There is no more important issue than WHO DID 9-11. WHO had motive, means, opportunity and who benefitted most from 9/11?k
It wasn’t muslims! 9-11 is the seminal event behind the phony “war on terrorism” and WHO did 9-11 is easy to see once we turn off the mass media propaganda. Americans, especially Christian Zionists, can no longer afford to be blissfully ignorant about the Zionist state of Israel and its criminal network that are the root of the conflicts in the region.
More and more Americans already know that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were explosively demolished. They must now face the FACTS that lead to Israel, Mossad and traitorous neocon Zionists in the U.S. as the most probable perpetrators of 9-11!
Some may find this website from reading the ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE article. We welcome your Comments in the spirit of identifying the real perpetrators and getting the truth about 9/11. The human journey turns on exposing and confronting the real perpetrators. One example: Rabbi Dov Zakheim
We feel that it is important for the Jewish people themselves to “out” the psychopaths among them so that all are not tarred with the same brush. Many Jews are as aware as we are of the Zionist’s complicity in the crimes of 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up. Our voices are stiffled by the MSM. Honest, moral people have a choice to distance themselves from the psychopaths among their numbers. Silence is complicity.
Does the ADL, which gets the benefits of tax exempt status, put AMERICA first or Israel? Is it “anti-Italian” to point out the criminality of the Mafia?
TO AMERICAN JEWS——-
SHOWS YOU THAT ON 9/11
YOUR COUNTRY (ISRAEL)***
ATTACKED YOUR COUNTRY (THE U.S.)
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
DEFENDING AGAINST THE ZIONIST PSYCHOPATHS
Look at the people who committed this despicable crime. Some of them are billionaires, most of them are well-off, and none of them are poor, oppressed victims. Although there is no direct reference to 9/11 in the above video, Rediscover911.com believes it is useful in understanding how prominent and apparently normal individuals can do horrible things like 9/11 and live with themselves.
America has truly been the land of opportunity for Zionists. They own all of our TV networks, and most of our newspapers, publishing houses, and movie studios. They own our banks, (including the Federal Reserve), and create our money out of thin air only to lend it to us at interest.
Yet these Zionist criminals incinerated nearly 3000 people on September 11th, 2001, and goaded our country into a “war on terror”–creating a clash of civilizations which has cost over a million lives. The cover-up of this crime has created outrageous scandals that are tearing the US and the world apart.
This is the most heinous, treacherous act ever committed against the United States of America. They have the gall, and the contempt for us to carry out this treasonous crime. We’ve been nothing but kind and generous to these people, in return they have participated in the destruction of our Republic.
It was NOT Arabs! Listen to Christopher Bollyn’s interview by Kevin Barrett of Truth Jihad and read Christopher Bollyn’s e-book entitled “Solving 9/11: The Deception That Changed The World”.
“The US Military KNOWS (our emphasis) Israel did 911″ Gordon Duff, editor of VeteransToday.com The links between Israeli intelligence and the events of 911 are numerous and obvious, yet highly suppressed by the United States “Zionist” media.
Nine years since 9-11 and we’re still arguing whether buildings are exploded?!? Who could pull off 9-11 and control the mass media to keep their involvement under wraps?
Rediscover 9/11 is an ever-unfolding work in progress, a collaborative effort of concerned patriotic citizens who have observed a glaring void in many, though not all, 9/11 Truth websites. That void is a failure to identify and explore “WHO” did 9/11, especially avoiding discussion of Zionist involvement in the crime. The guilty parties would include Israeli leaders, their henchmen, the Mossad, and the Zionist Ne-Cons in America who collectively may be a sort of “Kosher Nostra” whose loyalty is most certainly to the foreign state of Israel. The policy papers of Wolfowitz and Pearle clearly state MOTIVE. We cannot say whether this void exists because of lack of information, fear, loyalty to Israel or as a public relations tactic. We in no way are limiting culpability in this horrendous crime to the Zionists, as surely there were many Gentiles involved for their own fetid reasons.
This crime and the lies that falsely blame muslims has turned the world upside down. The human journey is presently steered by monsters who have infiltrated key positions in power, the mass media, alternative media and even the groups who purport to be about disclosing the real truth about 9/11.
As sovereign minds we freely exercise our inherent right–our duty–to explore ‘WHO’ did 9/11, and report boldly as to our discoveries.
ReDiscover911.com Development Group
Meanwhile, the real perpetrators are orchestrating a “controlled demolition” of our economy and have plans for the next system of money/government/media/internet to dominate the world.
The so-called, self-styled criminal/extremist Jews (Zionists) have a long range plan for us. We use the phrase “so-called, self-styled Jews to distinguish good, ethical and religious Jews from a Zionist crime network–much like the Mafia is not representative of all Italians.
Henry Ford on “The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem”The strategies noted by Henry Ford are apparent in this Age of Big Lies when one realizes that it was Zionists (et, al.), not muslims, who did 9/11. This Age of Big Lies has been in development for hundreds–if not thousands of years.
The “Anti-Semitic” accusation is both inaccurate and a diversionary trick. As a percentage of their population, Palestinians are more Semitic than Jews in Israel, who, according to the Human Genome Project consist of about 90% non-Semitic population. In the diaspora, it is likely that the great majority of Jews are not Semites in their background. The functional meaning of “anti-Semite” seems more to be “those whom Zionists wish to silence”.
Open your mind to the possibility that what we have been fed as American history has been revised–and meet Eustace Mullins, perhaps the best historian and researcher of these dark times.
USING JUDAISM and Christianity FOR POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY (VIDEO) What really is “Judeo-Christian” but a political tool?
The circumstantial connections of Jews, Zionists & Israel to 9-11 are OVERWHELMING: JEWS were involved in planning, executing and are involved in the continuing cover-up of 9-11–or those who claim to be Jews. Jews have positioned themselves in key positions to keep a lid on the Israeli-Jewish connections to 9-11. Investigations and public airing of the evidence has been thwarted by Judge Hellerstein (family victims) and Judge Lehner (NYCCAN). The 96% Zionist owned and controlled mass media blackout of evidence of 9-11 is a BIG CLUE as to who have motive, means and opportunity to orchestrate 9-11 and cover it up. This is just for starters, and this website explores the extensive circumstantial connections of neocons, Israeli companies, criminal Jewish and Zionist operatives purportedly in the service of the U.S. government–including most of the Congress of the U.S.
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” ~ John F. Kennedy
We will succeed to the degree that we confront pure evil. John 8:44, Revelation 2:9-10, 3:9
Communism was perpetrated on the Russians by so-called, self-styled Jews (Zionists–not the real semitic Jews). Documentary: Harvest of Despair Learn about the Ukranian holocaust–perpetrated by the so-called, self-styled Jews.
The self-styled, “so-called Jews” (Zionists) dominate media, banking, Hollywood, the Congress, the Courts–centers of power and business. Most everything we are told by media about Israel and the Middle East is filtered through the Zionist media propaganda machine. Israel is basically a Marxist country mixed with some Nazi-type fascism–and very racist. (The Jewish author of the previous booklet was assassinated by Mossad–killing a good Jew.)
We do know with reasonable certainty that Israel (Mossad) and many “self-styled, so called Jews” were involved in 9-11 and the subsequent cover-up. Although we don’t know exactly who did 9-11, we have ample evidence involving motive, means, opportunity and a 96% Jewish-owned mass media cover-up to gather and report on a list of suspects. We also know that the official story is comprised of lies of Biblical proportion (designed to demonize the Islamic world) and that 9-11 was designed to promote a clash of cultures for the purpose of setting up the real perpetrators for domination of the world.
Please explore PAGES in the right hand column for background information and browse our extensive library of articles.
We of the ReDiscover911.com Development Group have chosen David Ray Griffin’s article entitled: Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11? (below) as our lead, home page article. Although David Ray Griffin has not taken the stance about Israeli involvement which we take, our deepest respect and appreciation go to David Ray Griffin for giving the world his insights about 9-11 and proving solidly the official story to be a lie.
We invite you, our readers, to ReDiscover911.
Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?
David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.
9 September 2008
Much of America’s foreign policy since 9/11 has been based on the assumption that it was attacked by Muslims on that day. This assumption was used, most prominently, to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is now widely agreed that the use of 9/11 as a basis for attacking Iraq was illegitimate: none of the hijackers were Iraqis, there was no working relation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and Iraq was not behind the anthrax attacks. But it is still widely believed that the US attack on Afghanistan was justified. For example, the New York Times, while referring to the US attack on Iraq as a “war of choice,” calls the battle in Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” Time magazine has dubbed it “the right war.” And Barack Obama says that one reason to wind down our involvement in Iraq is to have the troops and resources to “go after the people in Afghanistan who actually attacked us on 9/11.”
The assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11 also lies behind the widespread perception of Islam as an inherently violent religion and therefore of Muslims as guilty until proven innocent. This perception surely contributed to attempts to portray Obama as a Muslim, which was lampooned by a controversial cartoon on the July 21, 2008, cover of The New Yorker.
As could be illustrated by reference to many other post-9/11 developments, including as spying, torture, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, America’s new doctrine of preemptive war, and its enormous increase in military spending, the assumption that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by Muslim hijackers has had enormous negative consequences for both international and domestic issues.
Is it conceivable that this assumption might be false? Insofar as Americans and Canadians would say “No,” they would express their belief that this assumption is not merely an “assumption” but is instead based on strong evidence. When actually examined, however, the proffered evidence turns out to be remarkably weak. I will illustrate this point by means of 16 questions.
1. Were Mohamed Atta and the Other Hijackers Devout Muslims?
The picture of the hijackers conveyed by the 9/11 Commission is that they were devout Muslims. Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader, was said to have become very religious, even “fanatically so.” Being devout Muslims, they could be portrayed as ready to meet their Maker–as a “cadre of trained operatives willing to die.”
But this portrayal is contradicted by various newspaper stories. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Atta and other hijackers had made “at least six trips” to Las Vegas, where they had “engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures.” These activities were “un-Islamic” because, as the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada pointed out: “True Muslims don’t drink, don’t gamble, don’t go to strip clubs.”
One might, to be sure, rationalize this behavior by supposing that these were momentary lapses and that, as 9/11 approached, these young Muslims had repented and prepared for heaven. But in the days just before 9/11, Atta and others were reported to be drinking heavily, cavorting with lap dancers, and bringing call girls to their rooms. Temple University Professor Mahmoud Ayoub said: “It is incomprehensible that a person could drink and go to a strip bar one night, then kill themselves the next day in the name of Islam. . . .Something here does not add up.”
In spite of the fact that these activities were reported by mainstream newspapers and even the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the 9/11 Commission wrote as if these reports did not exist, saying: “we have
seen no credible evidence explaining why, on [some occasions], the operatives flew to or met in Las Vegas.”
2. Do Authorities Have Hard Evidence of Osama bin Laden’s Responsibility for 9/11?
Whatever be the truth about the devoutness of the hijackers, one might reply, there is certainly no doubt about the fact that they were acting under the guidance of Osama bin Laden. The attack on Afghanistan was based on the claim that bin Laden was behind the attacks, and the 9/11 Commission’s report was written as if there were no question about this claim. But neither the Bush administration nor the Commission provided any proof for it.
Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” said he expected “in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack.” But at a press conference with President Bush the next morning, Powell reversed himself, saying that although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden’s responsibility, “most of it is classified.” According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a “lack of solid information.”
That same week, Bush had demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden. But the Taliban, reported CNN, “refus[ed] to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week’s attacks on the United States.” The Bush administration, saying “[t]here is already an indictment of Osama bin Laden” [for the attacks in Tanzania, Kenya, and elsewhere],” rejected the demand for evidence with regard to 9/11.
Alex Jones exposes fake Osama bin Laden videos
The task of providing such evidence was taken up by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who on October 4 made public a document entitled “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States.” Listing “clear conclusions reached by the government,” it stated: “Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001.”
Blair’s report, however, began by saying: “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.” This weakness was noted the next day by the BBC, which said: “There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial.”
After the US had attacked Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said: “We have asked for proof of Osama’s involvement, but they have refused. Why?” The answer to this question may be suggested by the fact that, to this day, the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorist” webpage on bin Laden, while listing him as wanted for bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, makes no mention of 9/11.
When the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity was asked why not, he replied: “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
It is often claimed that bin Laden’s guilt is proved by a video, reportedly found by US intelligence officers in Afghanistan in November 2001, in which bin Laden appears to report having planned the attacks. But critics, pointing out various problems with this “confession video,” have called it a fake. General Hamid Gul, a former head of Pakistan’s ISI, said: “I think there is an Osama Bin Laden look-alike.” Actually, the man in the video is not even much of a look-alike, being heavier and darker than bin Laden, having a broader nose, wearing jewelry, and writing with his right hand. The FBI, in any case, obviously does not consider this video hard evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11.
What about the 9/11 Commission? I mentioned earlier that it gave the impression of having had solid evidence of bin Laden’s guilt. But Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the Commission’s co-chairs, undermined this impression in their follow-up book subtitled “the inside story of the 9/11 Commission.”
Whenever the Commission had cited evidence for bin Ladin’s responsibility, the note in the back of the book always referred to CIA-provided information that had (presumably) been elicited during interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives. By far the most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), described as the “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks. The Commission, for example, wrote:
Bin Ladin . . . finally decided to give the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. . . . Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives. . . . Atta–whom Bin Ladin chose to lead the group–met with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.
The note for each of these statements says “interrogation of KSM.”
Kean and Hamilton, however, reported that they had no success in “obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.” Besides not being allowed to interview these witnesses, they were not permitted to observe the interrogations through one-way glass or even to talk to the interrogators. Therefore, they complained: “We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?”
An NBC “deep background” report in 2008 pointed out an additional problem: KSM and the other al-Qaeda leaders had been subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” i.e., torture, and it is now widely acknowledged that statements elicited by torture lack credibility. “At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report,” this NBC report pointed out, “have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured.’” NBC then quoted Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as saying: “Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, . . . their conclusions are suspect.”
Accordingly, neither the White House, the British government, the FBI, nor the 9/11 Commission has provided solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11.
3. Was Evidence of Muslim Hijackers Provided by Phone Calls from the Airliners?
David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Cell Phone Calls: Exclusive CBC Interview.
Nevertheless, many readers may respond, there can be no doubt that the airplanes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers, because their presence and actions on the planes were reported on phone calls by passengers and flight attendants, with cell phone calls playing an especially prominent role.
The most famous of the reported calls were from CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson. According to CNN, he reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by . . . hijackers [armed with] knives and cardboard cutters.”
Although these reported calls, as summarized by Ted Olson, did not describe the hijackers so as to suggest that they were members of al-Qaeda, such descriptions were supplied by calls from other flights, especially United 93, from which about a dozen cell phone calls were reportedly received before it crashed in Pennsylvania. According to a Washington Post story of September 13,
[P]assenger Jeremy Glick used a cell phone to tell his wife, Lyzbeth, . . . that the Boeing 757′s cockpit had been taken over by three Middle Eastern-looking men. . . . The terrorists, wearing red headbands, had ordered the pilots, flight attendants and passengers to the rear of the plane.
A story about a “cellular phone conversation” between flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw and her husband gave this report:
She said the plane had been taken over by three men with knives. She had gotten a close look at one of the hijackers. . . . “He had an Islamic look,” she told her husband.
From these calls, therefore, the public was informed that the hijackers looked Middle Eastern and even Islamic.
Still more specific information was reportedly conveyed during a 12-minute cell phone call from flight attendant Amy Sweeney on American Flight 11, which was to crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. After reaching American Airlines employee Michael Woodward and telling him that men of “Middle Eastern descent” had hijacked her flight, she then gave him their seat numbers, from which he was able to learn the identity of Mohamed Atta and two other hijackers. Amy Sweeney’s call was critical, ABC News explained, because without it “the plane might have crashed with no one certain the man in charge was tied to al Qaeda.”
There was, however, a big problem with these reported calls: Given the technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were not possible, and yet these calls, some of which reportedly lasted a minute or more, reportedly occurred when the planes were above 30,000 or even 40,000 feet. This problem was explained by some credible people, including scientist A.K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American.
Although some defenders of the official account, such as Popular Mechanics, have disputed the contention that high-altitude calls from airliners were impossible, the fact is that the FBI, after having at first supported the claims that such calls were made, withdrew this support a few years later.
Dr. A. K. Dewdney’s video presentation from the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference, June 007.
With regard to the reported 12-minute call from Amy Sweeney to Michael Woodward, an affidavit signed by FBI agent James Lechner and dated September 12 (2001) stated that, according to Woodward, Sweeney had been “using a cellular telephone.” But when the 9/11 Commission discussed this call in its Report, which appeared in July 2004, it declared that Sweeney had used an onboard phone.
Behind that change was an implausible claim made by the FBI earlier in 2004: Although Woodward had failed to mention this when FBI agent Lechner interviewed him on 9/11, he had repeated Sweeney’s call verbatim to a colleague in his office, who had in turn repeated it to another colleague at American headquarters in Dallas, who had recorded it; and this recording–which was discovered only in 2004–indicated that Sweeney had used a passenger-seat phone, thanks to “an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant.”
This claim is implausible because, if this relayed recording had really been made on 9/11, we cannot believe that Woodward would have failed to mention it to FBI agent Lechner later that same day. While Lechner was taking notes, Woodward would surely have said: “You don’t need to rely on my memory. There is a recording of a word-for-word repetition of Sweeney’s statements down in Dallas.” It is also implausible that Woodward, having repeated Sweeney’s statement that she had used “an AirFone card, given to her by another flight
attendant,” would have told Lechner, as the latter’s affidavit says, that Sweeney had been “using a cellular telephone.”
Lechner’s affidavit shows that the FBI at first supported the claim that Sweeney had made a 12-minute cell phone call from a high-altitude airliner. Does not the FBI’s change of story, after its first version had been shown to be technologically impossible, create the suspicion that the entire story was a fabrication?
This suspicion is reinforced by the FBI’s change of story in relation to United Flight 93. Although we were originally told that this flight had been the source of about a dozen cell phone calls, some of them when the plane was above 40,000 feet, the FBI gave a very different report at the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The FBI spokesman said: “13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls.” Instead of there having been about a dozen cell phone calls from Flight 93, the FBI declared in 2005, there were really only two.
Why were two calls still said to have been possible? They were reportedly made at 9:58, when the plane was reportedly down to 5,000 feet. Although that was still pretty high for successful cell phone calls in 2001, these calls, unlike calls from 30,000 feet or higher, would have been at least arguably possible.
If the truth of the FBI’s new account is assumed, how can one explain the fact that so many people had reported receiving cell phone calls? In most cases, it seems, these people had been told by the callers that they were using cell phones. For example, a Newsweek story about United 93 said: “Elizabeth Wainio, 27, was speaking to her stepmother in Maryland. Another passenger, she explains, had loaned her a cell phone and told her to call her family.” In such cases, we might assume that the people receiving the calls had simply mis-heard, or mis-remembered, what they had been told. But this would mean positing that about a dozen people had made the same mistake.
An even more serious difficulty is presented by the case of Deena Burnett, who said that she had received three to five calls from her husband, Tom Burnett. She knew he was using his cell phone, she reported to the FBI that very day and then to the press and in a book, because she had recognized his cell phone number on her phone’s Caller ID. We cannot suppose her to have been mistaken about this. We also, surely, cannot accuse her of lying.
Therefore, if we accept the FBI’s report, according to which Tom Burnett did not make any cell phone calls from Flight 93, we can only conclude that the calls were faked–that Deena Burnett was duped. Although this suggestion may at first sight seem outlandish, there are three facts that, taken together, show it to be more probable than any of the alternatives.
First, voice morphing technology was sufficiently advanced at that time to make faking the calls feasible. A 1999 Washington Post article described demonstrations in which the voices of two generals, Colin Powell and Carl Steiner, were heard saying things they had never said.
Second, there are devices with which you can fake someone’s telephone number, so that it will show up on the recipient’s Caller ID.
Third, the conclusion that the person who called Deena Burnett was not her husband is suggested by various features of the calls. For example, when Deena told the caller that “the kids” were asking to talk to him, he said: “Tell them I’ll talk to them later.” This was 20 minutes after Tom had purportedly realized that the
hijackers were on a suicide mission, planning to “crash this plane into the ground,” and 10 minutes after he and other passengers had allegedly decided that as soon as they were “over a rural area” they must try to
gain control of the plane. Also, the hijackers had reportedly already killed one person. Given all this, the real Tom Burnett would have known that he would likely die, one way or another, in the next few minutes. Is it believable that, rather than taking this probably last opportunity to speak to his children, he would say that he would “talk to them later”? Is it not more likely that “Tom” made this statement to avoid revealing that he knew nothing about “the kids,” perhaps not even their names?
David Ray Griffin – 911 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions
Further evidence that the calls were faked is provided by timing problems in some of them. According to the 9/11 Commission, Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 as a result of the passenger revolt, which began at 9:57. However, according to Lyzbeth Glick’s account of the aforementioned cell phone call from her husband, Jeremy Glick, she told him about the collapse of the South Tower, and that did not occur until 9:59, two minutes after the alleged revolt had started. After that, she reported, their conversation continued for several more minutes before he told her that the passengers were taking a vote about whether to attack. According to Lyzbeth Glick’s account, therefore, the revolt was only beginning by 10:03, when the plane (according to the official account) was crashing.
A timing problem also occurred in the aforementioned call from flight attendant Amy Sweeney. While she was describing the hijackers, according to the FBI’s account of her call, they stormed and took control of the cockpit. However, although the hijacking of Flight 11 “began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter,” the 9/11 Commission said, Sweeney’s call did not go through until 8:25. Her alleged call, in other words, described the hijacking as beginning over 11 minutes after it, according to the official timeline, had been
successfully carried out.
Multiple lines of evidence, therefore, imply that the cell phone calls were faked. This fact has vast implications, because it implies that all the reported calls from the planes, including those from onboard phones, were faked. Why? Because if the planes had really been taken over in surprise hijackings, no one would have been ready to make fake cell phone calls.
Moreover, the FBI, besides implying, most clearly in the case of Deena Burnett, that the phone calls reporting the hijackings had been faked, comes right out and says, in its report about calls from Flight 77, that no calls from Barbara Olson occurred. It does mention her. But besides attributing only one call to her, not two, the FBI report refers to it as an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.” In 2006, in other words, the FBI, which is part of the Department of Justice, implied that the story told by the DOJ’s former solicitor general was untrue. Although not mentioned by the press, this was an astounding development.
This FBI report leaves only two possible explanations for Ted Olson’s story: Either he made it up or else he, like Deena Burnett and several others, was duped. In either case, the story about Barbara Olson’s calls, with their reports of hijackers taking over Flight 77, was based on deception.
The opening section of The 9/11 Commission Report is entitled “Inside the Four Flights.” The information contained in this section is based almost entirely on the reported phone calls. But if the reported calls were faked, we have no idea what happened inside these planes. Insofar as the idea that the planes were taken over by hijackers who looked “Middle Eastern,” even “Islamic,” has been based on the reported calls, this idea is groundless.
4. Was the Presence of Hijackers Proved by a Radio Transmission “from American 11″?
It might be objected, in reply, that this is not true, because we know that American Flight 11, at least, was hijacked, thanks to a radio transmission in which the voice of one of its hijackers is heard. According to the 9/11 Commission, the air traffic controller for this flight heard a radio transmission at 8:25 AM in which someone–widely assumed to be Mohamed Atta–told the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you’ll be okay. We are returning to the airport.” After quoting this transmission, the Commission wrote: “The controller told us that he then knew it was a hijacking.” Was this transmission not indeed proof that Flight 11 had been hijacked?
It might provide such proof if we knew that, as the Commission claimed, the “transmission came from American 11.” But we do not. According to the FAA’s “Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events,” published September 17, 2001, the transmission was “from an unknown origin.” Bill Peacock, the FAA’s air traffic director, said: “We didn’t know where the transmission came from.” The Commission’s claim that it came from American 11 was merely an inference. The transmission could have come from the same room from which the calls to Deena Burnett originated.
Therefore, the alleged radio transmission from Flight 11, like the alleged phone calls from the planes, provides no evidence that the planes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers.
5. Did Passports and a Headband Provide Evidence that al-Qaeda Operatives Were on the Flights?
However, the government’s case for al-Qaeda hijackers also rested in part on claims that passports and a headband belonging to al-Qaeda operatives were found at the crash sites. But these claims are patently absurd.
A week after the attacks, the FBI reported that a search of the streets after the destruction of the World Trade Center had discovered the passport of one of the Flight 11 hijackers, Satam al-Suqami. But this claim did not pass the giggle test. “[T]he idea that [this] passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged,” wrote one British reporter, “would [test] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI’s crackdown on terrorism.”
By 2004, when the 9/11 Commission was discussing the alleged discovery of this passport, the story had been modified to say that “a passer-by picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.” So, rather than needing to survive the collapse of the North Tower, the passport merely needed to escape from the plane’s cabin, avoid being destroyed or even singed by the instantaneous jet-fuel fire, and then escape from the building so that it could fall to the ground! Equally absurd is the claim that the passport of Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of Flight 93, was found at this plane’s crash site in Pennsylvania. This passport was reportedly found on the ground even though there was virtually nothing at the site to indicate that an airliner had crashed there. The reason for this absence of wreckage, we were told, was that the plane had been headed downward at 580 miles per hour and, when it hit the spongy Pennsylvania soil, buried itself deep in the ground. New York Times journalist Jere Longman, surely repeating what he had been told by authorities, wrote: “The fuselage accordioned on itself more than thirty feet into the porous, backfilled ground. It was as if a marble had been dropped into water.” So, we are to believe, just before the plane buried itself in the earth, Jarrah’s passport escaped from the cockpit and landed on the ground. Did Jarrah, going 580 miles per hour, have the window open?
Also found on the ground, according to the government’s evidence presented to the Moussaoui trial, was a
red headband. This was considered evidence that al-Qaeda hijackers were on Flight 93 because they were, according to some of the phone calls, wearing red headbands. But besides being absurd for the same reason as was the claim about Jarrah’s passport, this claim about the headband was problematic for another reason. Former CIA agent Milt Bearden, who helped train the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, has pointed out that it would have been very unlikely that members of al-Qaeda would have worn such headbands:
[The red headband] is a uniquely Shi’a Muslim adornment. It is something that dates back to the formation of the Shi’a sect. . . . [I]t represents the preparation of he who wears this red headband to sacrifice his life, to murder himself for the cause. Sunnis are by and large most of the people following Osama bin Laden [and they] do not do this.
We learned shortly after the invasion of Iraq that some people in the US government did not know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims. Did such people decide that the hijackers would be described as wearing red headbands?
6. Did the Information in Atta’s Luggage Prove the Responsibility of al-Qaeda Operatives?
I come now to the evidence that is said to provide the strongest proof that the planes had been hijacked by Mohamed Atta and other members of al-Qaeda. This evidence was reportedly found in two pieces of Atta’s luggage that were discovered inside the Boston airport after the attacks. The luggage was there, we were told, because although Atta was already in Boston on September 10, he and another al-Qaeda operative, Abdul al-Omari, rented a blue Nissan and drove up to Portland, Maine, and stayed overnight. They caught a commuter flight back to Boston early the next morning in time to get on American Flight 11, but Atta’s luggage did not make it.
This luggage, according to the FBI affidavit signed by James Lechner, contained much incriminating material, including a handheld flight computer, flight simulator manuals, two videotapes about Boeing aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, and Atta’s last will and testament. This material was widely taken as proof that al-Qaeda and hence Osama bin Laden were behind the 9/11 attacks.
When closely examined, however, the Atta-to-Portland story loses all credibility.
Loose Change 9/11 An American Coup
One problem is the very idea that Atta would have planned to take all these things in baggage that was to be transferred to Flight 11. What good would a flight computer and other flying aids do inside a suitcase in the plane’s luggage compartment? Why would he have planned to take his will on a plane he planned to crash into the World Trade Center?
A second problem involves the question of why Atta’s luggage did not get transferred onto Flight 11. According to an Associated Press story that appeared four days after 9/11, Atta’s flight “arrived at Logan . . . just in time for him to connect with American Airlines flight 11 to Los Angeles, but too late for his luggage to be loaded.” The 9/11 Commission had at one time evidently planned to endorse this claim. But when The 9/11 Commission Report appeared, it said: “Atta and Omari arrived in Boston at 6:45″ and then “checked in and boarded American Airlines Flight 11,” which was “scheduled to depart at 7:45.” By thus admitting that there was almost a full hour for the luggage to be transferred to Flight 11, the Commission was left with no explanation as to why it was not.
Still another problem with the Atta-to-Portland story was the question why he would have taken this trip. If the commuter flight had been late, Atta, being the ringleader of the hijackers as well as the intended pilot for Flight 11, would have had to call off the whole operation, which he had reportedly been planning for two
years. The 9/11 Commission, like the FBI before it, admitted that it had no answer to this question.
The fourth and biggest problem with the story, however, is that it did not appear until September 16, five days after 9/11, following the collapse of an earlier story.
According to news reports immediately after 9/11, the incriminating materials, rather than being found in Atta’s luggage inside the airport, were found in a white Mitsubishi, which Atta had left in the Boston airport parking lot. Two hijackers did drive a blue Nissan to Portland and then take the commuter flight back to Boston the next morning, but their names were Adnan and Ameer Bukhari. This story fell apart on the afternoon of September 13, when it was discovered that the Bukharis, to whom authorities had reportedly been led by material in the Nissan at the Portland Jetport, had not died on 9/11: Adnan was still alive and Ameer had died the year before.
The next day, September 14, an Associated Press story said that it was Atta and a companion who had driven the blue Nissan to Portland, stayed overnight, and then taken the commuter flight back to Boston. The incriminating materials, however, were still said to have been found in a car in the Boston airport, which was now said to have been rented by “additional suspects.” Finally, on September 16, a Washington Post story, besides saying that the Nissan had been taken to Portland by Atta and al-Omari, specified that the incriminating material had been found in Atta’s luggage inside the Boston airport.
Given this history of the Atta-to-Portland story, how can we avoid the conclusion that it was a fabrication?
7. Were al-Qaeda Operatives Captured on Airport Security Videos?
Still another type of evidence for the claim that al-Qaeda operatives were on the planes consisted of frames from videos, purportedly taken by airport security cameras, said to show hijackers checking into airports. Shortly after the attacks, for example, photos showing Atta and al-Omari at an airport “were flashed round the world.” However, although it was widely assumed that these photos were from the airport at Boston, they were really from the airport at Portland. No photos showing Atta or any of the other alleged hijackers at Boston’s Logan Airport were ever produced. We at best have photographic evidence that Atta and al-Omari were at the Portland airport.
Moreover, in light of the fact that the story of Atta and al-Omari going to Portland was apparently a late invention, we might expect the photographic evidence that they were at the Portland Jetport on the morning of September 11 to be problematic. And indeed it is. It shows Atta and Omari without either jackets or ties on, whereas the Portland ticket agent said that they had been wearing jackets and ties. Also, a photo showing Atta and al-Omari passing through the security checkpoint is marked both 05:45 and 05:53.
Another airport video was distributed on the day in 2004 that The 9/11 Commission Report was published. The Associated Press, using a frame from it as corroboration of the official story, provided this caption:
Hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar . . . passes through the security checkpoint at Dulles International Airport in Chantilly, Va., Sept. 11 2001, just hours before American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in this image from a surveillance video.
However, as Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall have pointed out,
a normal security video has time and date burned into the integral video image by proprietary equipment according to an authenticated pattern, along with camera identification and the location that the camera covered. The video released in 2004 contained no such data.
The Associated Press notwithstanding, therefore, this video contains no evidence that it was taken at Dulles on September 11.
Another problem with this so-called Dulles video is that, although one of the men on it was identified by the 9/11 Commission as Hani Hanjour, he “does not remotely resemble Hanjour.” Whereas Hanjour was thin and had a receding hairline (as shown by a photo taken six days before 9/11), the man in the video had a somewhat muscular build and a full head of hair, with no receding hairline.
In sum: Video proof that the named hijackers checked into airports on 9/11 is nonexistent. Besides the fact that the videos purportedly showing hijackers for Flights 11 and 77 reek of inauthenticity, there are no videos even purportedly showing the hijackers for the other two flights. If these 19 men had really checked
into the Boston and Dulles airports that day, there should be authentic security videos to prove this.
8. Were the Names of the “Hijackers” on the Passenger Manifests?
What about the passenger manifests, which list all the passengers on the flights? If the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded the flights, their names would have been on the manifests for these flights. And we were told that they were. According to counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, the FBI told him at about 10:00 that morning that it recognized the names of some al-Qaeda operatives on passenger manifests it had received from the airlines. As to how the FBI itself acquired its list, Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, said to the 9/11 Commission in 2004:
On the morning of 9/11, through an evaluation of data related to the passenger manifest for the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers. Within 45 minutes of the attacks, Customs forwarded the passenger lists with the names of the victims and 19 probable hijackers to the FBI and the intelligence community.
Under questioning, Bonner added:
We were able to pull from the airlines the passenger manifest for each of the four flights. We ran the manifest through [our lookout] system. . . . [B]y 11:00 AM, I’d seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out to be, based upon further follow-up in detailed investigation, to be the 19.
Bonner’s statement, however, is doubly problematic. In the first place, the initial FBI list, as reported by CNN on September 13 and 14, contained only 18 names. Why would that be if 19 men had already been identified on 9/11?
Second, several of the names on the FBI’s first list, having quickly become problematic, were replaced by other names. For example, the previously discussed men named Bukhari, thought to be brothers, were replaced on American 11′s list of hijackers by brothers named Waleed and Wail al-Shehri. Two other replacements for this flight were Satam al-Suqami, whose passport was allegedly found at Ground zero, and Abdul al-Omari, who allegedly went to Portland with Atta the day before 9/11. Also, the initial list for American 77 did not include
the name of Hani Hanjour, who would later be called the pilot of this flight. Rather, it contained a name that, after being read aloud by a CNN correspondent, was transcribed “Mosear Caned.” All in all, the final list of 19 hijackers contained six names that were not on the original list of 18–a fact that contradicts Bonner’s claim that by 11:00 AM on 9/11 his agency had identified 19 probable hijackers who, in fact, “turned out to be. . . the 19.”
These replacements to the initial list also undermine the claim that Amy Sweeney, by giving the seat numbers of three of the hijackers to Michael Woodward of American Airlines, allowed him to identify Atta and two others. This second claim is impossible because the two others were Abdul al-Omari and Satam al-Suqami, and they were replacements for two men on the original list–who, like Adnan Bukhari, turned up alive after 9/11. Woodward could not possibly have identified men who were not added to the list until several days later.
For all these reasons, the claim that the names of the 19 alleged hijackers were on the airlines’ passenger manifests must be considered false.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that the passenger manifests that were released to the public included no names of any of the 19 alleged hijackers and, in fact, no Middle Eastern names whatsoever. These manifests, therefore, support the suspicion that there were no al-Qaeda hijackers on the planes.
It might appear that this conclusion is contradicted by the fact that passenger manifests with the names of the alleged hijackers have appeared. A photocopy of a portion of an apparent passenger manifest for American Flight 11, with the names of three of the alleged hijackers, was published in a 2005 book by Terry McDermott,
For one thing, they were not included in the evidence presented by the FBI to the Moussaoui trial in 2006. If even the FBI will not cite them as evidence, why should anyone think they are genuine?
Another problem with these purported manifests, copies of which can be viewed on the Internet, is that they show signs of being late creations. One such sign is that Ziad Jarrah’s last name is spelled correctly, whereas in the early days after 9/11, the FBI was referring to him as “Jarrahi,” as news reports from the time show. A second sign is that the manifest for American Flight 77 contains Hani Hanjour’s name, even though its absence from the original list of hijackers had led the Washington Post to wonder why Hanjour’s “name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight.” A third sign is that the purported manifest for American Flight 11 contains the names of Wail al-Shehri, Waleed al-Shehri, Satam al-Suqami, and Abdul al-Omari, all of whom were added some days after 9/11.
In sum, no credible evidence that al-Qaeda operatives were on the flights is provided by the passenger manifests.
9. Did DNA Tests Identify Five Hijackers among the Victims at the Pentagon?
If a Boeing 757 could have traveled at 500 mph at ground level, it would have caused enormous damage to the grass and the ground, including producing substantial furrows from the low hanging engines, yet photos taken immediately after the alleged impact show the grass surface as smooth and unblemished as a putting green. The purported debris began showing up later and may have been dropped from a C-130 that was observed circling the building.
Another type of evidence that the alleged hijackers were really on the planes could have been provided by autopsies. But no such evidence has been forthcoming. In its book defending the official account of 9/11, to be sure, Popular Mechanics claims that, according to a report on the
victims of the Pentagon attack by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology: “The five hijackers were positively identified.” But this claim is false.
According to a summary of this pathology report by Andrew Baker, M.D., the remains of 183 victims were subjected to DNA analysis, which resulted in “178 positive identifications.” Although Baker says that “[s]ome remains for each of the terrorists were recovered,” this was merely an inference from the fact that there were
“five unique postmortem profiles that did not match any antemortem material provided by victims’ families.”
A Washington Post story made even clearer the fact that this conclusion–that the unmatched remains were those of “the five hijackers”–was merely an inference. It wrote: “The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process of exclusion, as
they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site” (emphasis added). All the report said, in other words, was that there were five bodies whose DNA did not match that of any of the known Pentagon victims or any of the regular passengers or crew members on Flight 77.
We have no way of knowing where these five bodies came from. For the claim that they came from the attack site at the Pentagon, we have only the word of the FBI and the military, which insisted on taking charge of the bodies of everyone killed at the Pentagon and transporting them to the Armed Forces Institute of
In any case, the alleged hijackers could have been positively identified only if samples had been obtained from their relatives, and there is no indication that this occurred. Indeed, one can wonder why not. The FBI had lots of information about the men identified as the hijackers. They could easily have located relatives. And these relatives, most of whom reportedly did not believe that their own flesh and blood had been involved in the attacks, would have surely been willing to supply the needed DNA. Indeed, a story about Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of Flight 93, said: “Jarrah’s family has indicated they would be willing to provide DNA samples to US researchers, . . . [but] the FBI has shown no interest thus far.”
The lack of positive identification of the alleged hijackers is consistent with the autopsy report, which was released to Dr. Thomas Olmsted, who had made a FOIA request for it. Like the flight manifest for Flight 77, he revealed, this report also contains no Arab names.
10. Has the Claim That Some of the “Hijackers” Are Still Alive Been Debunked?
Another problem with the claim that the 19 hijackers were correctly identified on 9/11, or at least a few days later, is that some of the men on the FBI’s final list reportedly turned up alive after 9/11. Although Der Spiegel and the BBC claim to have debunked these reports, I will show this is untrue by examining the case of one of the alleged hijackers, Waleed al-Shehri–who, we saw earlier, was a replacement for Adnan Bukhari, who himself had shown up alive after 9/11.
In spite of the fact that al-Shehri was a replacement, the 9/11 Commission revealed no doubts about his presence on Flight 11, speculating that he and his brother Wail–another replacement–stabbed two of the flight attendants. But the Commission certainly should have had doubts.
On September 22, 2001, the BBC published an article by David Bamford entitled “Hijack ‘Suspect’ Alive in Morocco.” It showed that the Waleed al-Shehri identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers was still alive. Explaining why the problem could not be dismissed as a case of mistaken identity, Bamford wrote:
His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack. He told Saudi journalists in Casablanca that . . . he has now been interviewed by the American authorities, who apologised for the misunderstanding.
The following day, September 23, the BBC published another story, “Hijack ‘Suspects’ Alive and Well.” Discussing several alleged hijackers who had shown up alive, it said of al-Shehri in particular: “He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach. . . . But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.”
In 2003, an article in Der Spiegel tried to debunk these two BBC stories, characterizing them as “nonsense about surviving terrorists.” It claimed that the reported still-alive hijackers were all cases of mistaken identity, involving men with “coincidentally identical names.” This claim by Der Spiegel depended on its assertion that, at the time of the reports, the FBI had released only a list of names: “The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.” But that was not true. Bamford’s BBC story of September 22, as we saw, reported that Waleed al-Shehri’s photograph had been “released by the FBI” and “shown in newspapers and on television around the world.”
In 2006, nevertheless, the BBC used the same claim to withdraw its support for its own stories. Steve Herrmann, the editor of the BBC News website, claimed that confusion had arisen because “these were common Arabic and Islamic names.” Accordingly, he said, the BBC had changed its September 23 story in one respect: “Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words ‘A man called Waleed Al Shehri…’ to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity.” But Bamford’s BBC story of September 22, which Herrmann failed to mention, had made it “as clear as possible” that there could not have been any confusion.
These attempts by Der Spiegel and the BBC, in which they tried to discredit the reports that Waleed al-Shehri was still alive after 9/11, have been refuted by Jay Kolar, who shows that FBI photographs had been published by Saudi newspapers as early as September 19. Kolar thereby undermines the only argument against Bamford’s assertion, according to which there could have been no possibility of mistaken identity because al-Shehri had seen his published photograph prior to September 22, when Bamford’s story appeared.
The fact that al-Shehri, along with several other alleged hijackers, was alive after 9/11 shows unambiguously that at least some of the men on the FBI’s final list were not on the planes. It would appear that the FBI, after replacing some of its first-round candidates because of their continued existence, decided not to replace any more, in spite of their exhibition of the same defect.
11. Is There Positive Evidence That No Hijackers Were on the Planes?
9/11 researcher, Elias Daviddson speaks to Hesham Tillawi.
At this point, defenders of the official story might argue: The fact that some of the men labeled hijackers were still alive after 9/11 shows only that the FBI list contained some errors; it does not prove that there were no al-Qaeda hijackers on board. And although the previous points do undermine the evidence for such hijackers, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
Evidence of absence, however, is implicit in the prior points in two ways. First, the lack of Arab names on the Pentagon autopsy report and on any of the issued passenger manifests does suggest the absence of al-Qaeda operatives. Second, if al-Qaeda hijackers really were on the flights, why was evidence to prove this
Beyond those two points, moreover, there is a feature of the reported events that contradicts the claim that hijackers broke into the pilots’ cabins. This feature can be introduced by reference to Conan Doyle’s short story “Silver Blaze,” which is about a famous race horse that had disappeared the night before a big race. Although the local Scotland Yard detective believed that Silver Blaze had been stolen by an intruder, Sherlock Holmes brought up “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” When the inspector pointed out that
“[t]he dog did nothing in the night-time,” Holmes replied: “That was the curious incident.” Had there really been an intruder, in other words, the dog would have barked. This has become known as the case of “the dog that didn’t bark.”
A similar curious incident occurred on each of the four flights. In the event of a hijacking, pilots are trained to enter the standard hijack code (7500) into their transponders to alert controllers on the ground. Using the transponder to send a code is called “squawking.” One of the big puzzles about 9/11 was why none of the pilots squawked the hijack code.
CNN provided a good treatment of this issue, saying with regard to the first flight:
Flight 11 was hijacked apparently by knife-wielding men. Airline pilots are trained to handle such situations by keeping calm, complying with requests, and if possible, dialing in an emergency four digit code on a device called a transponder. . . . The action takes seconds, but it
appears no such code was entered.
The crucial issue was indicated by the phrase “if possible”: Would it have been possible for the pilots of Flight 11 to have performed this action? A positive answer was suggested by CNN’s next statement:
[I]n the cabin, a frantic flight attendant managed to use a phone to call American Airlines Command Center in Dallas. She reported the trouble. And according to “The Christian Science Monitor,” a pilot apparently keyed the microphone, transmitting a cockpit conversation.
If there was time for both of those actions to be taken, there would have been time for one of the pilots to enter the four-digit hijack code.
That would have been all the more true of the pilots on United Flight 93, given the (purported) tapes from this flight. A reporter at the Moussaoui trial, where these tapes had been played, wrote:
In those tapes, the pilots shouted as hijackers broke into the cockpit. “Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!” a pilot screamed in the first tape. In the second tape, 30 seconds later, a pilot shouted: “Mayday! Get out of here! Get out of here!”
According to these tapes, therefore, the pilots were still alive and coherent 30 seconds after realizing that hijackers were breaking into the cockpit. And yet in all that time, neither of them did the most important thing they had been trained to do–turn the transponder to 7500.
In addition to the four pilots on Flights 11 and 93, furthermore, the four pilots on Flights 175 and 77 failed to do this as well.
In “Silver Blaze,” the absence of an intruder was shown by the dog that didn’t bark. On 9/11, the absence of hijackers was shown by the pilots who didn’t squawk.
12. Were bin Laden and al-Qaeda Capable of Orchestrating the Attacks?
For prosecutors to prove that defendants committed a crime, they must show that they had the ability (as well as the motive and opportunity) to do so. But several political and military leaders from other countries have stated that bin Laden and al-Qaeda simply could not have carried out the attacks. General Leonid Ivashov, who in 2001 was the chief of staff for the Russian armed forces, wrote:
Only secret services and their current chiefs–or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations–have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. . . . .Osama bin Laden and “Al Qaeda” cannot be the organizers nor the
performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders.
Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, the former foreign minister of Egypt, wrote:
Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaida as if it was Nazi Germany or the communist party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there.
Similar statements have been made by Andreas von Bülow, the former state secretary of West Germany’s ministry of defense, by General Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of staff of Pakistan’s army, and even General Musharraf, the president of Pakistan until recently.
This same point was also made by veteran CIA agent Milt Bearden. Speaking disparagingly of “the myth of Osama bin Laden” on CBS News the day after 9/11, Bearden said: “I was there [in Afghanistan] at the same time bin Laden was there. He was not the great warrior.” With regard to the widespread view that bin Laden was behind the attacks, he said: “This was a tremendously sophisticated operation against the United States–more sophisticated than anybody would have ascribed to Osama bin Laden.” Pointing out that a group capable of such a sophisticated attack would have had a way to cover their tracks, he added: “This group who was responsible for that, if they didn’t have an Osama bin Laden out there, they’d invent one, because he’s a terrific diversion.”
13. Could Hani Hanjour Have Flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon?
The inability of al-Qaeda to have carried out the operation can be illustrated in terms of Hani Hanjour, the al-Qaeda operative said to have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
On September 12, before it was stated that Hanjour had been the pilot of American 77, the final minutes of this plane’s trajectory had been described as one requiring great skill. A Washington Post story said:
[J]ust as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. . . . Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.
But Hani Hanjour was not that. Indeed, a CBS story reported, an Arizona flight school said that Hanjour’s “flying skills were so bad . . . they didn’t think he should keep his pilot’s license.” The manager stated: “I couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.” A New York Times story, entitled “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” quoted one of his
instructors as saying that Hanjour “could not fly at all.”
“The Pentagon”. A presentation featuring David Ray Griffin.
The 9/11 Commission even admitted that in the summer of 2001, just months before 9/11, a flight instructor in New Jersey, after going up with Hanjour in a small plane, “declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour’s poor piloting skills.” The Commission failed to address the question of how Hanjour, incapable of flying a single-engine plane, could have flown a giant 757 through the trajectory reportedly taken by Flight 77: descending 8,000 feet in three minutes and then coming in at ground level to strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon between the first and second floors, without even scraping the lawn.
Several pilots have said this would have been impossible. Russ Wittenberg, who flew large commercial airliners for 35 years after serving as a fighter pilot in Vietnam, says it would have been “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna” to fly that downward spiral and then “crash into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.” Ralph Omholt, a former 757 pilot, has bluntly said: “The idea that an unskilled pilot could have flown this trajectory is simply too ridiculous to consider.” Ralph Kolstad, who was a US Navy “top gun” pilot before becoming a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, has said: “I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757′s and 767′s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. . . . Something stinks to high heaven!”
The authors of the Popular Mechanics book about 9/11 offered to solve this problem. While acknowledging that Hanjour “may not have been highly skilled,” they said that he did not need to be, because all he had to do was, using a GPS unit, put his plane on autopilot. “He steered the plane manually for only the final eight minutes of the flight,” they state triumphantly–ignoring the fact that it was precisely during those minutes that Hanjour had allegedly performed the impossible.
14. Would an al-Qaeda Pilot Have Executed that Maneuver?
A further question is: Even if one of the al-Qaeda operatives on that flight could have executed that maneuver, would he have done so? This question arises out of the fact that the plane could easily have crashed into the roof on the side of the Pentagon that housed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and all the top brass. The difficult maneuver would have been required only by the decision to strike Wedge 1 on the side.
But this was the worst possible place, given the assumed motives of the al-Qaeda operatives: They would have wanted to kill Rumsfeld and the top brass, but Wedge 1 was as far removed from their offices as possible. They would have wanted to cause as much destruction as possible, but Wedge 1–and only it–had been renovated to make it less vulnerable to attack. Al-Qaeda operatives would have wanted to kill as many Pentagon employees as possible, but because the renovation was not quite complete, Wedge 1 was only sparsely occupied. The attack also occurred on the only part of the Pentagon that would have presented physical obstacles to an attacking airplane. All of these facts were public knowledge. So even if an al-Qaeda pilot had been capable of executing the maneuver to strike the ground floor of Wedge 1, he would not have done so.
15. Could al-Qaeda Operatives Have Brought Down the World Trade Center Buildings?
Returning to the issue of competence, another question is whether al-Qaeda operatives could have brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7?
With regard to the Twin Towers, the official theory is that they were brought down by the impact of the airplanes plus the ensuing fires. But this theory cannot explain why the towers, after exploding outwards at the top, came straight down, because this type of collapse would have required all 287 of each building’s steel
columns–which ran from the basement to the roof–to have failed simultaneously; it cannot explain why the top parts of the buildings came straight down at virtually free-fall speed, because this required that the lower parts of the building, with all of their steel and concrete, offered no resistance; it cannot explain why sections of steel beams, weighing thousands of tons, were blown out horizontally more than 500 feet; it cannot explain why some of the steel had melted, because this melting required temperatures far hotter than the fires in the buildings could possibly have been; and it cannot explain why many firefighters and WTC employees reported massive explosions in the buildings long after all the jet-fuel had burned up. But all of these phenomena are easily explainable by the hypothesis that the buildings were brought down by explosives in the procedure known as controlled demolition.
This conclusion now constitutes the consensus of independent physicists, chemists, architects, engineers, and demolition experts who have studied the facts. For example, Edward Munyak, a mechanical and fire protection engineer who worked in the US departments of energy and defense, says: “The concentric nearly freefall speed exhibited by each building was identical to most controlled demolitions. . . . Collapse [was] not caused by fire effects.” Dwain Deets, the former director of the research engineering division at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, mentions the “massive structural members being hurled horizontally” as one of the factors leaving him with “no doubt [that] explosives were involved.”
WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11.
Given the fact that WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane, its vertical collapse at virtually free-fall speed, which also was preceded by explosions and involved the melting of steel, was still more obviously an example of controlled demolition. For example, Jack Keller, emeritus professor of engineering at Utah State University, who has been given special recognition by Scientific American, said: “Obviously it was the result of controlled demolition.” Likewise, when Danny Jowenko–a controlled demolition expert in the Netherlands who had not known that WTC 7 had collapsed on 9/11–was asked to comment on a video of its collapse, he said: “They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . [I]t’s been imploded. . . . A team of experts did this.”
If the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by explosives, the question becomes: Who would have had the ability to place the explosives? This question involves two parts: First, who could have obtained access to the buildings for all the hours it would have taken to plant the explosives? The answer is: Only someone with
connections to people in charge of security for the World Trade Center.
The second part of the question is: Who, if they had such access, would have had the expertise to engineer the controlled demolition of these three buildings? As Jowenko’s statement indicated, the kind of controlled demolition to which these buildings were subjected was implosion, which makes the building come straight down. According to ImplosionWorld.com, an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions.”
Both parts of the question, therefore, rule out al-Qaeda operatives. The destruction of the World Trade Center had to have been an inside job.
16. Would al-Qaeda Operatives Have Imploded the Buildings?
Finally, we can also ask whether, even if al-Qaeda operatives had possessed the ability to cause the World Trade Center buildings to implode so as to come straight down, they would have done so? The answer to this question becomes obvious once we reflect upon the purpose of this kind of controlled demolition, which is to avoid damaging near-by buildings. Had the 110-story Twin Towers fallen over sideways, they would have caused massive destruction in lower Manhattan, destroying dozens of other buildings and killing tens of thousands of people. Would al-Qaeda have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings came straight down?
All the proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated. If that is determined indeed to be the case, the implications would be enormous. Discovering and prosecuting the true perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks would obviously be important. The most immediate consequence, however, should be to reverse those attitudes
and policies that have been based on the assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11.
David Ray Griffin is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion at Claremont
School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He has published 34 books, including seven about 9/11, most recently The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
© Copyright David Ray Griffin, OpEdNews.com, 2008
 On the ways in which torture, extraordinary rendition, government spying, and the military tribunals have undermined US constitutional principles, see Louis Fisher, The Constitution and 9/11: Recurring Threats to America’s Freedoms (Lawrence: Kansas University Press, 2008).
 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, authorized edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), 160 (henceforth 9/11CR).
 9/11CR 154.
 Kevin Fagan, “Agents of Terror Leave Their Mark on Sin City,” San Francisco Chronicle, 4 October 2001 (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/04/MN102970.DTL).
 See ibid.; David Wedge, “Terrorists Partied with Hooker at Hub-Area Hotel,” Boston Herald, 10 October, 2001 (http://web.archive.org/web/20010916150533/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-warriors916.story).
 9/11CR 248.
 “Meet the Press,” NBC, 23 September, 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/nbctext092301.html).
 “Remarks by the President, Secretary of the Treasury O’Neill and Secretary of State Powell on Executive Order,” White House, 24 September 2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-4.html).
 Seymour M. Hersh, “What Went Wrong: The C.I.A. and the Failure of American Intelligence,” New Yorker, 1 October 2001 (http://cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Hersch_OCT_01.htm).
 “White House Warns Taliban: ‘We Will Defeat You,’” CNN, 21 September 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/21/ret.afghan.taliban).
 Office of the Prime Minister, “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States,” BBC News, 4 October 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1579043.stm).
 Kathy Gannon, “Taliban Willing to Talk, But Wants U.S. Respect,” Associated Press, 1 November 2001 (http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2001nn/0111nn/011101nn.htm#300).
 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Most Wanted Terrorists: Usama bin Laden” (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm).
 See my discussion in The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 208-11.
 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).
 9/11CR 149, 155, 166.
 See 9/11CR Ch. 5, notes 16, 41, and 92.
 Kean and Hamilton, Without Precedent, 118.
 Ibid., 122-24.
 Ibid., 119.
 Robert Windrem and Victor Limjoco, “The 9/11 Commission Controversy,” Deep Background: NBC News Investigations, 30 January 2008 (http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx).
 Tim O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, 11 September 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).
 Charles Lane and John Mintz, “Bid to Thwart Hijackers May Have Led to Pa. Crash,” Washington Post, 13 September 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14344-2001Sep11).
 Kerry Hall, “Flight Attendant Helped Fight Hijackers,” News & Record (Greensboro, N.C.), 21 September 2001 (http://webcache.news-record.com/legacy/photo/tradecenter/bradshaw21.htm).
 9/11CR 6.
 A. K. Dewdney, “The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93,” Physics 911, 9 June 2003 (http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm). For discussion of this issue, see The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,
 See Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts: An In-Depth Investigation by Popular Mechanics, ed. David Dunbar and Brad Reagan (New York: Hearst Books, 2006), 83-86.
 Lechner FBI Affidavit; available at Four Corners: Investigative TV Journalism (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit1.htm). Woodward and Sweeney are not identified by name in the affidavit, which refers simply to the former as “an employee of American Airlines at Logan” and to the latter as “a flight attendant on AA11.” But their names were revealed in an “investigative document compiled by the FBI” to which Eric Lichtblau referred in “Aboard Flight 11, a Chilling Voice,” Los Angeles Times, 20 September 2001 (http://web.archive.org/web/20010929230742/http://latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092001hijack.story).
 9/11CR 453n32.
 Greg Gordon, “Prosecutors Play Flight 93 Cockpit Recording,” McClatchy Newspapers, KnoxNews.com, 12 April 2006 (http://www.knoxsingles.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=MOUSSAOUI-04-12-06&cat=WW).
The quoted statement is Gordon’s paraphrase of the testimony of “a
member of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.”
 See United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html).
This graphics presentation can be more easily viewed in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights” at 9-11 Research (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).
 “The Final Moments of United Flight 93,” Newsweek, 22 September 2001 (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/attack/msnbc_finalmomentsF93.html).
 See “Interview with Deena Lynne Burnett (re: phone call from hijacked flight),” 9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11, 2001, Intelfiles.com, 14 March 2008 (http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html); Greg Gordon, “Widow Tells of Poignant Last Calls,” Sacramento Bee, 11
September 2002 (http://holtz.org/Library/Social%20Science/History/Atomic%20Age/2000s/Sep11/Burnett%20widows%20story.htm); and Deena L. Burnett (with Anthony F. Giombetti), Fighting Back: Living Beyond Ourselves (Longwood, Florida: Advantage Inspirational Books, 2006), where she wrote: “I looked at the caller ID and indeed it was Tom’s cell phone number” (61).
 William M. Arkin, “When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing,” Washington Post, 1 February 1999 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm).
 Although Brickhouse Security’s advertisement for Telephone Voice Changers (http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/telephone-voice-changers.html) has been modified in recent years, it previously included a device called “FoneFaker,” the ad for which said: “Record any call you make, fake your Caller ID and change your voice, all with one service you can use from any phone.”
 For Deena Burnett’s reconstruction of the calls, see http://www.tomburnettfoundation.org/tomburnett_transcript.html.
 See The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 122.
 Lichtblau, “Aboard Flight 11, a Chilling Voice” (see note 34, above).
 9/11CR 4, 6.
 See note 38, above.
 9/11CR 19.
 “Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events: September 11, 2001,” FAA, 17 September 2001 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf).
 Frank J. Murray, “Americans Feel Touch of Evil; Fury Spurs Unity,” Washington Times, 11 September 2002 (http://web.archive.org/web/20020916222620/http://www.washtimes.com/september11/americans.htm).
 “Ashcroft Says More Attacks May Be Planned,” CNN, 18 September 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/inv.investigation.terrorism/index.html); “Terrorist Hunt,” ABC News (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/abc_hunt.html).
 Anne Karpf, “Uncle Sam’s Lucky Finds,” Guardian, 19 March 2002 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html). Like some others, this article mistakenly said the passport belonged to Mohamed Atta.
 Statement by Susan Ginsburg, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, at the 9/11 Commission Hearing, 26 January 2004 (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm). The Commission’s account reflected a CBS report that the passport had been found “minutes after” the attack, which was stated by the Associated Press, 27 January 2003.
 Sheila MacVicar and Caroline Faraj, “September 11 Hijacker Questioned in January 2001,” CNN, 1 August 2002 (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/cia.hijacker/index.html); 9/11 Commission Hearing, 26 January 2004.
 9/11CR 14; Jere Longman, Among the Heroes: United 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back (New York: HarperCollins, 2002), 215.
 In light of the absurdity of the claims about the passports of al-Suqami and Jarrah, we can safely assume that the ID cards of Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and Salem al-Hazmi, said to have been discovered at the Pentagon crash site (see “9/11 and Terrorist Travel,” 9/11 Commission Staff Report
[http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf], 27, 42), were also planted.
 For a photograph of the headband, see 9-11 Research, “The Crash of Flight 93?” (http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/flight93.html).
 Quoted in Ross Coulthart, “Terrorists Target America,” Ninemsn, September 2001 (http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_923.asp).
 Lechner FBI Affidavit (see note 34, above).
 Sydney Morning Herald, 15 September 2001; Boston Globe, 18 September, 2001.
 The 9/11 Commission’s Staff Statement No. 16, dated 16 June 2004 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5224099), said: “The Portland detour almost prevented Atta and Omari from making Flight 11 out of Boston. In fact, the luggage they checked in Portland failed to make it onto the plane.”
 9/11CR 1-2.
 9/11CR 451n1; FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, “Statement for the Record,” Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry, 26 September 2002 (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html).
 “Two Brothers among Hijackers,” CNN Report, 13 September 2001 (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200109/13/eng20010913_80131.html).
 “Feds Think They’ve Identified Some Hijackers,” CNN, 13 September 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/investigation.terrorism).
 “Portland Police Eye Local Ties,” Associated Press, Portsmouth Herald, 14 September 2001 (http://archive.seacoastonline.com/2001news/9_14maine2.htm).
 Joel Achenbach, “‘You Never Imagine’ A Hijacker Next Door,” Washington Post, 16 September 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A38026-2001Sep15).
 Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2005), 181.
 This photo can be seen at http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a553portlandfilmed&scale=0.
 Associated Press, 22 July 2004. The photo with this caption can be seen in Morgan and Henshall, 9/11 Revealed, 117-18, along with a genuine security video (with identification data), or at http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/hijackers.html (scroll half-way down).
 Rowland and Henshall, 9/11 Revealed, 118.
 9/11CR 452n11.
 Jay Kolar, “What We Now Know about the Alleged 9-11 Hijackers,” in Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11 (New York: Seven Stories, 2008), 3-44, at 8 (emphasis Kolar’s).
 Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror (New York: Free Press, 2004), 13.
 “Statement of Robert C. Bonner to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States,” 26 January 2004 (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/witness_bonner.htm).
 “FBI: Early Probe Results Show 18 Hijackers Took Part,” CNN, 13 September 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism); “List of Names of 18 Suspected Hijackers,” CNN, 14 September 2001 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/bn.01.html).
 “List of Names of 18 Suspected Hijackers.”
 Satam al-Suqami replaced a man named Amer Kamfar, and Abdulaziz al-Omari replaced a man with a similar name, Abdulrahman al-Omari; see
Kolar, “What We Now Know,” 12-15.
 Another problem with the claim that Woodward had identified these three men is that the seat numbers reportedly used to identify Atta and al-Omari (see Gail Sheehy, “Stewardess ID’d Hijackers Early”) did not match the numbers of the seats assigned to these two men (9/11CR 2).
 All four passenger manifests can be found at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html.
 Terry McDermott, Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), photo section after p. 140.
 Although discussions on the Internet have often claimed that these manifests were included in the FBI’s evidence for the Moussaoui trial, several researchers failed to find them. See Jim Hoffman’s discussion at http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html.
 To view them, see “Passenger Lists,” 9-11 Research (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html#ref9). To download them and/or read cleaned-up versions, see “The Passengers,” 911myths.com (http://911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html).
 “Hijackers Linked to USS Cole Attack? Investigators Have Identified All the Hijackers; Photos to Be Released,” CBS News, 14 September 2001 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/national/main310963.shtml); Elizabeth Neuffer, “Hijack Suspect Lived a Life, or a Lie,” Boston Globe, 25 September 2001 (http://web.archive.org/web/20010925123748/boston.com/…uspect_lived_a_life_or_a_lie+.shtml).
 “Four Planes, Four Coordinated Teams,” Washington Post, 16 September 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html).
 David Dunbar and Brad Reagan, eds., Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts (New York: Hearst Books, 2006), 63.
 Andrew M. Baker, M.D., “Human Identification in a Post-9/11 World: Attack on American Airlines Flight 77 and the Pentagon Identification and Pathology” (http://www.ndms.chepinc.org/presentations/2005/266.pdf).
 Steve Vogel, “Remains Unidentified for 5 Pentagon Victims,” Washington Post, 21 November 2001 (http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/pentagon-unidentified.htm).
 See my discussion in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, revised & updated edition (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 268-69.
 “Ziad Jarrah,” Wikipedia, as the article existed prior to September 8, 2006. On that date, that passage was removed. However, the earlier version of the article, containing the passage, is available at http://www.wanttoknow.info/articles/ziad_jarrah.
 9/11CR 5.
 David Bamford, “Hijack ‘Suspect’ Alive in Morocco,” BBC, 22 September 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1558669.stm).
 “Hijack ‘Suspects’ Alive and Well,” BBC News, 23 September 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm).
 “Panoply of the Absurd,” Der Spiegel, 8 September 2003
 Steve Herrmann, “9/11 Conspiracy Theory,” The Editors, BBC News, 27 October 2006 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html).
 Jay Kolar, “Update: What We Now Know about the Alleged 9-11 Hijackers,” Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11: 293-304, at 293-94.
 For discussion of some of these other men, see ibid., 295-98.
 “America Under Attack: How could It Happen?” CNN Live Event, 12 September 2001 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/12/se.60.html).
 Ibid. This was the “radio transmission” discussed earlier.
 Richard A. Serrano, “Heroism, Fatalism Aboard Flight 93,” Los Angeles Times, 12 April 2006 (http://rednecktexan.blogspot.com/2006/04/heroism-fatalism-aboard-flight-93.html).
 All of these statements are contained in the section headed “Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials” at Patriots Question 9/11 (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com).
 Marc Fisher and Don Phillips, “On Flight 77: ‘Our Plane Is Being Hijacked,’” Washington Post, 12 September 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14365-2001Sep11).
 “FAA Was Alerted To Sept. 11 Hijacker,” CBS News, 10 May 2002 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml).
 Jim Yardley, “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” New York Times, 4 May 2002 (http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9-11/suspects/flying-skills/pilot-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.txt).
 9/11CR 242.
 Greg Szymanski, “Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job,” Arctic Beacon, 17 July 2005 (http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/29392.htm).
 Email from Ralph Omholt, 27 October 2006.
 Alan Miller, “U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ Pilot Questions 911 Pentagon Story,” OpedNews.com, 5 September 2007 (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_u_s__navy__top_gun__.htm).
 Dunbar and Reagan, eds., Debunking 9/11 Myths, 6.
 These problems and more are discussed in The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, Ch. 1.
 Patriots Question 9/11 (http://PatriotsQuestion911.com/engineers.html#Munyak).
 For anyone aware of the facts, NIST’s report on the collapse of WTC 7, issued August 22, 2008, is laughable. For one thing, as I had predicted (Ch. 1 of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited), NIST simply ignored all the facts to which its fire theory cannot do justice, such as the melted steel, the thermite residue, and the reports of explosions in the building.
<!–Author’s Bio: –>As professor emeritus at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, David Ray Griffin taught philosophy of religion and theology, with special emphases on the problem of evil and the relations between science and religion, theology and ecology, religion and politics, and modernity and postmodernity. Dr. Griffin’s previous books about 9/11 include The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The
9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God (2005, co-authored with John B. Cobb, Jr., Richard Falk, and Catherine Keller), Christian Faith and the Truth about 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006), 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006, co-edited with Peter Dale Scott), Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
(2007), 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (2008), and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (2008).
More are coming.
Soon the lemming horde might stop blaming “dem mooslims” and target the true evil in our midst.
Guantanamo Bay in Communist Cuba, ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen ‘High Value Detainees’ in CIA Custody, February 2007 http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/05/dur…
“The 2005 memo also says that the C.I.A. used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”
—Scott Shane, New York Times, Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects, April 19, 2009 http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2009/04/183-wat…
Journalist Loses Bet He Can Endure 15 Seconds of Waterboarding http://www.infowars.com/journalist-loses-bet-he-c…
MSNBC: “You can’t guarantee the outcome. For example, in civilian court, a defense lawyer could easily bring a motion at the beginning of the case and say ‘there has been outrageous government conduct here, this guy was waterboarded 183 times,’ and you can’t stop a federal judge just throwing this case out! Are you prepared for that contingency?
Robert Gibbs, Obama White House spokesdrone: “I think that the murder of 3,000 people on American soil will garner the death penalty. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will meet his maker and be executed.”
MSNBC: “Do you worry that somehow you have kangaroo-courted up the justice system?”
MSNBC: “How do you hold up the American justice system as the model of fairness and impatiality who you and the president have guaranteed the outcome?”
Gibbs: “Here’s what I believe the outcome is going to be. He’s admitted that he did all this. Upon that conviction the likelyhood that a death penalty will be brought for the murder of 3,000 people.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsEPiqCbWOE
“I did not have any knowledge of and was not a member of the plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on Sept. 11, 2001. I wish to withdraw my guilty plea and ask the court for a new trial to prove my innocence of the Sept. 11 plot. I have never met Mohammed Atta and, while I may have seen a few of the other hijackers, I never knew them or anything about their operation.”
—Zacarias Moussaoui (Frenchman), US v. Moussaoui, 1:01-cr-00455 (Virginia), “Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea”, May 8, 2006 http://notablecases.vaed.uscourts.gov/1:01-cr-004…
“Moussaoui now claims he ‘did not have any knowledge of and was not a member of the plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on September 11.’ He wants to withdraw his guilty pleas and go to trial to prove his ‘innocence of the September 11 plot.'”
—Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, “Order Denying Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea”, May 8, 2006 http://notablecases.vaed.uscourts.gov/1:01-cr-004…
“Moussaoui wrote that he pleaded guilty because he mistakenly thought the Supreme Court would immediately review his objection to being denied the opportunity to call captured enemy combatant witnesses to buttress his claim of not being involved in the 9/11 plot. An appeals court agreed with the government that national security would be at risk if captured operatives like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed testified or were even questioned by Moussaoui’s lawyers. Instead, statements taken from their interrogations were read to the jury. Shaikh Mohammed’s statements said Moussaoui was never considered for the 9/11 plot. Moussaoui shocked the courtroom at his sentencing trial when he recanted his four-year-old claim of having nothing to do with 9/11.”
—Associated Press, “Moussaoui Asks to Withdraw Guilty Plea,” May 8, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060508/ap_on_re_us/m…
Pete Williams: “The old outbursts were gone… He was very docile today… We believe that he’s wearing one of those stun belts, and it may be that he was very worried about doing anything that would cause those Marshals to press the button….”
Dan Abrams: “A stun belt? They literally have something around his waist? That they can push a button and?”
Pete Williams: [Pause] “Well…”
Torino Impact Hazard Scale Condition Code 7:
“A very close encounter by a large object, which if occuring this
century, poses an unprecedented but still uncertain threat of a global
catastrophe.” Further, “For such a threat in this century,
planning is warranted, especially to determine urgently and
conclusively whether or not a collision will occur.”
YouTube reporter Mary
Greeley shares some very relevant information regarding 2011 SE58, the
‘object’ hurtling towards Earth
which will make a ‘fly-by’ tomorrow, September 27, 2011. In light of
this information, it would be safe to presume that this ‘object’ is the
real reason Obama
is in Denver;
just in case. That’s how close this object is that’s closing in on Earth.
According to this video,
and ‘the international community’ know EXACTLY what they are dealing
with. This object falls into Code 7
on the Torino Impact Hazard Scale. See chart below, condition code.
1] Jewish prophecies in the Torah require that 6 million Jews must
“vanish” before the state of Israel can be formed. “You shall return
minus 6 million.” That’s why Tom Segev, an Israeli historian, declared
that the “6 million” is an attempt to transform the Holocaust story
into state religion. Those six million, according to prophecy, had to
disappear in “burning ovens”, which the judicial version of the
Holocaust now authenticates. As a matter of fact, Robert B. Goldmann
writes: “. . . without the Holocaust, there would be no Jewish State.”
A simple consequence: Given six million Jews gassed at Auschwitz who
ended up in the “burning ovens” (the Greek word holocaust means burned
offerings), therefore, the prophecies have now been “fulfilled” and
Israel can become a “legitimate state”. –Unknown
[Quote 2] Regarding the ‘six million’ number you should know the
following: In the Hebrew text of the Torah prophesies, one can read
“you shall return”. In the text the letter “V” or “VAU” is absent, as
Hebrew does not have any numbers; the letter V stands for the number 6.
Ben Weintraub, a religious scientist, learned from rabbis that the
meaning of the missing letter means the number is ’6 million’. The
prophesy then reads: You will return, but with 6 million less. See Ben
Weintraub: “The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism”, Cosmo Publishing,
Washington 1995, page 3. The missing 6 million must be so before the
Jews can return to the Promised Land. Jahweh sees this as a cleaning of
the souls of the sinful people. The Jews must, on the return to the
Promised Land, be clean — the cleaning shall be done in burning stokes.
Jewish leader lets slip the Zionist Holohoax scheme
“There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of
The tenth edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (under its entry on
“six million Jews” of Rumania and Russia being “systematically
|Click image to enlarge|
A Jewish preacher declares that if the (Jewish-led) Communist uprising
in Russia succeeds in overthrowing the Czarist government, Zionism
would no longer be needed
A Jewish publicist cries wolf to (ironically enough) GERMANY that there
was an impending Holocaust of “six million Jews” in Russia during the
aftermath of the first Communist uprising there. This lame sob story
was nothing more than a ploy to cover up the fact that the Communist
uprising that took place in Russia a year earlier (1905) was the
handiwork of his fellow Jews who perpetrated widespread atrocities
against Russian patriots (anti-Communists) who didn’t want a despotic
In the American Jewish Committee’s annual report it is claimed that
since 1890 Russia has had a policy to ‘expel or exterminate’ six
million of its Jews. (Source: Sept.
1911 to Sept. 1912 AJC Yearbook pg. 15)
|Click to enlarge|
|The Balfour Declaration|
|click image to enlarge|
The British take control of Palestine, and occupy the country
militarily. Eventually the British
Mandate for Palestine is administered, against the will of
the Arabs living there.
|Click to read full article|
White Russian patriots gain ground on the Jewish
Bolshevikusurpers of their nation. In a vein attempt to
disguise their heavy involvement in murderous Bolshevism, Jews reel out
the “six million” myth once again.
Hitler comes to power in Germany and immediately begins printing
his own currency thus breaking the grip of the usurious
Jewish banking establishment of Europe, led by the Rothschilds.
|Click to view full spread|
|Click to view full spread|
Poland refuses to give back the territory stripped away from Germany at
the end of WW1, namely the formerly German city of Danzig/Danzig
corridor connecting the German mainland to East Prussia.
|Click to view full spread|
Jews again claim “six million” victims before German camps are even
A Hollywood scriptwriting Zionist Jew, Ben
Hecht, floats out the six million lie in the Reader’s Digest.
He would go on to become a fundraiser and propagandist for the Jewish
Irgun terrorist gang in Palestine.
Before anyone could have known the number, Jews claim “six million” dead
A year after the war Jews are already spouting the “six million” myth
|Click to view full spread|
In the course of two years Zionist Jews obliterate
419 Arab villages and build Jewish settlements in their
place, which continues to this day.
Auschwitz death toll lowered from 4 million to 1 million
The Case For Open Debate
What most might consider merely poor reporting about the presidential route has the Internet alarmed, though. As I noted in my article yesterday, Jewish Jihad and World War, Denver is home to the nation”s state-of-emergency command apparatus, and was the scene of massive terror training Friday. With financial markets crumbling worldwide, Zionists reeling from the push for Palestinian statehood in the United Nations and an Israeli attack on Iran, as reported by Haaretz,, under consideration, a false flag operation may well be in the works, and Obama’s placement in Denver may well be the king retreating to his castle before the battle begins..
Thursday morning the infamous BP refinery in Texas City, Texas held emergency drills nine hours before an emergency occurred, involving the BP, Marathon and Valero refineries, which lost power and began to emit ominous flashes across the nighttime sky, causing workers to fear that they were being set up for a false flag operation.
My breaking story on their peril, posted the following morning, was Texas City Terror Scare. It contained details on BP security policy and Israeli intelligence handling of the Texas City counterterror program, provided by Big Oil insiders speaking on condition of anonymity. This summer Islamic Intelligence publisher Abu Salem sofyan and I posted United States False Flag Forecast, which specified the BP refinery in Texas City and Sears Tower (Willis Tower) in Chicago as the nation’s top two targets.
Indeed, Obama cannot be understood except in the context of the Chicago setup, for which he and henchman Rahm Emanuel were selected — just as Bush and his henchman Tom DeLay were chosen for the Texas City setup. “Good guy” Congressional representatives like Chicago’s Jan Schakowsky (D) and Texas City’s Ron Paul (R) are rewarded for turning a blind eye to the setups. Destroying an American city is the top priority of our mass-murderous government and its Israel-first controllers.
In August Abu Salem and Ii posted an article about the linkage between NASA activity and ecological catastrophes. Star Wars technology, according to our research, has already attacked numerous targets. The close approach of the Elenin comet to Earth today and tomorrow already has many Americans expecting an apocalyptic event, which makes now the perfect time to manufacture one.
It was only last May, when the arrogant and defiant Mr. Netanyahu arrived at the white house and lectured Mr. Obama, the president of the world’s super power about how wrong and irresponsible his mentioning, in the Middle East speech, of a two-state solution was, and specifically his call for a Palestinian state to be established as a sovereign state on the 1967 borders. It was such an embarrassment for the president of the United States sitting in his Oval Office/throne and being watched live and worldwide while Bibi was slapping him across the face and instructing him as to what to say, or not to say actually, when it comes to Israel.Reviewing that Oval Office spectacle, it was obvious that president Obama did earn his Nobel Prize, not for peace, but rather for keeping his peace and his incredible gift of anger management.And when the Palestinians lately arrived to the UN to submit their bid for statehood based on the 1967 border lines, Mr. Obama has surprised the world once again and proved that he righteously earned his Nobel Prize by displaying yet another genuine Christian virtue, namely turning the other cheek to be slapped once againIf this recent Palestinian political initiative for statehood recognition hasn’t been smartly and timely thought of and presented to the UN, the world would have been busy following and addressing seemingly more urgent matters. Meanwhile, the Palestinian plight would have stayed overshadowed by news like Europe and the United States slipping into recession, china bailing out Europe, the latest on the Arab spring drama and of course the upcoming American presidential elections(sponsored by Israel et al.) If the Middle East Quartet and its special envoy, or Zionist envoy to be more accurate, Tony Blair have managed to dissuade the Palestinian authority (PA) top politicians from proceeding with their bid for full UN membership as a sovereign state we would have been watching, apathetically, that is, the continuing Israeli hideous scheme to grab the last 22% of what used to be historic Arabic land of Palestine.
The way I see it, this Palestinian bid for statehood is an inevitable outcome of decades of failed diplomacy (or make believe diplomacy), Arabic stupidity and Arabic economic and political divisions, obscene pro-Israel lobbying and duplicity made primarily in USA and unprecedented political and military thuggery of the state of Israel. This Palestinian bid for statehood is but a desperate cry after the so called Mid-East talks has hit the concrete wall of the illegal Israeli settlements that nobody seems to have the power to stop or freeze it for a while, not even the American honest peace broker. Some fastidious analysts and op-ed writers will go over this political maneuver, scrutinize it and finally assess it as not worth the effort, for it will not change realities on the grounds. This UN recognition will not put a stop to the Israeli illegal settlements in the west bank, will not grant them East of Jerusalem and moreover, might as well damage the PA mandate and political authority. But those scrupulous analysts most likely looked at this maneuver from an Israeli point of view, repeating the Israeli cliché “unilateral action will not get the Israeli-Palestinian conflict anywhere” …disregarding the fact that this bid is not about the conflict, rather it is about the world acknowledging Palestine as a state, with all the legalities of the state entailed, and not just an entity. Being an entity is the next closest thing to being nothing.
Those squeamish analysts somehow overlooked the current historical context in the Middle East where people are indiscriminately killed and their lives sacrificed not over some looming recession or spiking unemployment, not over the lack of bread and butter but rather the lack of freedom and dignity. And who could be lacking those attributes more than a homeless and uprooted Palestinian. This bid is the Palestinian ticket to join the last days of the Arab spring that has turned into a hot summer and with the undergoing display of the dirtiest diplomatic stunts pulled by the American/Israeli alliance and with their blatant contempt for UN values and unanimity the expected American veto will herald one of the darkest autumns in the Arab world. The so called Arab spring is not just about mass protests and mass killing, it is not just about toppling Mubarak and Bin Ali in Egypt and Tunisia, it is not just about delegitimizing Saleh in Yemen and bombarding Gaddafi in Libya, it is not about watching the last days for Bashar Al-Assad in Syria and the prince of Bahrain, rather it is about the Arab awakening. And if the world acknowledges that the Arabs are awakening, then, we simply can’t exclude the Palestinians out.
Eighteen years ago, on September 13, 1993, the Palestinian negotiators signed with the Israelis’ what is now known as the Oslo accords, literally crumbs thrown to the Palestinians from the Israeli table of military spoils in Palestine, and those accords were not meant to be taken as a serious step in the peace process but rather a compulsory and temporary Israeli concession to somehow put an end to the first Palestinian intifada. According to these accords the Israeli side has cunningly bound the Palestinian side to a framework of bilateral negotiations as a precondition to any future settlement of the Israeli–Palestinian dispute. And from there on the Israeli side picked up where they left off and continued their “business as usual” of grabbing more land, building more settlements and transferring the rest of the Palestinian population unilaterally and unabashedly under the very nose of a coalition of the western nations who are only willing to go for a ten years hunt for the wrong terrorists. But when we look back at this so-called conflict we will be astounded by how unilateral this whole bloody business has been from the very beginning.
– Theodor Herzl(1860-1904) when he first wrote his manifesto for a” Jewish state” and followed it with his utopian piece “the old new land” he naively and absolutely unilaterally assumed that the Arab land of Palestine, which he himself as an assimilated Ashkenazi Jew( who spoke neither fluent Hebrew nor Yiddish) has never visited, would be the perfect choice for the establishment of his Zionist entity and again unilaterally assumed that the Arabs of Palestine would present no problem for the Ashkenazi & khazar Jews mass immigration to the new land for they , as Europeans, would be welcomed and hailed by the Arabic inhabitants as the modernizers of Palestine.I don’t know what Mr. Herzl’s idea of modernity was, but it is obviously not what the Arabs of Palestine needed back then and certainly not what they are enduring through nowadays.– Following the death of Herzl with his fictional idea of some utopian home land for the European Jews in Palestine … a lot of decisions and acts, mostly criminal in nature, have been taken by the Israeli side starting from the Palestinian exodus 1948, passing through the military occupation of East Jerusalem, Gaza and west Bank in the 1967 Israeli offensive, to the segregation, the west bank wall, the war on Lebanon and Gaza, the non-stop uprooting of ancient Palestinian olive trees to be replaced by cemented settlements and finally the inhumane blockade on Gaza and the massacre of international activists in international waters… all of those Israeli remarkable achievements have been deliberated upon, planned and executed unilaterally. And after 60 years of dispossession, 40 years of occupation and 20 years of make-believe peace, the Palestinian bid for UN membership is interestingly enough deemed a unilateral act of aggression and warfare against Israeli interests.
Palestine was never invited to the table except in times of intifadas and more often in times of make-believe peace … the end goal of both was obviously the same, namely buying more time to grab more land and expel more Palestinians and make new and hard to touch Israeli demographic changes .
But none of those Israeli illegal and aggressive goals would have been achieved so smoothly and with the minimum international opposition hadn’t it been for the magical Zionist recipe of literally buying the top politicians, corporate media and decision makers in the west and of course the United States of America. In other words, buying politicians, specifically American, has been, and still is the Zionist’s short cut to establishing the great Israel project. Pandering to pro-Israel lobbies to garner more votes has been a shameful legacy kept by a long line of American top politicians and leaders initiated by Truman and his falling into the Rothschild’s trap of securing his presidential triumph only if he voted for the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel. The latest in a long line of American Democrats and Republicans running for presidency to serve the Israeli goals rather than their country’s own, comes Texas Governor, Rick Perry standing lately shoulder-to-shoulder at a news conference with advocates for annexing West Bank settlements not to mention his prelude to the presidential campaign, dancing with far right-wing rabbis at his office a few months ago. While Barack Obama, the US president, in his brief speech at the UN has strongly confirmed in an intimidating voice tone that “there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” And seriously added “Peace is hard work” He somehow has secured a “short cut” to his second term in office. Israel’s thuggish far-right foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, told reporters shortly after Obama’s speech that: “I am ready to sign on this speech with both hands.”But again, I think Mr. Obama has figured out this whole thing the wrong way. Pandering to Israel and sacrificing the interests and more importantly the pride of his country might grant him a second term in office, but … is it worth it? … is a second term in office worth that shameful submission? It doesn’t make any sense … I mean, the Zionists controlling Wall Street and the presidential elections is not a good enough reason for selling out America and its pride in that shamefull way. There is more to this than we all think, a hell of a lot more, something big is hiding under the surface like an iceberg, something as big as 9/11. The way Obama is handing over the keys of the white house to the Israelis while other heads of less-powerful states such as Erdogan of Turkey and Ahamdinejad of Iran stand tall in front of the Israeli political debauchery makes you wonder if 911, with the hidden truth about it, has turned into some Israeli wild card.Is acting against the very interests of the United States and abandoning the values of freedom, democracy and human rights, not to mention tarnishing his own legacy worth a second term in office. What a shame… This Obama has missed out on a golden opportunity to not only earn his Nobel peace prize but to make history and glory for himself and the United States of America. The mere Abstinence from voting on the Palestinian bid for statehood, such a small step by Obama’s administration, would have been a giant leap for him and the United States of America.