Bin Laden died in December 2001
Have you ever thought that we really don't want to find Bin Ladin? Or if he is dead, the U.S. doesn't want that known?
According to this, there is a documentary that proves the first theme.
Peace and good,
Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion
At 3:32 PM, Anonymous said...
Bin Laden is dead. he has not been seen or spoken to since late 2001:
Webstie What Really Happened.com wrote:
Bin Laden's voice was detected regularly until [14 December 2001] by intelligence operatives monitoring radio transmissions in Tora Bora, according to the Pentagon [details]. Since then, nothing has been heard from the al-Qa'eda leader and President Bush has hinted in private that bin Laden's silence could mean he has been killed. [Telegraph, 12/28/2001]
Osama bin Laden:
A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government
Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December  and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication.
With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival? [New York Times. July 11, 2002]
Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health. Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitis C, and can expect to live for only two more years. According to Le Figaro, last year  he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to his base at Kandahar in Afghanistan. [Guardian]
Peter Bergen: Bin Laden has aged 'enormously'
This is a man who was clearly not well. I mean, as you see from these pictures here, he's really, by December  he's looking pretty terrible.
Bin Laden December 27, 2001 video
Healthy bin Laden
But by December, of course, that tape that was aired then, he's barely moving the left side of his body. So he's clearly got diabetes. He has low blood pressure. He's got a wound in his foot. He's apparently got dialysis ... for kidney problems. [CNN]
The [December 27, 2001 video] was dismissed by the Bush administration ... as sick propaganda possibly designed to mask the fact the al-Qa'eda leader was already dead. "He could have made the video and then ordered that it be released in the event of his death," said one White House aide. [Telegraph]
Pakistan's Musharraf: Bin Laden probably dead
Pakistan's president says he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease.
[A Bush administration official] said U.S. intelligence is that bin Laden needs dialysis every three days and "it is fairly obvious that that could be an issue when you are running from place to place, and facing the idea of needing to generate electricity in a mountain hideout." [CNN]
Renal dialysis -- talking about hemodialysis -- is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down. The most common cause of something like that would be something like diabetes and hypertension. Once that's happened, if you're separated from your dialysis machine -- and incidentally, dialysis machines require electricity, they're going to require clean water, they're going to require a sterile setting -- infection is a huge risk with that. If you don't have all those things and a functioning dialysis machine, it's unlikely that you'd survive beyond several days or a week at the most. [CNN]
Karzai: bin Laden 'probably' dead
Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead, but former Taliban leader Mullah Omar is alive, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said. [CNN]
FBI: Bin Laden 'probably' dead
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation's counter-terrorism chief, Dale Watson, says he thinks Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead. [BBC]
Magazine runs what it calls bin Laden's will
The editor-in-chief of a London-based Arab news magazine said a purported will it published Saturday was written late last year  by Osama bin Laden, and shows "he's dying or he's going to die soon." [CNN]
Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. "The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said. [FOX News]
Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:
al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633
News of Bin Laden's Death and Funeral 10 days ago
A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. [Welfare State]
Osama bin who?
Israel does not view bin Laden as a threat. [Janes]
Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen
Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications, Middle East Newsline reported. [World Tribune]
[See also The Fake bin Laden Audio Tape]
[See also Benazir Bhutto says Osama is dead.]
When you hear a threat which is "probably" made by bin Laden, just remember that he's "probably" dead.
Also think about who benefits from your believing he's alive.
Labels: bin laden, bush-cheney, war on terror
The US Government Connection to forged documents and to 9/11
An Anonymous Blogger who calls herself George Washington (see below) makes the connection from forged and backdated documents to US Government involvement in 9/11. --RB
Bestselling journalist Ron Suskind has revealed that the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists and 9/11 . . . and that the CIA complied with those instructions and in fact created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq.
Suskind also revealed that "Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official 'that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.' ”
This is a stunning revelation in its own right. But what does it say about the government's claims that 9/11 was an attack by Muslim extremists which the U.S. government could not have anticipated?
Well, if the White House ordered the CIA to forge documents falsely implicating the people against which they wanted to wage war (Iraqis), and falsely linking supposed Al Qaeda terrorists with someone they had no connection with (Saddam Hussein), is it possible that a similar thing occurred as to who carried out 9/11?
Let's take a look:
- The flight manuals and other evidence supposedly "accidentally" left behind by the terrorists were in fact planted. For example, the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam wrote:
"Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, 'Whatever trail was left was left deliberately — for the F.B.I. to chase'"
- The top expert on Osama Bin Laden has said that Bin Laden's "confession" video is fake (and see this statement by a video expert )
And imagine if a piece of evidence could not be authenticated according to basic science. For example, let's say an apparent confession note was found at an arson crime scene where the entire building had been turned to fine ash particles and nothing else survived. That would raise suspicions, right?
Well, a passport from one of the alleged hijackers was "found" a couple of blocks from the Twin Towers. And yet the government claims that the areas inside the Twin Towers where planes crashed were infernos so hot that they caused the collapse of the massive steel cores in the center of the towers. Indeed, the passport-owner's hijacked plane was allegedly almost completely lodged in the building's core. How could the passport have survived and ended up a couple of blocks away?
And if the above-described documents were in fact forged, isn't that strong evidence that elements of the U.S. government actually aided and abetted the 9/11 attack? For example, the "initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals", had to have been planted before or immediately after the 9/11 attacks?
For those still skeptical about the possibility that the government intentionally created false evidence, please remember that Norad intentionally lied about what happened on 9/11; indeed, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required).
And remember that the government intentionally and falsely linked Muslims with the anthrax attacks, when it was obvious that the attacks came from white Americans.
At the very least, isn't it likely that the White House instructed the intelligence agencies and the 9/11 Commission to ignore any evidence which contradicted the narrative that would justify wars in the Middle East (euphemistically called "the war on terror") - that 9/11 was carried out solely by Arabs?
In connection with Iraq, Suskind writes that "the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official 'that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.'” And an ex-CIA official confirms that evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq was ignored.
In connection with 9/11 itself, obstruction of an accurate assessment is equally clear. -- George Washington
George Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval of the publisher, because I have received death threats due to my 9/11 research and writing. I am using a pen name to protect myself and my family.
Labels: 9/11, Iraq War
David Ray Griffin revisits his classic The New Pearl Harbor
The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé
David Ray Griffin
“Citizens in many countries are waging a war on the cover-up of the basis for the so-called war on terror---this basis being the official interpretation of the 9/11 attacks. Along with the Internet, which has equipped both public figures and ordinary citizens to wage this war on the cover-up, David Ray Griffin has revealed dozens of omissions, distortions, and contradictions in the official story in a way that provides undeniable evidence of its falsity. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited presents a powerful exposé of the false narrative that has been driving the mainstream political agenda since 9/11. It is now up to politicians and journalists around the world to expose this truth to our peoples.”---Yukihisa Fujita, member of the House of Councilors, the Diet of Japan
“With this work, Dr. Griffin cements his place as the preeminent spokesperson for the growing number of people who demand answers to an expanding list of questions about 9/11. . . . Even those members of the 9/11 Truth Movement who have immersed themselves thoroughly in the subject will find new information here, presented in the precise and very readable style Dr. Griffin has brought to each of his books. . . . Absent a revival of investigative journalism---a dim prospect at best, in view of the media ownership concentration---books like this one, arming the informed citizen with solid information and providing a basis for demanding direct action, appear to be our best hope.”---Shelton F. Lankford, Lt. Col. US Marine Corps (Ret.)
“In The New Pearl Harbor, Dr. Griffin raised serious questions about the destruction of the World Trade Center---the part of the official conspiracy theory about 9/11 with which I have been especially concerned. Now, in The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, he continues to pierce the heart of the official story with his signature penetrating research, this time sharpened with arguments provided by physical scientists, architects, and engineers. He definitely delivers the technical goods. Message to authors of the NIST Report: The charade is over!”---Richard Gage, member of American Institute of Architects, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
PUBLISHER'S BOOK DESCRIPTION
In 2004, David Ray Griffin published The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11. Translated into several languages, it helped spark a worldwide movement demanding “9/11 truth.” Even as it became increasingly outdated, it continued to be widely cited as the best introduction to the issues.
Griffin has now written The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, which provides a chapter-by-chapter updating of the information provided in that earlier book. It shows that the case against the official account constructed by independent researchers---who now include architects, engineers, physicists, pilots, politicians, and former military officers---is far stronger than it was in 2004, leaving no doubt that 9/11 was a false-flag operation, designed to give the Bush-Cheney administration a pretext to attack oil-rich Muslim nations.
Taken together, these two books provide everything one needs to make an informed decision about 9/11---whether one is a journalist, a political leader, a religious leader, or an ordinary citizen concerned about truth, democracy, and the rule of law.
"David Ray Griffin stands at the center of one of the most impressive citizen research projects in history. In this superb new volume, he draws together a great quantity of recent evidence and demonstrates
beyond question the fraudulent nature of the official account of 9/11."---Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Founder of McMaster University's Center for Peace Studies
“Nowhere is it clearer that truth is now considered quaint, obsolete here in Washington, than in the disingenuous non-answers to questions about the cavernous holes in the official version of 9/11—-and the flippant attempts to marginalize intrepid souls like David Ray Griffin, branded “blasphemous” by the likes of Tucker Carlson. Facing straight into this rancid wind, Griffin now provides a definitive account that updates and integrates his earlier findings. Will Congress ever authorize an honest investigation of the seminal event of our time?”---Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and presidential briefer
“President Bush and Vice President Cheney have many questions to answer in light of this book. This time they should have to testify separately and under oath. Unlike their testimony at the 9/11 Commission, behind closed doors, this should be open testimony.”---Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota, 1999-2003
“This latest book by David Ray Griffin is scholarly research at its best. Meticulous empirical investigation and painstaking analysis are combined to refute the official 9/11 narrative. Every event surrounding the tragic events of September 11, 2001, is subjected to close scrutiny, ultimately with a view to revealing the lies and upholding the truth. In this fascinating and skillfully researched exposé, Griffin demonstrates unequivocally that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.”---Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics and author of America’s War on Terrorism
1. Flight 11, Flight 175, and the World Trade Center: New Developments
2. Flight 77 and the Pentagon: New Developments
3. Flight 93: Additional Evidence against the Official Story
4. Bush at the School in Sarasota: Cover-Up Attempts
5. Evidence of Advance Information: The 9/11 Commission’s Treatment
6. Continuing Obstructions and New Doubts about Hijackers
7. Motives of US Officials: The Silence of the 9/11 Commission
8. 9/11 Commission Falsehoods about Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Pakistanis, and Saudis
9. Complicity by US Officials: A Summary of the Evidence
10. New Revelations about the 9/11 Commission and the Strengthened Case for a New Investigation
“You and I, along with all citizens of the world, are victims of a heinous crime. The conspiracy that generated the Twin Tower photo-op, blamed the 9/11 attacks on Arab Muslims, and misdirected truth-seekers by destruction of evidence and willful misrepresentation is masterfully exposed in this book. Who had the motive, means and opportunity to demolish three skyscrapers, including Building 7, which was not even attacked by a mere airplane? Who could penetrate the Earth’s most heavily defended air space and fortress—-the Pentagon? What was their motive? Greed to concentrate power, to control access to the last drop of Gaia's reserve hydrocarbon energy? But, alas, who thinks of our children? David Ray Griffin, apolitical scholar and theologian, was transformed by the coup d'etat into a superb scientist-journalist. By documenting the tragic 9/11 crime, this consummate educator has done us victims a profound service.”–-Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Professor, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and National Medal of Science recipient
“Circuses use people to clean up their elephants---a dirty job, but someone has to do it. The 9/11 Commissioners evidently likened themselves to circus workers, cleaning up after the (Republican) elephant. They did a very sloppy job, making it easy to see that 9/11 was an inside job. The contrary view---that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Arab Muslims---has been the source of innumerable evils, which threaten to destroy our country and the world itself. David Griffin’s New Pearl Harbor Revisited contains everything needed by Congress and the press to see through the most massive crime and cover-up in our history.”---Edward Asner, actor and citizen
“David Ray Griffin has again painstakingly laid bare the many lingering questions and inconsistencies of the official story regarding the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. Sadly, millions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered on investigations that yielded no accountability, few answers, and fewer reforms. Yet, the attacks of September 11, 2001 have been wantonly used as political and policy fodder. Without truth, there can be no accountability. Without accountability, there can be no real change. Without change, we remain at risk.”---Monica Gabrielle, widow of Richard Gabrielle, who was killed at WTC2 on 9/11/01, and member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission
The New Pearl Harbor Revisited can be purchased for $20 at bookstores or Interlink Books (1-800-238-LINK) or for $13.60 at Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Revisited-Cover-Up/dp/1566567297/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220620840&sr=1-6). It should be available at Amazon by September 11.
Labels: 9/11, David Ray Griffin
911 Feature Film: The Reflecting Pool: Trailer, Synopsis; NYC Schedule July 2008
The NYT trashed it, so maybe it's struck a nerve. --RB
An open letter by the writer/director to Nathan Lee, the NY Times movie critic of “The Reflecting Pool.” (includes a link to the Times review and to several comments about
Here's the trailer. Looks interesting.
An investigation of the 9/11 events by a Russian-American journalist and a father of a 9/11 victim implicates the US government in the attacks.
ALEX PROKOP (Jarek Kupsc), a successful journalist, receives a rare 9/11 video tape revealing new information about the attack. The footage was sent by PAUL COOPER (Joseph Culp), a driven researcher, whose daughter died on 9/11. Sensing a good story, Prokop travels with Cooper to New York and Washington, DC, where they uncover suppressed information implicating the US Government in the attacks. As Cooper introduces Prokop to key eye-witnesses, the façade of the "official story" begins to crumble. Prokop hears accounts of underground explosions in the Twin Towers moments before their collapse and discovers that the firm providing WTC security was run by the President's brother.
We follow Alex and Cooper as they investigate the inexplicable collapse of the 47-story WTC Building Seven, disprove the implausible airliner "attack" on the Pentagon, and uncover the illegal destruction of physical evidence from Ground Zero.
The pressure builds as the FBI intimidates Alex's editor, McGUIRE, (Lisa Black) to reveal key sources – while the magazine's corporate investors threaten to kill the entire story. Plagued by the ghosts of his Communist childhood and trying to uphold the independence of American journalism, Alex's search for the truth leads to a dangerous and shocking realization!
THE REFLECTING POOL is an intense, sobering investigation into the most controversial tragedy of our time. Drawn from established sources and based on verifiable facts, THE REFLECTING POOL is a thought-provoking study of a search for truth and the profound consequences of not looking for it any further than the nightly news.
JULY 11-16 & 18 (7pm & 9pm)
NEW YORK CITY
155 East 3rd St
New York, NY
No shows on Thursday July 17. Filmmakers will attend for Q & A! For more information:
Labels: 911, 911 Truth, NYT
David Ray Griffin: Mohamed Atta's Mitsubishi and His Luggage
9/11 Contradictions: Mohamed Atta’s Mitsubishi and His Luggage
by Prof. David Ray Griffin
Global Research, May 9, 2008
At the core of the official story about 9/11 is the claim that the four airliners that crashed that day had been taken over by a band of al-Qaeda hijackers led by Mohamed Atta. No proof was ever provided for this claim. But various kinds of evidence have been offered, the most important of which was reportedly found in Atta’s luggage after the attacks. The materials in this luggage were said to confirm the suspicion that the planes had been hijacked by Atta and fellow Muslims. As Joel Achenbach wrote in a Washington Post story on September 16, 2001:
Atta is thought to have piloted American Airlines Flight 11, the first to slam into the World Trade Center. A letter written by Atta, left in his luggage at Boston's Logan Airport, said he planned to kill himself so he could go to heaven as a martyr. It also contained a Saudi passport, an international driver's license, instructional videos for flying Boeing airliners and an Islamic prayer schedule. (“’You Never Imagine’ A Hijacker Next Door.”)
This discovery was clearly very helpful in making the case against Atta and al-Qaeda.
But why was Atta’s luggage there to be discovered? Achenbach said: “Officials believe that Atta and [Abdul] Alomari rented a car in Boston, drove to Portland, Maine, and took a room Monday night at the Comfort Inn . . . . They then flew on a short flight Tuesday morning from Portland to Boston, changing to Flight 11.”
But why did Atta’s luggage not make it on to Flight 11? A 9/11 staff statement suggested that it was a tight connection, saying: “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” (Staff Statement No. 16, June 16, 2004). When The 9/11 Commission Report appeared the following month, however, this suggestion was missing. Indeed, the Commission, after saying that “Atta and Omari arrived in Boston at 6:45,” added that “American Airlines Flight 11 [was] scheduled to depart at 7:45” (9/11 Commission Report [henceforth 9/11CR], 1-2).
If there was almost an hour for the luggage to be transferred, why was it left behind? We might suppose that the ground crew was careless. American Airlines reported, however, that “Atta was the only passenger among the 81 aboard American Flight 11 whose luggage didn't make the flight” (Paul Sperry, WorldNetDaily.com, September 11, 2002).
There was, moreover, even a bigger mystery: Why did Atta, if he was already in Boston on September 10, take the trip to Portland and stay overnight, thereby necessitating the early morning commuter flight? If the commuter flight had been delayed by an hour, Atta and al-Omari would have missed the connection. There would have been only three hijackers to take control of Flight 11. Atta, moreover, was reportedly the designated pilot for this flight and also the ringleader of the whole operation, which, after years of planning, he might have had to call off.
Why he would have made such a risky trip has never been explained. A year after the attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller, testifying to the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, said:
[T]he day before the attacks, Mohamed Atta . . . picked up Abdul Aziz . . . and drove to Portland, Maine. They checked into the Comfort Inn in South Portland. . . . [T]heir reason for going there, to date, remains unclear. (“Statement for the Record,” Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry, Sept. 26, 2002)
Two years later, the 9/11 Commission wrote: “No physical, documentary, or analytical evidence provides a convincing explanation of why Atta and Omari drove to Portland, Maine, from Boston on the morning of September 10, only to return to Logan on Flight 5930 on the morning of September 11” (9/11CR 451n1).
We have, therefore, two mysteries. Why would Atta have risked the trip to Portland? And why did his luggage fail to get loaded onto Flight 11? My book, 9/11 Contradictions, is about contradictions, not mysteries. Clues to these mysteries, however, can be found by exploring a full-fledged contradiction: the fact that the Atta-to-Portland story contradicts stories that appeared in the press in the first days after 9/11.
The Original Story: Boston and the Bukharis
According to the official account, as we have seen, Atta drove to Portland in a blue Nissan Altima, then flew on the morning of September 11 from Portland to the Boston airport, where the incriminating materials were found in his luggage later that day. In the first few days after 9/11, however, the story was very different.
On September 12, a CNN report distinguished between Atta and the men who flew from Portland to Boston.
Law enforcement sources say that two of the suspected hijackers . . . are brothers that lived [in Vero Beach, Florida]. . . . One of them is Adnan Bukhari. We have a photograph of him. . . . Also living in Vero Beach, Bukhari's brother, Ameer. . . . Law enforcement sources . . . tell CNN that the Bukhari brothers were believed to have been on one of the two flights out of Boston . . . . Also we can report to you that a car impounded in Portland, Maine, according to law enforcement authorities, was rented at Boston Logan Airport and driven to Portland, Maine. Now the Maine state police confirm that two of the suspected hijackers were on a U.S. Air flight out of [the Portland airport.]. . . The FBI is also looking at two more suspected hijackers . . . , Mohammad Atta and Marwan Yusef Alshehhi.” (“America Under Attack: How Could It Happen?” Although the reporter, Susan Candiotti, said “Logan Airport,” the information she received had to have referred to the Portland airport, from which the U.S. Airways flight originated, and about which the Maine state police would have had information.)
Another CNN report that same day stated that the incriminating materials were found in a car at the Boston airport and, while discussing the Nissan found at the Portland airport, did not connect it to Atta:
Law enforcement officials confirmed that a car was seized at Boston's Logan International Airport and that suspicious materials were found. The Boston Herald said there were Arabic language flight training manuals in the car. . . . Meanwhile, in Portland, Maine, police said that two individuals who traveled by plane from that city to Boston were under investigation. . . . Maine authorities said a car---a rented silver Nissan Altima with Massachusetts plates---was seized from the Portland airport Tuesday evening. (“US Says It Has Identified Hijackers”)
On the next day, September 13, CNN named the Bukharis as the renters of the Nissan and said that the car found at Boston, now identified as a Mitsubishi, was rented by Atta:
"Two of the men were brothers, . . . Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Abbas Bukhari. . . . The two rented a car, a silver-blue Nissan Altima, from an Alamo car rental at Boston's Logan Airport and drove to an airport in Portland, Maine, where they got on US Airways Flight 5930 at 6 AM Tuesday headed back to Boston. . . . A Mitsubishi sedan impounded at Logan Airport was rented by [Mohamed] Atta, sources said. The car contained materials, including flight manuals, written in Arabic that law enforcement sources called “helpful” to the investigation." (“Two Brothers among Hijackers”)
Another CNN report that same day said that law enforcement authorities were led to the Bukhari brothers by documents connected to the Nissan (“Hijack Suspect Detained, Cooperating with FBI”).
A Problem Emerges
However, that same day (September 13), CNN issued a correction (“Feds Think They’ve Identified Some Hijackers”), pointing out that neither of the Bukharis had died on 9/11: Ameer had died the year before and Adnan was still alive. CNN apologized for the “misinformation,” which had been “[b]ased on information from multiple law enforcement sources.”
However, this discovery did not immediately lead to a complete change of story. For example, the next day (September 14), CNN said: “A Mitsubishi sedan [Atta] rented was found at Boston's Logan Airport. Arabic language materials were found in the car” (Mike Fish, “Fla. Flight Schools May Have Trained Hijackers”).
The Emergence of the Final Story
That same day, however, the story began to change more drastically. An Associated Press report, referring to “two suspects in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center,” said:
One of the two suspects who boarded a flight in Portland was Mohamed Atta, 33. . . . The 2001 Nissan Altima used by the men came from the same Boston rental location as another car used by additional suspects that contained incriminating materials when it was seized at Boston's Logan Airport.
Once in Maine, the suspects spent the night at the Comfort Inn in South Portland before boarding the plane the next morning. (“Portland Police Eye Local Ties”)
Suddenly, the Nissan Altima had been driven to Portland by Atta and his companion, who had then flown back to Boston the next morning. But the transition to what would become the accepted narrative was not yet complete. The incriminating materials were still found in a rental car left at Logan---although this car was now said to have been rented by unnamed “additional suspects,” not by Atta.
The complete transition was made on September 16, in the aforementioned Washington Post article by Joel Achenbach, which had the incriminating evidence found in Atta’s luggage.
This new story was soon fleshed out with various details, including physical evidence that Atta and al-Omari had been in Portland the night before the attacks. One article said:
The FBI released a detailed chronology Thursday [October 4] showing that two of the suspected hijackers in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center spent their final hours in Greater Portland. . . . After checking in at the motel, Atta and Alomari were seen . . . [b]etween 8 and 9 PM . . . at Pizza Hut; at 8:31 PM, they were videotaped by a KeyBank automatic teller machine, and videotaped again at 8:41 PM at a Fast Green ATM next to Pizzeria Uno. . . . At . . . 9:22 PM, Atta was caught on videotape in the Wal-Mart in Scarborough. (“The Night Before Terror,” Portland Press Herald, October 5, 2001)
The Mysteries and the Contradiction
This new story solved a problem created by the discovery that the Bukharis had not died on 9/11---how to explain why a rental car left at the Portland airport could have led authorities to two of the hijackers. This solution, however, created the mystery of why Atta would have taken this trip plus the problem of explaining the well-reported fact that incriminating materials had been found at Logan Airport. This latter problem was solved by saying that they were found in Atta’s luggage, which did not make it onto Flight 11. But this solution created, in turn, the mystery as to why Atta’s luggage failed to make the flight. The main problem facing the new story, however, is simply the fact that it is a new story, which radically contradicts what the authorities had said the first few days.
The 9/11 Commission dealt with this contradiction by simply ignoring it. It did not mention the early reports that the Nissan left at the Portland airport had documents leading the FBI to Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, that the Bukharis had taken the early morning flight from Portland to Boston, that the FBI was led to Atta (along with Marwan al-Shehhi) by information found in a Mitsubishi left at Boston’s Logan Airport, or that this Mitsubishi was where the treasure trove of information was found. It instead simply told the new story as if it had been the story all along.
Congress and the press need to ask why this contradiction exists and why the 9/11 Commission ignored it. This essay is an abbreviated version of Chapter 16 of Dr. Griffin's 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, March, 2008).
Global Research Articles by David Ray Griffin
Labels: Atta, false flag, luggage, no planes
Bleier: Intro to Morgan Reynolds on No planes on 911
9/11: Plane huggers vs. no planers:
An introductory note to an article by Morgan Reynolds
by Ronald Bleier
For those still grappling with which of the three main versions of what really happened on 9/11, the U.S. government’s official version, or the LIHOP or MIHOP versions,(1) you may be better advised to file this post in the appropriate place unless and until you become convinced that the U.S. government planned and executed the terror attacks of that day (MIHOP).
Advocates of MIHOP may feel that Morgan Reynolds’s (2)article on the subject serves as an excellent introduction to evidence suggesting that no civilian jetliners were involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.
I suspect that many will be put off by the counterintuitive nature of the no planes theory, since “we all saw” a plane going into the South Tower on TV in real time.(3) Yes, I know, the no planes thesis may at first be hard to accept. However, once one begins looking at some of the evidence as presented by Morgan Reynolds, and before him, Gerard Holmgren (4) and Rosalee Grable (5)and others, I think many will agree that the evidence doesn’t support the use of planes.
Because the no planes theory is so counterintuitive, few established 9/11 researchers are eager to take up the inquiry despite its plausibility. As an independent researcher with little at stake, it is relatively easy for me to follow the no planes evidence where it leads, especially as it begins to seem the most persuasive and the one most in conformity with Occam’s Razor.
It’s disturbing but not surprising that MIHOP plane huggers, like Jim Hoffman, use their often well-deserved reputations to attack advocates of the no planes thesis with harsh and sometimes ad hominem attacks. Some make no bones about suggesting that their motives are to disassociate themselves from theories that they consider likely to put off potential converts to 9/11 inquiry.
The irony is that many 9/11 researchers have in the past decried the unwillingness of proponents of the official theory to look calmly and carefully at the evidence that has already been uncovered. And yet, when it comes to the no planes theory some “establishment” researchers are similarly loath to directly address the evidence.
If you’re like me, and you look forward to finding out the truth about 9/11 for its own sake and for what it tells us about the Bush administration, about the U.S. government and the media, about the world’s intelligence services and security agencies, about the history of the 20th and 21st century, you’ll be delighted with this brilliant article by Morgan Reynolds.
It’s not my purpose here to summarize Morgan Reynolds’s key arguments, but I can’t resist highlighting one of his smoking guns that should be easy for many to visualize.
Reynolds asks the simple question: What happened to the wreckage of the two jetliners that supposedly crashed into the North and South WTC towers? There’s no independent evidence on video or in still photographs, much less in evidence presented by the government, of wreckage consistent with Boeing 767s. If the jetliners flew into the Towers they should have struck some of their 47 core columns. In that case the tails and parts of their fuselages should have remained stuck outside of the buildings or fallen to the ground for all to see and photograph. Needless to say, no such evidence has ever been presented.
Under the circumstances, the government’s production of Mohammed Atta’s undamaged passport is ludicrous, and is as damaging to their case as is anything else.
Here is a link to Morgan Reynolds’s important article.
(An alternate title for his article might be: The case against the use of jetliners in the 9/11 attacks)
Morgan Reynolds: We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories
1. LIHOP = Let it Happen On Purpose; MIHOP = Made it Happen on Purpose
2. Reynolds is a member of the National Center for Policy Analysis. See his bio on: http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/about/Morgan.html
3. Even as one writes such a phrase – “we all saw the plane crashing into the South Tower in real time,” we recognize that it raises questions. For example: how did it happen that camera crews were ready to film the second plane coming into the Tower when all eyes were on the North Tower which had been struck less than 20 minutes earlier.
5. (http://thewebfairy.com/911 http://missilegate.com)
Xymphora update on London Bombings
Xmymphora's update on London Bombings
Sunday, January 29, 2006
London bombers not terrorists
MI5 has spent months investigating the July 7 London bombing, and has not been able to find any connection between the bombers and Islamic terrorism. No big surprise, considering that they were almost certainly tricked into thinking they were drug mules, and had no intention of blowing up anything (drug dealing pays well). I am a bit surprised that MI5 hasn't been able to make up a story by now. Could the leaking of this MI5 report be an indication that there is some dissent in the British ruling class to framing the incident on Islamic terrorism?