of hijackers taking over Flight 77, was based on deception.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The alleged phone calls, therefore, do not provide trustworthy
evidence that there were hijackers on the planes. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>D. Autopsy Reports and Flight Manifests
<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The public has widely assumed, due to misleading claims,59 that
the names of the alleged hijackers were on the flight manifests for the
four flights, and also that the autopsy report from the Pentagon contained
the names of the hijackers said to have been on American Flight 77.
However, the passenger manifests for the four airliners did not contain
the names of any of the alleged hijackers and, moreover, they contained no
Arab names whatsoever.60 Also, as a psychiatrist who was able to obtain a
copy of the Pentagon autopsy report through a FOIA request discovered, it
contained none of the names of the hijackers for American Flight 77 and,
in fact, no Arab names whatsoever.61 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>E. Failure to Squawk the Hijack
Code<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Finally, the public has been led to believe that all the
evidence about what happened on board the four airliners supported the
claim that they were taken over by hijackers. This claim, however, was
contradicted by something that did not happen. If pilots have any reason
to believe that a hijacking may be in process, they are trained to enter
the standard hijack code (7500) into their transponders to alert
controllers on the ground. This is called “squawking” the hijack code.
None of the eight pilots did this on 9/11, even though there would have
been plenty of time: This act takes only two or three seconds and it would
have taken longer than this for hijackers to break into the pilots’
cabins: According to official account of United Flight 93, for example, it
took over 30 seconds for the hijackers to break into the
cockpit.62<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>F. False-Flag
Attack<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>It appears, therefore, that 9/11 was the most elaborate example
yet of a false-flag attack, which occurs when countries, wanting to attack
other countries, orchestrate attacks on their own people while planting
evidence to implicate those other countries. Hitler did this when he was
ready to attack Poland, which started the European part of World War II;
Japan did it when it was ready to attack Manchuria, which started the
Asian part of that war. In 1962, the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff
proposed false-flag attacks killing American citizens to provide a pretext
for invading Cuba.63 This proposal was not put into effect because it was
vetoed by President Kennedy. But in 2001, the White House was occupied by
an administration that wanted to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, and several
other predominantly Muslim countries,64 and so, it appears, evidence was
planted to implicate Muslims. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>3b. How the Collapse of WTC 7 Disproves the Al-Qaeda
Theory<o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>I turn now to the strongest evidence that the 9/11 attacks were
orchestrated by insiders rather than foreign terrorists: the collapse of
Building 7 of the World Trade Center, which is the subject of my most
recent book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the
Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and
False.65<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>A. Mysterious
Collapse<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>I speak of the “mysterious collapse” because the collapse of
this building was, from the very beginning, seen as more mysterious than
that of the Twin Towers. Given the fact that those two buildings were hit
by planes, which started big fires, most people evidently thought – if
wrongly - that the fact that these buildings came down was not
problematic. But Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and yet it came down
at 5:21 that afternoon. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>This would mean, assuming that neither incendiaries nor
explosives were used to demolish this building, that it had been brought
down by fire alone, and this would have been an unprecedented occurrence.
New York Times writer James Glanz wrote, “experts said no building like
it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an
uncontrolled fire.” Glanz then quoted a structural engineer as saying:
“[W]ithin the structural engineering community, [Building 7] is considered
to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers],” because
engineers had no answer to the question, “why did 7 come
down?”66<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Moreover, although Glanz spoke of an “uncontrolled fire,” there
were significant fires on only six of this building’s 47 floors, and these
fires were visible at most for three to four hours, and yet fires have
burned in other steel-frame skyscrapers for 17 and 18 hours, turning them
into towering infernos without causing collapse.67 So why did Building 7
come down? FEMA, which in 2002 put out the first official report on this
building, admitted that its “best hypothesis” had “only a low probability
of occurrence.”68 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>B. Reasons to Suspect
Explosives<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>By its “best hypothesis,” FEMA meant the best hypothesis it
could suggest consistent with the fact that it, as a government agency,
could not posit the use of incendiaries and explosives. Why might anyone
think that incendiaries and explosives brought this building
down?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Precedent: One reason is simply that, prior to 9/11, every
collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building was brought about by
explosives, often in conjunction with incendiaries, in the procedure known
as “controlled demolition.” Collapse has never been produced by fires,
earthquakes, or any other cause other than controlled demolition.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Vertical Collapse: Another reason to posit controlled
demolition is that this building came straight down, collapsing into its
own footprint. For this to happen, all of this building’s 82 steel columns
had to fail simultaneously. This is what happens in the type of controlled
demolition known as “implosion.” It is not something that can be caused by
fires. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Simply seeing a video of the building coming down makes it
obvious to anyone with knowledge of these things that explosives were used
to bring it down. On 9/11 itself, CBS News anchor Dan Rather said:
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>“[I]t’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen . . . on
television . . . , where a building was deliberately destroyed by
well-placed dynamite to knock it
down.”69<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>In 2006, a filmmaker asked Danny Jowenko, the owner of a
controlled demolition company in the Netherlands, to comment on a video of
the collapse of Building 7 without telling him what it was. (Jowenko had
never heard that a third building had collapsed on 9/11.) After viewing
the video, Jowenko said: “They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved
in afterwards. . . . This is controlled demolition.” When asked if he was
certain, he replied: “Absolutely, it’s been imploded. This was a hired
job. A team of experts did this.”70<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>An organization called “Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth,” which was formed in 2007, now has over 1,200 members. Many of
them, as one can see by reading their statements, joined after they saw a
video of Building 7’s collapse.71<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>In light of all of these considerations, a truly scientific
investigation, which sought the truth about Building 7, would have begun
with the hypothesis that it had been deliberately demolished.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>C. NIST’s Report as Political, Not
Scientific<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>However, this hypothesis did not provide the starting point for
NIST – the National Institute of Standards and Technology – which took
over from FEMA the responsibility for writing the official report on the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Rather, NIST said:
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>“The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor
system failure could occur in WTC 7 under an ordinary building contents
fire.”72<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>So, although every other steel-frame building that has
collapsed did so because explosives (perhaps along with incendiaries) were
used to destroy its support columns, NIST said, in effect: “We think fire
brought down WTC 7.” To understand why NIST started with this hypothesis,
it helps to know that it is an agency of the Commerce Department, which
means that all the years it was working on its World Trade Center reports,
it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Also, a scientist who had worked for NIST reported that by 2001
it had been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,”
so that scientists working there had “lost [their] scientific
independence, and became little more than ‘hired
guns.’”73<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>One manifestation of NIST’s political nature may be the fact
that it delayed its report on Building 7 year after year, releasing it
only late in 2008, when the Bush-Cheney administration was preparing to
leave office. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Be that as it may, NIST did in August of 2008 finally put out a
report in the form of a draft for public comment. Announcing this draft
report at a press conference, Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator,
said: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>“Our take-home message today is that the reason for the
collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery. WTC 7 collapsed
because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from
explosives.”74<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Sunder added that “science is really behind what we have
said.”75 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>However, far from being supported by good science, NIST’s
report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud. Two of
the major types of scientific fraud, as defined by the National Science
Foundation, are fabrication, which is “making up results,” and
falsification, which means either “changing or omitting data.”76 I will
begin with falsification. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>D. NIST’S Falsification of Testimonial Evidence
Pointing to Explosives<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Claiming that it “found no evidence of a . . . controlled
demolition event,”77 NIST simply omitted or distorted all such evidence,
some of which was testimonial.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Two city officials, Barry Jennings of the Housing Authority and
Michael Hess, the city’s corporation counsel, reported that they became
trapped by a massive explosion in Building 7 shortly after they arrived
there at 9:00 AM. NIST, however, claimed that what they called an
explosion was really just the impact of debris from the collapse of the
North Tower, which did not occur until 10:28. But Jennings explicitly said
that they were trapped before either of the Twin Towers came down, which
means that the explosion that he and Hess reported occurred before 9:59,
when the South Tower came down. NIST rather obviously, therefore,
distorted these men’s testimonial evidence. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Other people reported that explosions went off in the late
afternoon, when the building started to come down. Reporter Peter Demarco
of the New York Daily News said: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>“[T]here was a rumble. The building's top row of windows
popped out. Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out.
Then the thirty-eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the
building sunk into a rising cloud of
gray.”78<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>NIST dealt with such testimonies by simply ignoring them.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>E. NIST’s Omission of Physical Evidence for
Explosives<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>NIST also ignored a lot of physical evidence that Building 7
was brought down by explosives. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Swiss-Cheese Steel: For example, three professors from
Worcester Polytechnic Institute discovered a piece of steel from Building
7 that had melted so severely that it had holes in it, making it look like
Swiss cheese.79 The New York Times, pointing out that the fires in the
building could not have been hot enough to melt steel, called this “the
deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”80 The three professors,
in a report included as an appendix to the 2002 FEMA report, said: “A
detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is
needed.”81<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>When NIST’s report on Building 7 appeared, however, it did not
mention this mysterious piece of steel. It even claimed that no recovered
steel from this building had been identified.82 And this was just the
beginning of NIST’s omission of physical evidence.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Particles of Metal in the Dust: The nearby Deutsche Bank
building was heavily contaminated by dust produced when the World Trade
Center was destroyed. But the bank’s insurance company refused to pay for
the clean-up, claiming that the dust in the bank was ordinary building
dust, not dust that resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche
Bank hired the RJ Lee Group, a scientific research organization, to do a
study, which showed that the dust in this building was WTC dust, with a
unique chemical signature. Part of this signature was “[s]pherical iron .
. . particles,”83 and this meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had
“melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.”84
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Iron does not melt until it reaches 2,800°F (1,538°C), which is
about 1,000 degrees F (540 degrees C) higher than the fires could have
been. The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at
which lead would have undergone vaporization”85 – meaning 3,180°F
(1,749°C).86 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Another study was carried out by scientists at the US
Geological Survey. Besides also finding iron particles, these scientists
found that molybdenum had been melted87 – even though its melting point is
extremely high: 4,753°F (2,623°C).88<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>These two studies proved, therefore, that something had
produced temperatures many times higher than the fires could have
produced. NIST, however, made no mention of these studies. But even this
was not the end of the physical evidence omitted by NIST.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Nanothermite Residue: A report by several scientists, including
University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit, showed that the WTC dust
contained unreacted nanothermite. Whereas ordinary thermite is an
incendiary, nanothermite is a high explosive. This report by Harrit and
his colleagues did not appear until 2009,89 several months after the
publication of NIST’s final report in November 2008. But NIST should have,
as a matter of routine, tested the WTC dust for signs of incendiaries,
such as ordinary thermite, and explosives, such as nanothermite.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>When asked whether it did, however, NIST said that it did not.
When a reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, why not, Newman
replied: “[B]ecause there was no evidence of that.” “But,” asked the
reporter, “how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it
first?” Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there,
you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”90
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>F. NIST’s Fabrication of Evidence to Support Its Own
Theory<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Besides omitting and distorting evidence to deny the demolition
theory of Building 7’s collapse, NIST also fabricated evidence – simply
made it up – to support its own theory.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>No Girder Shear Studs: NIST’s explanation as to how fire caused
Building 7 to collapse starts with thermal expansion, meaning that the
fire heated up the steel, thereby causing it to expand. An expanding steel
beam on the 13th floor, NIST claimed, caused a steel girder attached to a
column to break loose. Having lost its support, this column failed,
starting a chain reaction in which the other 81 columns failed, causing a
progressive collapse.91 Ignoring the question of whether this is even
remotely plausible, let us simply ask: Why did that girder fail? Because,
NIST claimed, it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs.
NIST wrote: In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders.92 Floor
beams . . . had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor
beams did not have shear studs.93 This was a fabrication, as we can see by
looking at NIST’s Interim Report on WTC 7, which it had published in 2004.
That report, written before NIST had developed its girder-failure theory,
stated that girders as well as the beams had been attached to the floor by
means of shear studs.94<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>A Raging Fire on Floor 12 at 5:00 PM: Another case of
fabrication is a graphic in NIST’s report showing that at 5:00 PM, there
were very big fires covering much of the north face of Floor 12.95 This
claim is essential to NIST’s explanation as to why the building collapsed
21 minutes later. However, if you look back at NIST’s 2004 report, you
will find this statement: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>“Around 4:45 PM, a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9,
and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by
this time.”96<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Other photographs even show that the 12th floor fire had
virtually burned out by 4:00. And yet NIST, in its final report, claims
that fires were still raging on this floor at 5:00 PM.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>G. NIST’s Affirmation of a
Miracle<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>In addition to omitting, falsifying, and fabricating evidence,
NIST affirms a miracle. You have perhaps seen the cartoon in which a
physics professor has written a proof on a chalkboard. Most of the steps
consist of mathematical equations, but one of them simply says: “Then a
miracle happens.” This is humorous because one thing you absolutely cannot
do in science is to appeal to a miracle, even implicitly. And yet that is
what NIST does. I will explain:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>NIST’S Denial of Free Fall: Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement
had long been pointing out that Building 7 came down at the same rate as a
free-falling object, at least virtually so. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>In NIST’s Draft for Public Comment, put out in August 2008, it
denied this, saying that the time it took for the upper floors – the only
floors that are visible on the videos - to come down “was approximately 40
percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with
physical principles.”97 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>As this statement implies, any assertion that the building did
come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles –
meaning the laws of physics. Explaining why not, Shyam Sunder said:
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object
that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that
it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent
longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there
was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And
you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place.
Everything was not instantaneous.”98<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST’s rejection of
controlled demolition – which could have produced a free-fall collapse by
causing all 82 columns to fail simultaneously – in favor of NIST’s fire
theory, which necessitated a theory of progressive collapse.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Chandler’s Challenge: In response, high-school physics teacher
David Chandler challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, pointing out that
Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible,
easily measurable quantity.”99 Chandler then placed a video on the
Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone
knowing elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half
seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from
freefall.”100 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, in NIST’s final report, which
came out in November, it admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s
descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall
descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for
approximately 2.25 s[econds].”101 (“Gravitational acceleration” is a
synonym for free fall acceleration.) <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>So, after presenting over 600 pages of descriptions, graphs,
testimonies, photographs, charts, analyses, explanations, and mathematical
formulae, NIST says, in effect: “Then a miracle
happens.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who
said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the
motion.”102 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have
come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the
steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have
otherwise provided resistance. If everything had not been removed and the
upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second or
two, a miracle – meaning a violation of the laws of physics - would have
happened. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August,
saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural
components below it” to offer resistance. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>But then in November, while still defending the fire theory of
collapse, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened.
For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was
characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free
fall).”103<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, NIST no longer
claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics. In its
August draft, in which it had said that the collapse occurred 40 percent
slower than free fall, NIST had said three times that its analysis was
“consistent with physical principles.”104 In the final report, however,
every instance of this phrase was removed. NIST thereby almost explicitly
admitted that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing
to deny that explosives were used, is not consistent with the principles
of physics. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Conclusion about WTC 7: The science of World Trade Center 7 is,
therefore, settled. This fact is reflected in the agreement by many
hundreds of professionals with various forms of expertise – architects,
engineers, firefighters, physicists, and chemists – that this building was
deliberately demolished. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>This truth has also recently been recognized by a symposium in
one of our leading social science journals, which treats 9/11 as an
example of what its authors call State Crimes Against Democracy
(SCADs).105 Criticizing the majority of the academic world for its “blithe
dismissal of more than one law of thermodynamics” that is violated by the
official theory of the World Trade Center collapses, these authors also
criticize the academy for its failure to protest when “Professor Steven
Jones found himself forced out of tenured position for merely reminding
the world that physical laws, about which there is no dissent whatsoever,
contradict the official theory.”106<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>And now the world can see, if it will only look, that even
NIST, in its final report, did not dissent: By admitting that Building 7
came down in free fall for over two seconds, while simultaneously removing
its previous claim that its report was consistent with physical
principles, NIST implicitly admitted that the laws of physics rule out its
non-demolition theory of this building’s collapse. NIST thereby implicitly
admitted that explosives were used. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>H. Implications for the Al-Qaeda Theory of
9/11<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>And with that implicit admission, NIST undermined the al-Qaeda
theory of 9/11. Why? <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>For one thing, the straight-down nature of the collapse of WTC
7 means that it was subjected to the type of controlled demolition known
as “implosion,” which is, in the words of a controlled demolition website,
“by far the trickiest type of explosive project,” which “only a handful of
blasting companies in the world . . . possess enough experience . . . to
perform.”107 Al-Qaeda terrorists would not have had this kind of
expertise. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>Second, the only reason to go to the trouble of bringing a
building straight down is to avoid damaging nearby buildings. Had WTC 7
and the Twin Towers – which also came straight down, after initial
explosions at the top that ejected sections of steel outward several
hundred feet108 - instead toppled over sideways, they would have caused
massive destruction in Lower Manhattan, destroying dozens of other
buildings and killing tens of thousands of people. Does anyone believe
that, even if al-Qaeda operatives had had the expertise to make the
buildings come straight down, they would have had the
courtesy?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>A third problem is that foreign terrorists could not have
obtained access to the buildings for all the hours it would have taken to
plant explosives. Only insiders could have done
this.109<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>The science of the collapse of World Trade Center 7,
accordingly, disproves the claim - which from the outset has been used to
justify the war in Afghanistan – that America was attacked on 9/11 by
al-Qaeda Muslims. It suggests, instead, that 9/11 was a false-flag
operation to provide a pretext to attack Muslim nations.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>Conclusion<BR><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>In any case, the official rationale for our presence in
Afghanistan is a lie. We are there for other reasons. Critics have offered
various suggestions as to the most important of those reasons.110 Whatever
be the answer to that question, however, we have not been there to
apprehend the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Besides never
being legally justified, therefore, the war in Afghanistan has never been
morally justified. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>This war, moreover, is an abomination. In addition to the
thousands of US and other NATO troops who have been killed or impaired for
life, physically and/or mentally, the US-led invasion/occupation of
Afghanistan has resulted in a huge number of Afghan casualties, with
estimates running from several hundred thousand to several million.111 But
whatever the true number, the fact is that the United States has produced
a great amount of death and misery – sometimes even bombing funerals and
wedding parties - in this country that had already suffered terribly and
that, even if the official story were true, had not attacked America. The
fact that the official story is a lie makes our war crimes even
worse.112<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA>But there is a way out. As I have shown in this paper and even
more completely elsewhere,113 the falsity of the official account of WTC 7
has now been demonstrated, leaving no room for reasonable doubt. In his
inaugural address, President Obama said, “We will restore science to its
rightful place,”114 thereby pledging that in his administration, unlike
that of his predecessor, science would again be allowed to play a
determinative role in shaping public policy. By changing his
administration’s policy with regard to Afghanistan in light of the science
of WTC 7, the president would not only fulfill one of his most important
promises. He would also prevent the war in Afghanistan from becoming known
as “Obama’s Vietnam.”115<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><EM><STRONG>David Ray Griffin</STRONG> is the author of 36
books on various topics, including philosophy, theology, philosophy of
science, and 9/11. His 2008 book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited:
9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, was named a “Pick of the Week”
by Publishers Weekly. In September 2009, The New
Statesman ranked him #41 among “The 50 People Who Matter Today.” His
most recent book is The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7:
Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and
False (2009). His next book will be Cognitive Infiltration: An
Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy
Theory (September 2010). He wishes to thank Tod Fletcher, Jim
Hoffman, and Elizabeth Woodworth for help with this
essay.<o:p></o:p></EM></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"
align=justify><BR></DIV><o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=justify><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><STRONG>Notes<o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>1 For a few of the many times this issue has been
raised, see Jeffrey T. Kuhner, “Obama's Vietnam?” Washington Times,
January 25, 2009 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/25/obamas-vietnam"><FONT
size=2>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/25/obamas-vietnam</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>); Juan Cole, “Obama’s Vietnam?” Salon.com, January 26, 2009
(</FONT><A
href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/26/obama/print.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/26/obama/print.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>); John Barry and Evan Thomas, “Afghanistan: Obama’s Vietnam,”
Newsweek, January 31, 2009 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/182650"><FONT
size=2>http://www.newsweek.com/id/182650</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>2 Marjorie Cohn, “Bombing of Afghanistan Is
Illegal and Must Be Stopped,” Jurist, November 6, 2001 (</FONT><A
href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew36.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew36.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>3 Marjorie Cohn, “Afghanistan: The Other Illegal
War,” AlterNet, August 1, 2008 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.alternet.org/world/93473/afghanistan:_the_other_illegal_war"><FONT
size=2>http://www.alternet.org/world/93473/afghanistan:_the_other_illegal_war</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>4 President Barack Obama, “The Way Forward in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, ” Remarks at the U.S. Military Academy at West
Point, December 1, 2009 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34231058"><FONT
size=2>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34231058</FONT></A><FONT size=2>).
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>5 “Security Council Condemns, ‘In Strongest
Terms,’ Terrorist Attacks on United States,” September 12, 2001 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>6 Brian J. Foley "Legal Analysis: U.S. Campaign
Against Afghanistan Not Self-Defense Under International Law," Lawyers
Against the War (</FONT><A
href="http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles/foley3.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles/foley3.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>7 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land.” US Constitution, Article VI, par. 2.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>8 See Richard Falk and Howard Friel, The Record of
the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy (London:
Verso, 2007). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>9 Obama, “The Way Forward in Afghanistan and
Pakistan .”<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>10 For example, Robert H. Reid, writing for the
Associated Press (“August Deadliest Month for US in Afghanistan,”
Associated Press, August 29, 2009
[http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/august-deadliest-month-for-us-in-afghanistan]),
said the war “was launched by the Bush administration after the Taliban
government refused to hand over Osama bin Laden for his role in the Sept.
11, 2001 terror attacks in the United
States.”<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>11 “White House Warns Taliban: ‘We Will Defeat
You,’” CNN, September 21, 2001 (</FONT><A
href="http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/21/ret.afghan.taliban"><FONT
size=2>http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/21/ret.afghan.taliban</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>12 David B. Ottaway and Joe Stephens, “Diplomats
Met with Taliban on Bin Laden,” Washington Post, October 29, 2001
(http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm).
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>13 “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand Bin Laden
Over,” Guardian, October 14, 2001 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5"><FONT
size=2>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>14 Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Obama Defends Strategy in
Afghanistan,” New York Times, August 18, 2009 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/us/politics/18vets.html?_r=1&th&emc=th"><FONT
size=2>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/us/politics/18vets.html?_r=1&th&emc=th</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>15 See the two chapters entitled “The New Great
Game” in Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in
Central Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), and Steve Coll,
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden,
from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (New York: Penguin, 2004).
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>16 Rashid, Taliban, 75-79, 163, 175.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>17 Quoted in Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume
Dasquié, Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed
Hunt for Bin Laden (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books, 2002),
43. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>18 George Arney, “U.S. ‘Planned Attack on
Taleban,’” BBC News, September 18, 2001
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm).
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>19 “Meet the Press,” NBC, September 23, 2001
(</FONT><A
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/nbctext092301.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/nbctext092301.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>20 “Remarks by the President, Secretary of the
Treasury O'Neill and Secretary of State Powell on Executive Order,” White
House, September 24, 2001
(http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/president_026.asp).
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>21 Seymour M. Hersh, “What Went Wrong: The C.I.A.
and the Failure of American Intelligence,” New Yorker, October 1, 2001
(http://web.archive.org/web/20020603150854/http://www.cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Hersch_OCT_01.htm).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>22 Office of the Prime Minister, “Responsibility
for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States,” BBC News, October 4,
2001 (</FONT><A
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1579043.stm"><FONT
size=2>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1579043.stm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>23 “The Investigation and the Evidence,” BBC News,
October 5, 2001 (</FONT><A
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm"><FONT
size=2>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>24 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Most Wanted
Terrorists: Usama bin Laden” (</FONT><A
href="http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>25 Ed Haas, “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence
Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’” Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061107114035/http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html).
For more on this episode, see David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An
Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch
[Interlink], 2008), Chap. 18. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>26 See 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), Chap. 5, notes 16, 41,
and 92.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>27 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), 118.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>28 Ibid., 122-24. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>29 Ibid., 119. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>30 David Ray Griffin, Osama bin Laden: Dead or
Alive? (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2009),
27-29.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>31 Professor Bruce Lawrence interviewed by Kevin
Barrett, February 16, 2007 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.radiodujour.com/people/lawrence_bruce"><FONT
size=2>http://www.radiodujour.com/people/lawrence_bruce</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>32 Griffin, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? 16,
29-33.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>33 Kevin Fagan, “Agents of Terror Leave Their Mark
on Sin City,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 4, 2001 (</FONT><A
href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/04/MN102970.DTL"><FONT
size=2>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/04/MN102970.DTL</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>34 The 9/11 Commission Report,
160.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>35 “Professor Dittmar Machule,” Interviewed by Liz
Jackson, A Mission to Die For, Four Corners, October 18, 2001 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/machule.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/machule.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>36 Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball, “Bush: ‘We’re
at War,” Newsweek, September 24, 2001
(http://www.newsweek.com/id/76065).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>37 Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to Terrorland:
Mohamed Atta and the 9-11 Cover-Up in Florida (Eugene, OR: MadCow Press,
2004). See also Hopsicker, “The Secret World of Mohamed Atta: An Interview
With Atta’s American Girlfriend,” InformationLiberation, August 20, 2006
(http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14738). Many of the
details are summarized in my 9/11 Contradictions, Chap. 15, “Were Mohamed
Atta and the Other Hijackers Devout Muslims?” As I explain in that
chapter, there were efforts to try to discredit Keller’s account by
intimidating her into recanting and by claiming that she lived with a
different man having the same first name, but these attempts failed.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>38 “Professor Dittmar
Machule.”<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>39 </FONT><A
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/kateconnolly"><FONT size=2>Kate
Connolly</FONT></A><FONT size=2>, “Father Insists Alleged Leader Is Still
Alive,” Guardian, September 2, 2002 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usa"><FONT
size=2>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usa</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>40 “Photographs Taken of Mohamed Atta during His
University Years,” A Mission to Die For, Four Corners (</FONT><A
href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/photos/university.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/photos/university.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). Also, the differences between the (bearded) Atta in his passport
photo, which is in the FBI’s evidence for the Moussaoui trial, and the
Atta of the standard FBI photo, seem greater than can be accounted for by
the fact that only the former Atta is bearded. The two photos can be
compared at 911Review (</FONT><A
href="http://911review.org/JohnDoe2/Atta.html"><FONT
size=2>http://911review.org/JohnDoe2/Atta.html</FONT></A><FONT size=2>).
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>41 “Professor Dittmar
Machule.”<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>42 Thomas Tobin, “Florida: Terror’s Launching
Pad,” St. Petersburg Times, September 1, 2002 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/01/911/Florida__terror_s_lau.shtml"><FONT
size=2>http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/01/911/Florida__terror_s_lau.shtml</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>); Elaine Allen-Emrich, “Hurt for Terrorists Reaches North Port,”
Charlotte Sun-Herald, September 14, 2001 (available at </FONT><A
href="http://www.madcowprod.com/keller.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.madcowprod.com/keller.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>43 Connolly, “Father Insists Alleged Leader Is
Still Alive.” <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>44 David Bamford, “Hijack ‘Suspect’ Alive in
Morocco,” BBC, September 22, 2001 (</FONT><A
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1558669.stm"><FONT
size=2>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1558669.stm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). Although some news organizations, including the BBC itself,
later tried to debunk this story, they failed, as I reported in The New
Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton:
Olive Branch, 2008), 151-53. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>45 See 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 Press, 2008), 3-44, at 22-26; and Paul Thompson,
“The Two Ziad Jarrahs,” History Commons (</FONT><A
href="http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayjarrah"><FONT
size=2>http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayjarrah</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>46 For types of evidence not discussed here, see
Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, Chap. 8, “9/11 Commission
Falsehoods about Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Pakistanis, and
Saudis.”<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>47 “Ashcroft Says More Attacks May Be Planned,”
CNN, September 18, 2001 (</FONT><A
href="http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/inv.investigation.terrorism/index.html"><FONT
size=2>http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/inv.investigation.terrorism/index.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>); “Terrorist Hunt,” ABC News, September 12, 2001
(http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/abc_hunt.html).
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>48 Anne Karpf, “Uncle Sam’s Lucky Finds,”
Guardian, March 19, 2002 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). Like some others, this article mistakenly said the passport
belonged to Mohamed Atta. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>49 Statement by Susan Ginsburg, senior counsel to
the 9/11 Commission, at the 9/11 Commission Hearing, January 26, 2004
(</FONT><A
href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). The Commission’s account reflected a CBS report that the
passport had been found “minutes after” the attack, which had been stated
by the Associated Press, January 27, 2003.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>50 A. K. Dewdney, “The Cellphone and Airfone Calls
from Flight UA93,” Physics 911, June 9, 2003 (</FONT><A
href="http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>); Michel Chossudovsky, “More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11
Cell Phone Calls,” Global Research, August 10, 2004 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). For discussion of this issue, see Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor
Revisited, 112-14.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>51 Greg Gordon, “Prosecutors Play Flight 93
Cockpit Recording,” McClatchy Newspapers, KnoxNews.com, April 12, 2006
(http://web.archive.org/web/20080129210016/http://www.knoxsingles.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=MOUSSAOUI-04-12-06&cat=WW).
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>52 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit
Number P200054
(http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html).
These documents can be viewed more easily in “Detailed Account of Phone
Calls from September 11th Flights” (</FONT><A
href="http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html"><FONT
size=2>http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>53 “Interview with Deena Lynne Burnett (re: phone
call from hijacked flight),” 9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents,
Chronological, September 11, 2001, Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008
(</FONT><A
href="http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html"><FONT
size=2>http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>54 William M. Arkin, “When Seeing and Hearing
Isn't Believing,” Washington Post, February 1, 1999 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). For discussion, see Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,
114-18. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>55 FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic],”
9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,
2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008, (</FONT><A
href="http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html"><FONT
size=2>http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>56 “America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,”
Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (</FONT><A
href="http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html"><FONT
size=2>http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>57 See David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo, “Could
Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls? An Analysis of New Evidence about
Onboard Phones,” Pilots for 9/11 Truth, June 26, 2007 (</FONT><A
href="http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html"><FONT
size=2>http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>58 See the graphic in Jim Hoffman’s “Detailed
Account of Telephone Calls from September 11th Flights,” Flight 77
(</FONT><A
href="http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html"><FONT
size=2>http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>59 For claims about hijackers’ names on the flight
manifests, see Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War
on Terror (New York: Free Press, 2004), 13; George Tenet, At the Center of
the Storm: My Years at the CIA (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 167-69;
and my discussion in Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 174-75. On
claims about hijacker names on the Pentagon autopsy report, 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), 63, and my discussion of its claim
in David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular
Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
(Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2007], 267-69.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>60 See Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,
163, 174-75. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>61 Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D. “Still No Arabs on
Flight 77,” Rense.com, June 23, 2003 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.rense.com/general38/77.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.rense.com/general38/77.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>62 See The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 275-79.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>63 See David Ray Griffin, Christian Faith and the
Truth behind 9/11 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), Chap. 1,
“9/11 and Prior False Flag Operations.” <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>64 General Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars:
Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire (New York: Public Affairs, 2003),
120, 130; “Gen. Wesley Clark Weights Presidential Bid: ‘I Think about It
Everyday,’” Democracy Now! March 2, 2007 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234"><FONT
size=2>http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>); Joe Conason, “Seven Countries in Five Years,” Salon.com, October
12, 2007 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/10/12/wesley_clark"><FONT
size=2>http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/10/12/wesley_clark</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>); Gareth Porter, “Yes, the Pentagon Did Want to Hit Iran,” Asia
Times, May 7, 2008 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE07Ak01.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE07Ak01.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>65 David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of
World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is
Unscientific and False (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books],
2009).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>66 James Glanz, “Engineers Have a Culprit in the
Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel,” New York Times,
November 29, 2001
(http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>67 See FEMA, “High-Rise Office Building Fire, One
Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania” (</FONT><A
href="http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf"><FONT
size=2>http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>), and “Fire Practically Destroys Venezuela’s Tallest Building,”
Venezuela News, Views, and Analysis, October 18, 2004 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/741"><FONT
size=2>http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/741</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>68 See FEMA, World Trade Center Building
Performance Study (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf), Chap.
5, Sect. 6.2, “Probable Collapse Sequence,” at p. 31.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>69 Rather’s statement is available on YouTube
(</FONT><A href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o"><FONT
size=2>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>70 See “Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 Controlled
Demolition,” YouTube (</FONT><A
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc"><FONT
size=2>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>), or, for more of the interview, “Jowenko WTC 7 Demolition
Interviews,” in three parts (</FONT><A
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&feature=related"><FONT
size=2>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&feature=related</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>71 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
(</FONT><A href="http://www.ae911truth.org/"><FONT
size=2>http://www.ae911truth.org</FONT></A><FONT size=2>).
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>72 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and
Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, November
2008, Vol. 1 (wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%201.pdf), 330.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>73 “NIST Whistleblower,” October 1, 2007
(</FONT><A
href="http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-nist-employee-blows-whistle.html"><FONT
size=2>http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-nist-employee-blows-whistle.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>74 Shyam Sunder, “Opening Statement,” NIST Press
Briefing, August 21, 2008 (</FONT><A
href="http://webmail.west.cox.net/do/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwtc.nist.gov%2Fmedia%2Fopening_remarks_082108.html"><FONT
size=2>http://wtc.nist.gov/media/opening_remarks_082108.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>75 Quoted in “Report: Fire, Not Bombs, Leveled WTC
7 Building,” USA Today, August 21, 2008 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-21-wtc-nist_N.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-21-wtc-nist_N.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>76 New Research Misconduct Policies, section
headed “What is Research Misconduct?” National Science Foundation, Office
of Inspector General (</FONT><A
href="http://www.nsf.gov/oig/session.pdf"><FONT
size=2>http://www.nsf.gov/oig/session.pdf</FONT></A><FONT size=2>). This
document is undated, but internal evidence suggests that it was published
in 2001. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>77 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1:
324.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>78 Quoted in Chris Bull and Sam Erman, eds., At
Ground Zero: Young Reporters Who Were There Tell Their Stories (New York:
Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2002), 97. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>79 Joan Killough-Miller, “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of
Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations, Spring 2002 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>80 James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “A Search for
Clues in Towers’ Collapse,” New York Times, February 2, 2002
(http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/02/nyregion/search-for-clues-towers-collapse-engineers-volunteer-examine-steel-debris-taken.html).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>81 Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and
Richard D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” FEMA, World
Trade Center Building Performance Study, May 2002, Appendix C (</FONT><A
href="http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf"><FONT
size=2>http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>), C-13. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>82 “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7
Investigation,” NIST, August 21, 2008, updated April 21, 2009). NIST has
removed both versions of this document from its website, but Jim Hoffman’s
website has preserved both the original (2008) version
(http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/nist/wtc_qa_082108.html) and the
updated (2009) version (</FONT><A
href="http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/nist/wtc_qa_042109.html"><FONT
size=2>http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/nist/wtc_qa_042109.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>83 RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature,” Expert
Report, May 2004
(http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf),
11. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>84 RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature Study:
Composition and Morphology,” December 2003 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf"><FONT
size=2>http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>), 17. This earlier (2003) version of the RJ Lee report contained
much more information about melted iron than the 2004 version. For
discussion, see Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse, 40-42.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>85 RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature Study”
(2003), 21. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>86 WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web
(http://www.webelements.com/lead/physics.html).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>87 Steven E. Jones et al., "Extremely High
Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction," Journal of 9/11
Studies, January 2008 (</FONT><A
href="http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf"><FONT
size=2>http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>), 4-5. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>88 WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web
(</FONT><A href="http://www.webelements.com/molybdenum/physics.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.webelements.com/molybdenum/physics.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>89 Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E.
Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts,
James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material
Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” The Open
Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2: 7-31 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>90 Jennifer Abel, “Theories of 9/11,” Hartford
Advocate, January 29, 2008 (http://www.ae911truth.org/press/23).
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>91 See The Mysterious Collapse,
150-55.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>92 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1: 346.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>93 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and
Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, November
2008, Vol. 2 (</FONT><A
href="http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf"><FONT
size=2>http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>), 462. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>94 For documentation and discussion of NIST’s
claim about the lack of girder shear studs, see Griffin, The Mysterious
Collapse, 212-15.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>95 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2: 384, Figure 9-11.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>96 Interim Report on WTC 7, NIST, June 2004
(</FONT><A
href="http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf"><FONT
size=2>http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>), L-26. This contradiction is pointed out in a video, “NIST Report
on WTC7 Debunked and Exposed!” YouTube, December 28, 2008 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY"><FONT
size=2>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>), at 0:45 to 1:57. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>97 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Draft for Public Comment, Vol.
2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment.pdf),
595.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>98 “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” (video), NIST,
August 26, 2008, at 1:03. NIST has removed this video and the accompanying
transcript from the Internet. However, Nate Flach has made the video
available at Vimeo (</FONT><A href="http://vimeo.com/11941571"><FONT
size=2>http://vimeo.com/11941571</FONT></A><FONT size=2>), and the
transcript, entitled “NIST Technical Briefing on Its Final Draft Report on
WTC 7 for Public Comment,” is available at David Chandler’s website
(</FONT><A
href="http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf"><FONT
size=2>http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>99 Ibid., at
1:01:45.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>100 David Chandler, “WTC7 in Freefall - No Longer
Controversial,” September 4, 2008
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I), at
2:45.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>101 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2:
607.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>102 Chandler, “WTC7 in Freefall – No Longer
Controversial,” at 3:27. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>103 “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7
Investigation.” <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>104 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Draft for Public Comment,
Vol. 2: 595-96, 596, 610. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>105 Symposium on State Crimes Against Democracy,
American Behavioral Scientist 53 (February 2010): 783-939 (</FONT><A
href="http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6"><FONT
size=2>http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>106 Matthew T. Witt, “Pretending Not to See or
Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of Geocentric Public
Affairs Scholarship,” American Behavioral Scientist 53 (February 2010):
921-39 (</FONT><A href="http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6"><FONT
size=2>http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>), at 935.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>107 “The Myth of Implosion” (</FONT><A
href="http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>108 See Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,
30-31. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>109 As to how domestic terrorists could have
gotten access, an answer becomes possible if we are aware that Larry
Silverstein, who owned Building 7 and had recently taken out a lease on
the rest of the World Trade Center, stood to make several billion dollars
if it was destroyed in a terrorist attack, and that a brother and cousin
of George W. Bush were principals of a company that handled security for
the World Trade Center (Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, 111).
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>110 Some have seen drug profits as central. Others
have focused on access to oil, natural gas, and minerals. For example,
economist Michel Chossudovsky, referring to the allegedly recent discovery
of huge reserves of minerals and natural gas in Afghanistan, wrote: “The
issue of ‘previously unknown deposits’ sustains a falsehood. It excludes
Afghanistan's vast mineral wealth as a justifiable casus belli.
It says that the Pentagon only recently became aware that Afghanistan
was among the World's most wealthy mineral economies . . . [whereas in
reality] all this information was known in minute detail” (Michel
Chossudovsky, “’The War is Worth Waging’: Afghanistan's Vast Reserves of
Minerals and Natural Gas: The War on Afghanistan is a Profit Driven
‘Resource War,’” Global Research, June 17, 2010 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19769"><FONT
size=2>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19769</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>111 Dr. Gideon Polya, author of Body Count: Global
Avoidable Mortality Since 1950, has estimated that there over four million
Afghanis have died since the 2001 than would have died without the
invasion; see “January 2010 – 4.5 Million Dead in Afghan Holocaust, Afghan
Genocide,” January 2, 2010, Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide (</FONT><A
href="http://afghangenocide.blogspot.com/"><FONT
size=2>http://afghangenocide.blogspot.com</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>112 On US-NATO war crimes in Afghanistan, see Marc
W. Herold, “Media Distortion: Killing Innocent Afghan Civilians to ‘Save
our Troops’: Eight Years of Horror Perpetrated against the People of
Afghanistan,” Global Research, October 15, 2009 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15665"><FONT
size=2>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15665</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>). <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>113 See The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade
Center 7, and, more recently, “Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in
Plain Sight,” 911Truth.org, May 27, 2010 (</FONT><A
href="http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20100527162010811"><FONT
size=2>http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20100527162010811</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>114 “Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address,” New York
Times, January 20, 2009 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><FONT size=2>115 I wish to thank Tod Fletcher and Elizabeth
Woodworth for considerable help with this essay</FONT>. </SPAN><SPAN
lang=FR-CA><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></DIV></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></FONT></DIV><!-- end of AOLMsgPart_2_d334cb0d-bd65-4af9-85e0-491245a3fc5a --></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>