June 1, 2005

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571 Page Lie

By In Essays

Introduction by J.F. Miglio

Since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been numerous books and hundreds of articles written about Bush administration and CIA complicity in the 9/11 disaster. Unfortunately, the mainstream news media have chosen to ignore most of them and have marginalized the rest.

As a result, many Americans are still in the dark as to what really happened on that fateful day. Which is why I felt it was important to print the following article. The article itself is based on a new book that points out the many inconsistencies and distortions surrounding the official story about 9/11. I don’t know if all the claims made in it are true, but I do know that in the interest of freedom and democracy, the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission need to answer all the questions raised.

The writer of the article, David Ray Griffin, is professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology and has authored or edited over two dozen books, including God and Religion in the Postmodern World, Religion and Scientific Naturalism, and The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11.

Essay by Dr. David Ray Griffin

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.” (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique’s subtitle, “Omissions and Distortions.” It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated “distortions” can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.” They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.

Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

  1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers—including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC—are still alive (19-20).
  2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta—such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances—that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
  3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
  4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
  5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
  6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
  7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
  8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed—an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
  9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
  10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”—a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
  11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).
  12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
  13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel—that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel—made no sense in this case (30).
  14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
  15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
  16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
  17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
  18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
  19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
  20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner—even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

To read the rest of the list, go to the 9/11 Visibility Project Web site at http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php.

Also, go to Congressman John Conyer’s Web site to sign a petition demanding that the Bush administration respond to the “Downing Street Memo,” an incriminating official document published in the London Times that comprises “the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed to by the summer of 2002 to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before {the president} even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.” The URL for this site is http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={0F1B03E0-080B-4100-B143-36A5985EF1E3}

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: