The mind of David Ray Griffin is refreshingly clear and logical. With his
exceptional gift for discerning significant distinctions he has, once again,
produced a meticulous critical analysis of documentary evidence that is
astute and compelling. In "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress
and the Press,"
Dr. Griffin presents a sequence of irrefutable facts drawn from
documents and testimony that demonstrate twenty five internal contradictions
in the official 9/11 story. As each contradiction is presented, the author
juxtaposes documented timelines and official memos, eye-witness testimony,
television broadcasts and news articles that are logically inconsistent with
the narrative contrived by the 9/11 Commission.
Griffin objectively questions these contradictory narratives, some of
them inherent within individual alibis, and observes that the Commission
avoided confronting these inconsistencies by eliminating all mention of them
in its report. Facts that could not be logically refuted were strategically
omitted, thereby erasing from the historical record all evidence of possible
perjury and complicity. Each chapter is devoted to one category of
contradictions and ends with the request that Congress and the press
investigate this inconsistency.
One of the most fascinating contradictions involves the whereabouts of
principals on the morning of 9/11 during the critical hours between 9:00
-10:00 am. Public and internal records suggest that the timeline of events
was adjusted by the Commission to place the principals at their command
posts too late to protect the nation, too late to orchestrate a military
response, too late to give stand-down orders, too late to give shootdown
orders or to be otherwise guilty of collusion. The conflicting testimony of
eye-witnesses such as Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and FAA officials, who
placed the principals and military liaisons at their command posts well
before the Commission's timeline did, was simply omitted from the 9/11
Commission Report. The Commission's systematic timeline alteration and
omission of incriminating evidence thereby suggest that its mission was
damage control, a deliberate cover-up of government complicity in the crime.
Griffin, however, does not make this charge; he simply presents the
The Commission claimed that Vice President Cheney did not arrive in the
Presidential Emergency Operations Center until 9:58. That claim was
contradicted by the testimony of Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation,
who arrived at the PEOC around 9:20 where shortly thereafter he witnessed
Cheney confirm an order that is most logically interpreted as an order not
to shoot down an incoming object shortly before the Pentagon was struck.
Richard Clarke's account in his book, "Against All Enemies," corroborates
Mineta's timeline, which was evidently so threatening to the official story
that Mineta's testimony was deleted from the 9/11 Commission video archives.
General Richard Myers contradicted his own story in several incarnations
of his alibi as did Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom
claimed to be unaware of unfolding events when, according to Richard Clarke,
they were both participating in a live video teleconference initiated by
Clarke at about 9:10. Griffin skillfully analyzes these contradictory
versions of events.
The Commission's claim that the FAA did not notify the military early
enough to scramble jets was contradicted by the FAA's assertion that not
only was a military liaison present throughout its nationwide alert but
"within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center it
immediately established several phone bridges that included.DOD, the Secret
Service, and other government agencies." NORAD's original (September 18,
2001) timeline corroborated FAA statements as did military officers, such as
the National Military Command Center's Brigadier General Montague Winfield
and NORAD's Captain Michael Jellinek. One also learns from Richard Clarke
that the "Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAA's
radar was seeing." The 9/11 Commission's claim, therefore, would be
laughable had the consequences of this lie not been so tragic.
Griffin presents extensive eye-witness accounts by firefighters, police
officers, journalists and building workers who gave vivid reports of hearing
and seeing powerful sequential explosions within all three of the World
Trade Center skyscrapers prior to their collapse. Building 7, which was not
hit by a plane, also collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint around
5:20 pm - an event that was anticipated and communicated to firefighters by
Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management around noon. Griffin poses
the question to NIST, the agency tasked by the Commission with explaining
the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC7, how OEM could have known so
many hours in advance that the building would collapse.
Further evidence of controlled demolition is suggested by three
professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute who noted the peculiar
characteristics of oxidation and sulfidation on salvaged WTC steel beams.
NIST admitted that the temperature of the fires was insufficient (by at
least 1000¡F) to melt steel. However, if thermate cutter charges (thermite
plus sulfur) were used to slice the steel framework, that would explain the
molten steel. How did NIST and the 9/11 Commission explain the eyewitness
testimony that steel had melted? By not mentioning it.
Several chapters are devoted to exposing contradictions concerning the
alleged hijackers. The assertion that Hani Hanjour could have flown American
Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon after making a spectacular 330¡ turn
over prohibited airspace is demonstrably preposterous given his record of
total incompetence as a pilot. The profile of Mohamed Atta as a devout
Muslim on a sacred suicide mission is contradicted by numerous eye-witnesses
who described his unholy lifestyle in vivid detail. The FBI's assertion that
Atta's personal belongings provided a treasure trove of incriminating
evidence (a Koran, his Will and a list of the 19 hijackers) is dubious,
given the FBI's inconsistent versions of where this miraculous proof was
found. It was first reportedly found in a white Mitsubishi at Logan airport
in Boston. That story was changed when a subsequent tale proved to be false.
After the FBI claimed that two hijackers named Bukhari had driven a blue
Nissan to Portland, Maine, and then taken a commuter flight back to Boston
on the morning of 9/11, it was discovered that one Bukhari had died the
previous year and the other was still alive. The FBI clumsily merged these
stories by claiming that Atta drove the blue Nissan to Portland and then
took the commuter flight back. In this new story, the incriminating evidence
was "found" in his luggage, which failed to get transferred to Flight 11.
The public belief that Middle Eastern men hijacked the planes was based
heavily on media reports of over 15 cell phone calls from passengers to
relatives, although high-altitude cell phone calls were not possible in
2001. One source of the hijacker tale came from the Justice Department's
Solicitor General, Ted Olson, who told CNN that his wife (Barbara) had
called him twice from American Flight 77. That claim was contradicted at the
Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006 when the FBI reported that only two cell
phone calls were made from all four planes, and that both calls originated
from United Flight 93 (after it had descended to 5,000 feet). How did the
Commission reconcile FBI records with reports from family members who
recognized Caller IDs made from cell phones? It omitted the FBI records.
Why do these contradictions matter? The story of al-Qaeda, Osama bin
Laden and nineteen Muslim hijackers is based entirely on unverified claims.
Despite promises of forthcoming evidence, the US government has yet to
deliver any hard evidence. To this day, the FBI's web page concerning Osama
bin Laden does not accuse him of involvement with the 9/11 attacks. Why not?
An FBI official has admitted, "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin
Laden to 9/11." What, then, is the justification for attacking two sovereign
nations and killing over one million civilians?
Although Griffin refrains from making direct accusations, he
methodically presents objective evidence that leads the reader to an
inevitable conclusion ~ that the purpose of the 9/11 Commission was to
assign guilt where it did not exist and to cover up guilt where it did,
thereby obstructing criminal indictments for treason, mass murder, war
crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against the earth.
Griffin's impeccable research should inspire public demand for an
independent investigation of 9/11. The enormous public service Griffin has
provided in preparing this meticulous archive cannot be over-stated. Any
investigative journalist worthy of that title would need only to validate
this archive of facts. With the precision and skill of a seasoned District
Attorney, David Ray Griffin presents a case that is so well organized it
could be used intact by any prosecutor devoted to uncovering the truth.
Let the trials begin. Indictments are long overdue.
What Really Happened on September 11, 2001
Enver Masud, "The Book Hugo Chavez Should
Have Held Up," The Wisdom Fund, September 24, 2006
[We know that within minutes of the "worst terrorist attack" in US history,
even before the collapse of WTC-2 at 9:59 am, US officials knew the names of
several of the alleged hijackers. . . .
According to MSNBC, the plan to invade Afghanistan and "remove Al Qaeda from
the face of he earth" was already sitting on G.W. BushÕs desk on the morning
of 9/11 awaiting his signature. . . .
On September 20, 2001, the Bush administration officially declared that
Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack. Three days later,
Secretary of State Colin Powell announced on Meet the Press that the
government would soon release "a white paper" detailing the evidence against
bin Laden. . . .
As we know, the US government never got around to releasing the promised
white paper. Why not? Was it because the evidence against bin Laden was too
weak to hold up in court? Such was the view of journalist Seymour Hersh, who
cited CIA and Justice Department sources to this effect in his regular
column in the New Yorker magazine. . . .
In a statement on September 16, 2001 carried by Al-Jazeera, bin Laden
categorically denied any involvement.--Mark H. Gaffney, "Was 9/11 an
Inside Job?," thetruthseeker.co.uk, September 8, 2008]
Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth