June 10, 2008
Pakistan Daily

911 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press

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 contradictions.

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?,", September 8, 2008]

Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth

back button