by Elizabeth Woodworth
Elizabeth Woodworth is a retired professional health sciences librarian, and
a freelance writer.
She is the author of two published books and many
articles on political and social justice issues.
Reflections on a Recent Evaluation of Dr. David Ray
December 12, 2009
The cover story of the September 24, 2009, issue of The New Statesman,
the venerable left-leaning British magazine, was entitled “The
50 People who Matter Today.”(1) Any such list,
necessarily reflecting the bias and limited awareness of the editors, would
surely contain choices that readers would find surprising.
That is true of this list – which includes families as well as individuals.
A good number of names are, to be sure, ones
that would be contained in most such lists created by British, Canadian, or
American political commentators, such as the Obamas, the Murdochs, Vladimir
Putin, Osama bin Laden, Angela Merkel, Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren
Buffett, Pope Benedict XVI, and Gordon Brown.
But about half of the names reflected choices
that I, and probably most other readers, found surprising. One of these
choices, however, is beyond surprising - it is astounding.
I refer to the person in the 41st position:
David Ray Griffin, a retired professor
of philosophy of religion and theology who, in 2003, started writing and
lecturing about 9/11, pointing out problems in the official account of the
events of that day.
By the time the New Statesman article appeared, he had
published 8 books, 50 articles, and several DVDs.
Because of both the quantity and quality of his
work, he became widely regarded as the chief spokesperson of what came to be
called “the 9/11 Truth Movement.” It was because of this role that the New
Statesman included him in its list, calling him the “top truther” (the
“conspiracy theorist” title went to
Dan Brown, who was placed in the 50th
In saying Griffin “matters”, however, the New Statesman was not praising
him. Here is how the magazine explained its choice:
“Conspiracy theories are everywhere, and
they always have been. In recent years, one of the most pernicious
global myths has been that the US government carried out, or at least
colluded in, the 11 September 2001 attacks as a pretext for going to
war. David Ray Griffin, a retired professor of religion, is the high
priest of the ‘truther’ movement.
His books on the subject have lent a sheen
of respectability that appeals to people at the highest levels of
government - from Michael Meacher MP to Anthony ‘Van’ Jones, who was
recently forced to resign as Barack Obama's ‘green jobs’ adviser after
it emerged that he had signed a 9/11 truth petition in 2004.”
I wish to raise two questions about the New
Statesman’s treatment of Griffin.
First, is its evaluation of him as one
of the most important people in the world today simply absurd, as it
certainly seems at first glance, or is there a perspective from
which it makes sense?
Second on what basis could the editors
justify their claim that the 9/11 truth movement is promoting a
“myth” – and a “pernicious” one at that?
The Inclusion of
Griffin in the List: Does It Make Sense?
Why would Griffin’s role as “top truther” – as the intellectual leader of
the 9/11 truth movement - lead the magazine’s editors to consider him one of
the “50 people who matter today”?
Unlike a president, a prime minister, or a pope,
he has no political clout; unlike a billionaire, he has no financial clout;
and his book sales do not begin to rival those of Dan Brown. Indeed, his
books do not even get reviewed in the press. The idea that he is one of the
50 people who matter most in the world today is, as he himself has said,
absurd – at least from most angles.
There is, however, one angle from which it does make sense:
Given the enormity of the 9/11 attacks and
of the policies, both foreign and domestic, that have been justified as
responses to those attacks, a movement challenging the official story of
the attacks certainly could, in principle, become so influential that
its intellectual leader would be a person of consequence.
And the movement has, in fact, grown enormously
in both size and credibility since 2004 and 2005, when Griffin published his
first two books on the subject – “The
New Pearl Harbor” and “The
9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” – and began
working, with colleague Peter Dale Scott, on an edited volume that
was published in 2006 as “9/11
and the American Empire - Intellectuals Speak Out.”
Due in large part to these volumes - plus the national exposure Griffin
received when his 2005 lecture at the University of Wisconsin in Madison was
carried by C-SPAN - a small group of academics formed Scholars for 9/11
Truth, which led in turn to the formation of
for 9/11 Truth and Justice, the leaders of which launched the
Journal of 9/11 Studies in 2006.
The existence of these scholarly organizations stimulated the creation of
three professional organizations:
...which was formed after architect Richard
Gage, a conservative Republican, heard an interview with Professor
Griffin on his car radio that would change his life. In it, Griffin was
describing the newly released oral testimonies from the dozens of New York
firefighters a who had heard booming explosions in the Twin Towers.(2)
After looking into the evidence for himself and
concluding that the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings could
not have resulted from anything other than explosives, Gage formed his
organization of architects and engineers, which now has almost 1000 licensed
While these developments were occurring, translations were made of some of
Griffin’s books, beginning with “The New Pearl Harbor,” which was published
in Italian, Chinese, Danish, Czech, French, Dutch, Japanese, and Arabic.
Thanks in part to these translations, a worldwide movement is now calling
for 9/11 truth.
Also, this movement, which at one time was discounted as crazy conspiracy
theorists playing around on the Internet, has now become widely
professionalized, with Griffin again a critical influence in his consultant
role to the emerging organizations of journalists, lawyers, medical
professionals, religious leaders, and political leaders.
One of those organizations,
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, includes
in its membership British MP Michael Meacher, who has, according to
the New Statesman, succumbed to the “sheen of respectability” given to “the
‘truther’ movement” by Griffin’s books.
The New Statesman would presumably look equally
askance at other members of this organization, including Senator Yukihisa
Fujita, one of the leading members of the new ruling party of Japan, who
made a nationally televised presentation questioning the official account or
9/11, and Ferdinando Imposimato, a former Italian senator and judge
who presided over the trial of the assassination of President Aldo Moro and
the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II.
If political leaders are so easily taken in by a “pernicious global myth”
about 9/11 because of the “sheen of respectability” lent to it by Griffin’s
books, one could hopefully look to firefighters, who are generally
practical, sensible people, for reassurance about the truth of the official
account of 9/11.
This hope is dashed, however, by the testimonies
about explosions in the Twin Towers by dozens of firefighters, some of whom
Richard Gage heard Griffin discussing on that interview in 2006. New York
firefighters lost 343 of their own on September 11. The members of
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth are demanding the investigation and
prosecution of those involved in arranging explosions, destroying evidence,
and orchestrating a cover-up.
One thing bringing Griffin to the attention of the editors of the New
Statesman may have been the selection of his seventh book about 9/11, “The
New Pearl Harbor Revisited,” by America’s foremost book trade reviewer,
Publishers Weekly, as its “Pick of the Week” on November 24, 2008. This
honor, which is bestowed on only 51 books a year, perhaps increased the
sheen of respectability these editors attribute to Griffin’s books.
And, if the New Statesman did its homework in researching its #41 position,
it would have found that Griffin was nominated in both 2008 and 2009 for the
Nobel Peace Prize.
Whatever the case, there can be no doubt that the 9/11 truth movement, which
Griffin has done more than any other single person to bring to its present
level of professionalism and credibility, now poses a significant threat to
the public narrative about 9/11, which has been accepted as a basis for
policy by virtually all governments and news organizations around the world.
The decision of the New Statesman to include Griffin on the list of people
who matter today does make sense, therefore, insofar as it was saying that
the movement he represents is important. This way of understanding it was,
in fact, Griffin’s own, as soon as he learned about the article.
In a letter to fellow members of the 9/11 truth
community, he said:
“We should take this [New Statesman] article
as a reluctant tribute to the effectiveness of our movement.” (3)
Does the 9/11 Truth
Movement Promote a Pernicious Myth?
My second questions is:
On what basis could the New Statesman
editors justify their claim that this 9/11 truth movement promotes a
“myth” - a “pernicious” one at that?
To call it a “myth” implies that it is not true.
But why is it “pernicious”?
If the New Statesman were a right-wing magazine, we could assume that it
would regard the 9/11 truth movement’s central claim – “that the US
government carried out, or at least colluded in, the 11 September 2001
attacks as a pretext for going to war” – as pernicious because it seeks to
undermine the imperialist wars justified by 9/11. But surely the
left-leaning New Statesman does not share that view.
The word “pernicious” might simply mean that the myth “that the US
government carried out, or at least colluded in, the 11 September 2001
attacks as a pretext for going to war,” is too morally repugnant to accept.
But that gut reaction does not bear on the truth
or falsity of the possibility, especially in light of all the morally
repugnant things carried out by the Bush-Cheney administration that have
already been publicly documented.
More likely, the New Statesman shares the view of left-leaning
intellectuals, such as Alexander Cockburn and George Monbiot,
that the 9/11 movement is distracting many left-leaning people from
dealing with truly important issues.
However, would many people who regard 9/11 as a false-flag operation – in
which forces within the US government orchestrated the attacks to have a
pretext for, among other things, going to war against oil-rich Muslim
countries - consider the attempt to reveal this truth a distraction from
important issues? Surely not.
For the Statesman to call the central claim of the 9/11 truth movement
“pernicious,” therefore, seems to be simply another way of calling it a
“myth” – of saying that it is false.
If so, the question becomes:
On what basis would the editors of the New
Statesman argue that the position of the 9/11 truth movement, as
articulated in Griffin’s writings, is false?
I will suggest a possible way they could do
this: They could use the pages of their magazine to explain why the
cumulative case Griffin has constructed against the official story is
To assist them in this task, I have provided
below a summary of some of the main points in Griffin’s case, with page
references to his most comprehensive work, “The
New Pearl Harbor Revisited” (NPHR - 2008), and his most recent book, “The
Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7.”
Elements in Griffin’s
Cumulative Case Against the Official Account of 9/11
Evidence that the attacks were carried out by Arab
Muslims belonging to al-Qaeda
The FBI, which does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which
bin Laden is wanted, has explicitly admitted that it “has
no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” (NPHR 206-11).
Mohamed Atta and the other alleged hijackers, far from being devout Muslims
ready to die as martyrs, regularly drank heavily, went to strip clubs, and
paid for sex (NPHR 153-55).
The main evidence for hijackers on the planes was provided by phone calls,
purportedly from passengers or crew members on the airlines, reporting that
the planes had been taken over by Middle-Eastern men. About 15 of these
calls were specifically identified as cell phone calls, with Deena Burnett,
for example, reporting that she had recognized her husband’s cell phone
number on her Caller ID.
But after the 9/11 truth movement pointed out
that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners would have been
impossible, given the cell phone technology available in 2001, the FBI
changed its story, saying that all the calls, except two made from a very
low altitude, had been made using onboard phones.
Although US Solicitor General Ted Olson claimed that his wife,
Barbara Olson, phoned him twice from AA 77, describing hijackers with
knives and box-cutters, his widely reported story was contradicted by FBI
evidence presented to the Moussaoui Trial in 2006, which said that the only
call attempted by her was “unconnected” and (therefore) lasted “0 seconds” (NPRH
Although the decisive evidence proving that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the
attacks was originally said to have been found in a rented Mitsubishi that
Mohamed Atta had left in the airport parking lot in Boston, the present
story says that it was found in luggage that did not get loaded onto
American Flight 11 from the commuter flight that Atta took that morning from
This story changed after it emerged that Adnan
and Ameer Bukhari, originally said to have been the hijackers who boarded
American 11 after taking that commuter flight from Portland, had not died on
The other types of reputed evidence for Muslim hijackers, such as security
videos at airports, passports discovered at the crash sites, and a headband
discovered at the crash site of United 93, show clear signs of having been
fabricated (NPHR 170-73).
In addition to the absence of evidence for hijackers on the planes, there is
also evidence of their absence: Although the pilots could have easily
“squawked” the universal hijack code in two or three few seconds, not one of
the eight pilots on the four airliners did this (NPHR 175-79).
The Secret Service, after being informed that a second World Trade Center
building had been attacked - which would have meant that unknown terrorists
were going after high-value targets - and that still other planes had
apparently been hijacked, allowed President
Bush to remain at the unprotected school in Sarasota,
Florida, for another 30 minutes.
The Secret Service thereby betrayed its
knowledge that the airliners were not under the control of hostile
Evidence of a
“stand-down” order preventing interception of the four planes
Given standard operating procedures between the FAA and the military,
according to which planes showing signs of an in-flight emergency are
normally intercepted within about 10 minutes, the military’s failure to
intercept any of the flights implies that something, such as a stand-down
order, prevented standard procedures from being carried out (NPHR 1-10,
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta reported an episode in
which Vice President Cheney, while in the bunker under the White
House, apparently confirmed a stand-down order at about 9:25 AM, which was
prior to the strike on the Pentagon. (NPHR 94-96).
The 9/11 Commission did not include this testimony from Mineta in its report
and claimed that Cheney did not enter the bunker until almost 10:00, which
was at least 40 minutes later than Mineta and several other witnesses
reported his being there (NPHR 91-94).
The 9/11 Commission’s timeline for Cheney that morning even contradicted
what Cheney himself had told Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” five
days after 9/11 (NPHR 93).
Evidence that the
official story about the Pentagon cannot be true
Hani Hanjour, who according to his flight instructors could not safely fly a
single-engine airplane, could not have possibly executed the extraordinary
trajectory reportedly taken by American Flight 77 in order to hit Wedge 1 of
the Pentagon (NPHR 78-80).
Wedge 1 would have been the least likely part of the Pentagon to be targeted
by foreign terrorists:
It was remote from the offices of the top
brass; it was the only part of the Pentagon that had been reinforced;
and it was still being renovated and hence was only sparsely occupied (NPHR
Evidence that the
official story about the destruction of the World Trade Center cannot be
Because the Twin Towers were supported by 287 steel columns, including 47
massive core columns, they could not have come straight down, largely into
their own footprints, unless these columns had been severed by explosives.
Therefore, the official theory - according to
which the buildings were brought down solely by fire plus, in the case of
the Twin Towers, the impact of the planes – is scientifically impossible (NPHR
Many other things that occurred during the destruction of the Twin Towers,
such as the horizontal ejections of steel beams from the top floors and the
liquefying of steel and other metals with melting points far above any
temperature that could have produced by fire, can only be explained by
powerful explosives (NPHR 30-36).
The almost perfectly symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, which was supported by
82 steel columns, could only have occurred if all 82 of those columns had
been sliced simultaneously (MC Ch. 10).
In its final report on WTC 7, issued in November 2008, NIST admitted that
this building had come down in absolute free fall for over two seconds. NIST,
however, was still affirming a theory of progressive collapse caused by
fire, which, as NIST had explained the previous August, could not possibly
result in absolute free fall, because the lower floors would offer
resistance. NIST was able to avoid admitting that explosives had brought the
building down, in other words, only by continuing to affirm its fire theory
after admitting that it could not explain one of the empirical facts it had
come to acknowledge (MC Ch. 10).
Journalists, city officials, WTC employees, and over 100 members of the Fire
Department of New York testified to having witnessed massive explosions in
the World Trade Center buildings (NPHR 27-30, 45-48, 51).
A scientist who had formerly worked for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), which produced the official reports on the world
Trade Center, reported in 2007 that it had been “fully hijacked from the
scientific to the political realm,” so that its scientists had become little
more than “hired guns” (NPHR 11, 238-51).
The fact that NIST in writing its reports functioned as a political rather
than a scientific agency is illustrated with special clarity by its report
on WTC 7, in which it not only omitted all the evidence pointing to the
occurrence of explosives (MC Chs. 3-5), but also falsified and even
fabricated evidence to support its claim that the building was brought down
by fire (Chs. 7-10).
Until the editors of the New Statesman are able to refute Griffin’s
cumulative argument, we can agree with their view that Griffin, by virtue of
his role in the 9/11 truth movement, has become a person of global
importance, while rejecting as groundless their charge that the growing
importance of this movement is pernicious.
1.New Statesman. “The 50 People Who Matter
Today,” September 24, 2009 (http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2009/09/world-fashion-gay-india-church
2. New York Times. “The Sept. 11 Records. A rich vein of city records
from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories
rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency
medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has
published all of them.” http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
3. New Statesman Cover Story: David Ray Griffin 41st Most Influential
Person in the World!” 911 Blogger, September 26, 2009, posted by Adam
A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010
February 15, 2010
In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11
attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets
aired analytic programs investigating the official account.
Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of
debate, rather than as a "conspiracy theory" ignoring science and common
This essay presents these media analyses in the form of 18 case studies.
Eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting
stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the
official account of 9/11.
This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have
included the Japanese media – might be a sign that worldwide public and
corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing
their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that
forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation
that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military
The evidence now being explored in the
international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth
look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine
the country's foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge.
Until 2009, doubts about the official 9/11 story were briefly entertained by
the mainstream media on each anniversary of the event, allowing the
independent research community only a fleeting moment once a year to
publicly voice its findings.
But after crucial scientific evidence emerged in April 2009 to challenge the
official story of how the towers fell, a spate of European media reports
followed. The news coverage of this evidence seems to have opened the door
to more serious reflection on all aspects of the 9/11 issue in the major
The first paper in my series, "The Media Response to 9/11" (above report),
dealt with the New Statesman's grudging recognition of Dr. David Ray
Griffin, the world's "top truther" (as it dubbed him), placing him
number 41 among "The
50 People who Matter Today."1
Since this admission in September 2009, the
issue has gathered increasing momentum.
The collective content issuing from this new momentum is presented here in
the hope that it will embolden other major media to take up the pivotal
controversy concerning 9/11, and pursuing the truth wherever it may lead.
Observations on the
While carrying out my analysis, I observed five new features in the media
treatment of the 9/11 issue that developed as 2009 progressed.
They are listed here, so that readers might look
for them in the case studies that follow below:
The 9/11 issue is increasingly framed
not as conspiracy theories versus hard science, but as a legitimate
controversy resting on unanswered questions and a search for truth.
News reports and television programs
examining these controversies have become longer and more balanced.
Major media outlets have begun to
present the claims of the truth movement first, followed by
counter-arguments from defenders of the official story.
Major media outlets have begun to
include, and even to introduce, extensive evidence to support the
claims of the 9/11 truth community.
The media treatments increasingly
suggest the possibility of a re-investigation into the events of
September 11, 2001.
The first part of this essay deals with the
crucial scientific evidence that emerged in early 2009, the significance of
this evidence in relation to the official story of 9/11, and the immediate
news coverage it received.
II. Scientific Paper
Finds Nano-thermite Explosives in World Trade Center Dust, April 3, 2009
A peer-reviewed paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal
on April 3, 2009,2 reported that a little known high-tech
nano-thermite was found throughout
the World Trade Center dust.
These physicists and chemists involved in this study discovered "distinctive
red/gray chips in significant numbers" 3 in four samples of dust
collected from the area. The presence of aluminum and iron oxide in the red
material provided one of the signs that it might be nano-thermite, which is
a high explosive (whereas ordinary thermite is an incendiary.)
Another clue was provided when putting a flame to the chips produced an
On the basis of these and other observations, the team concluded that "the
red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is
active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a
highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material." 4
The article's first-named author, Dr. Niels Harrit – a University of
Copenhagen chemistry professor who specializes in nano-chemistry 5
explained on Danish TV2 News:
"Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a
mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat.
The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can
be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron.
"So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny
particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops
much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off
intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more
energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.
"You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted
What was the significance of this sophisticated
Reported Evidence that Nano-thermite is a
In a German interview in May 2009, Dr. Harrit said:
"There are no experts on nano-thermite
without connections to the military... This stuff has only been
prepared under military contracts in the USA and probably in bigger
allied countries. This is secret military research... It was not prepared in a
cave in Afghanistan." 7
Chemist Kevin Ryan, another co-author,
had reported in an earlier article that explosive nano-thermite, which may
be painted onto surfaces, was developed by US government scientists at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.8
A United States Department of Defense special publication confirms that work
on these "energetic materials" has long been "performed in laboratories
within all military services." 9
According to a June 2009 statement by Britain's prestigious Institute of
Nanotechnology,10 the Harrit study,
"provides indisputable evidence that a
highly engineered explosive called nano-thermite was found in the dust
of all three buildings that came down on 9/11 2001 in New York city.
[sic] This advanced explosive incorporating nanotechnology is only
available to sophisticated military labs." 11
It thus became known by mid-2009 that explosives
of military origin, probably in the United States, had been involved in the
World Trade Center collapses.
Early Coverage of the Nano-thermite Finding in
the European Mainstream Press
Although the new scientific evidence against the official story of 9/11 was
not reported in the mainstream British or North American media, it did
receive attention in continental Europe.
The day the article was published, a thorough essay in the Danish journal
Videnskab (Science) examined both sides of the controversy about
The same issue of Videnskab also carried an interview with Professor Harrit,
who answered pointed questions about the peer-review history of the article,
and the military nature of nano-thermite.13
The following day, Denmark's politiken.dk reported the scientific
nano-thermite paper in an article called (in Danish) "Conspiracy theories
about 9/11 get new life."14
Then, the day after Professor Harrit's April 6 interview Danish TV2 News, he
was featured on the popular talk show, "Good Morning Denmark", on which he
"The material we found is super hi-tech
frontline military research. It's not a mixture of random chemicals.
It's an advanced material which is difficult to get information on. But
some conference papers and internal reports have been published... There
has to be a normal forensic investigation of this attempt. Our research
is high-level forensic work. We have provided technical evidence that
can be used in the future investigation."15
On April 13, an online Croatian political
newspaper posted the Danish TV2 video interview with Harrit along with an
article titled "VIDEO:
9/11 No Longer Taboo Topic in Denmark".16
Russia also took notice.
On July 9, Laura Emmett, the London correspondent
for RT, interviewed Dr. Niels Harrit for over 10 minutes. (RT, previously
known as Russia Today, is a globally broadcast English-language channel
sponsored by the state-owned news agency RIA Novosti. It reaches 1.5 million
people monthly, including half a million Americans.)
Stating that "the evidence for controlled
demolition is overwhelming", Harrit reported that the nano-thermite reaction
produced pools of molten iron beneath the rubble and inextinguishable fires
that lasted for months.17
I turn now to ways that
the mainstream news coverage of the case against the
official story has changed since the appearance of the nano-thermite paper.
III. The Changing
Mainstream Media Treatment of 9/11 Evidence from early 2009 to early 2010
18 Case Studies
Two February 2009 news items illustrate the wary mainstream attitude towards
conspiracy theorists early in the year.
A New York Times article said about
actor Daniel Sunjata:
The second episode of "Rescue Me's" fifth
season, starting in April, may represent the first fictional
presentation of 9/11 conspiracy theories by a mainstream media
company... Mr. Sunjata's character delivers a two-minute
monologue... describing a "neoconservative government effort" to control the
world's oil, drastically increase military spending and "change the
definition of pre-emptive attack."
Mr. Sunjata surprised some of the TV reporters when he said that he
"absolutely, 100 percent" supports the assertion that "9/11 was an inside
Fox News was somewhat less constrained, saying:
An upcoming episode of the drama "Rescue Me" is about 9/11 being an inside
job. The actor who spews the theories on camera, Daniel Sunjata, actually
believes in it too.
Look, the fact is, actors who barf this crap are doing it for their own
egos. It makes them feel smart, because for once they're spouting something
provocative instead of puerile. Never mind that it's an insidious insult to
the victims of 9/11 – as it is to the rest of us, who may or may not be
guilty, according to Sunjata's theory.19
However, things started to change after the appearance of the nano-thermite
paper on April 3, as may be seen from the following case studies of media
reports, each of which is identified as having corporate, public, or
The case studies reveal the evidence which has been introduced into public
consciousness during the past year.
Case Study 1
The Dutch TV Mock Trial of Osama bin Laden, April
On April 8, 2009, a popular TV
program called "Devil's Advocate" held a mock trial of Osama bin Laden
with lawyers arguing before a politically balanced civil jury of five
The case against bin Laden was argued by two real-world opponents:
Real-world lawyer Gerald Spong acted
as bin Laden's defense attorney.20
Spong presented new evidence from a videotape of Professor Emeritus of
Islamic Studies Gernot Rotter, saying that the American translators who
transcribed the bin Laden tapes of the November 9, 2001 "confession
video" have "clearly added things in many places – things that are not
there even when listening multiple times."21
Spong won. Although the jury found bin Laden to be a terrorist, it said
there was no proof that he had ordered the 9/11 attacks.
Through this method, this program on
AVRO – the Dutch public
broadcasting organization – presented evidence, not previously seen in
the major media, against the likelihood that bin Laden ordered the
On April 15, Fox News reported the Dutch jury findings in a long and
unusually balanced article, in which former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani
was quoted six times, saying that bin Laden's exoneration sent a
"disturbing message" to the world and fueled conspiracy theories.
Giuliani variously called this message "bizarre," "dangerous,"
"aberrational," "irrational," and "unfortunate."22
However, referring to Spong as a "well-known yet controversial
attorney," Fox mentioned him 10 times, and more substantively, reporting
his evidence that the bin Laden videos seemed inauthentic, as well as
his point that the FBI has not indicted bin Laden for the attacks.
Concluding Comment: (AVRO is publicly owned, but Fox News is corporate.)
Neither of these two mainstream treatments of doubts about the official
story was broadcast on the customary anniversary date, and both reached
millions of people.
Case Study 2
Architect Richard Gage in Canada's "Financial
Post", April 25, 2009
One of Canada's top four
English-language newspapers, the conservative National Post, publishes
its business section as the Financial Post.
Three weeks after the nano-thermite story broke, Jonathan Kay, a
National Post columnist and editor with degrees in both engineering and
law, wrote an article about
Richard Gage, the "lucid" San Francisco
architect who heads up the 1,000-strong "Architects and Engineers for
Kay, who himself endorses the official story of 9/11, described Gage as
"respectable-looking middle-aged" architect, "complete with suit and
tie, and receding hairline," and reported that Gage's organization
"scored a booth at the upcoming American Institute of Architects
conference from April 30 to May 2."
In the midst of references to thermite reactions and iron-oxide-based
explosives, Kay wrote of controlled demolitions:
"As radical as Gage's theory may sound
to readers, it's surprisingly popular. The '9/11 Truth Movement'... has millions of adherents across the
world. Many believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed on Sept.
11 through controlled demolition set in motion by officials within
America's own government and military."
Gage's presentation was also described as "effective":
"In one particularly effective segment, he puts up shots of the
localized fires that broke out in the lower floors of WTC Building 7
hours before it collapsed. Seconds later, he shows footage of Beijing's
Mandarin Oriental hotel – which suffered an epic top-to-bottom
conflagration in 2009... and remained standing."
Concluding Comment: (Corporate).
Besides reporting Gage's evidence
without any attempted refutation, this corporate-press writer remarked
"no major media outlet has done a truly comprehensive profile or
investigation of the Truther movement."
He thereby seemed to be
suggesting that it is now time to take the 9/11 truth movement
Case Study 3
Norwegian State Radio's Public Debate on 9/11
Truth, May 21, 2009
Professor Harrit, who was
lecturing in Norway in late May 2009, was interviewed by public radio
program "Here and Now",24 on NRK (the Norwegian Broadcasting
Harrit presented the findings of the nano-thermite paper, which were
then discussed by three Norwegian scientists who did not support his
Following the radio program, an extended email debate continued between
Dr. Ola Nilsen, who teaches chemistry at the University of Oslo, and Dr.
Steven Jones, a co-author of the nano-thermite paper who formerly taught
physics at Brigham Young University.
This debate, during which Nilsen
somewhat modified his original view, was posted to a Norwegian blogsite
Concluding Comment: (Public).
Although NRK in this April program
challenged the findings of the Harrit paper, this was to change by late
summer, as we shall see below.
Case Study 4
Architect Richard Gage on Fox News, May 28, 2009
The hosts of Fox News on KMPH in
Fresno, California, began their 7-minute interview by saying,
architect experienced in steel structures. Now Richard Gage is... here to
show us why he's calling for a more thorough investigation into the
collapse of the World Trade Center buildings."26
These two anchors actively encouraged Gage's discussion of the ten key
features of controlled demolition.
He was allowed to explain the
free-fall acceleration of
WTC 7 (shown on his two video frames as
dropping at the same rate as a second building felled by controlled
demolition) and the "uncanny" failure of 40,000 tons of structural steel
columns that were designed to resist its collapse.
Although normal office fires were said to have caused the collapses, he
explained, various firefighters had reported large pools of molten iron
at ground level.
"What produced all that molten iron?" he asked.
The answer, he said, was found in the inches of dust covering lower
"The by-product of thermite is molten iron and it's dispersed
throughout all this dust... and there are small chips of unignited thermite
as well. This is very high-tech thermite – nano-thermite. It's not found
in a cave in Afghanistan; it's produced in very sophisticated defense
department contracting laboratories... [its] particles are one-thousand
times smaller than a human hair."
Asked whether bin Laden might have had access to the buildings, Gage
said probably not – that someone else who had access to nano-thermite,
and to the buildings' security systems, would need to be investigated.
Someone who had access to the elevator modernization, which was going on
nine months earlier and was "immediately adjacent to the core columns
and beams in the building."
Concluding Comment: (Corporate)
This Fox News show began by asking Gage
about his credentials, saying,
"We ask that for clarification so that as
we get into this, we want people to make sure that you're not just
someone with a wacky idea... you come with some science to you."
program ended with a sincere thank-you to Gage for "opening up a lot to
think about," and an announcement that there is "a great deal of
information" on the KMPH.com website. In short, Gage was treated with
the respect due to any serious participant in an important and
The next major mainstream event was the
Russia Today program of July 9,
2009, which was covered above, so we will move directly to the
anniversary period of September 2009, when further evidence of the
impact of the nano-thermite discovery became apparent.
Case Study 5
The National Geographic Documentary, "9/11:
Science and Conspiracy", August 31, 2009
In late August, 2009, the
National Geographic Channel (NGC) aired a two-hour documentary, "9/11
- Science and Conspiracy," which sought to answer several questions,
caused the collapse of the Twin Towers? Was it from the fires, or were
explosives placed inside the buildings, causing them to implode? Did a
missile, rather than a commercial airline jet, strike the Pentagon?"
This "NatGeo" program purported to explore evidence about controlled
demolition presented by the 9/11 truth movement.
But in reality this NatGeo program was
entirely devoted to debunking their claims by using pseudo-scientific
demonstrations to refute claims that none of these men have made.
For example, in order to refute the claim that nano-thermite could have
brought down the buildings, NatGeo used ordinary thermite (with the
narrator explaining that they had no access to nano-thermite). Moreover,
instead of using the thermite to make shaped charges, which can cut
through steel, the NatGeo experimenter simply placed a bag of thermite
next to a steel column and lit it.
When the burning thermite (entirely
predictably) did not melt the column, the narrator concluded,
triumphantly, that science had disproved the claim of the conspiracy
A review in Media Life Magazine, while not fully exposing the phoniness
of the program's claim to represent "science," did point out some
Some of the issues raised by the truthers, however, aren't addressed, or
are addressed in brief asides. This leaves this documentary open to
charges of picking and choosing which points to cover. "9/11: Science
and Conspiracy" spends too much time discussing the psychology behind
conspiracy theories – which isn't really a hard science.28
A review in the New York Post quoted Sander Hicks, a journalist who is
openly a member of the 9/11 truth community, as saying that its
representatives on the program "come off as careful and professional,
unemotional, but compassionate about the truth," and that the program,
in spite of its faults, shows,
"that the topic is still relevant and that
the case isn't closed." 29
Concluding Comment: (Corporate)
This program by National Geographic
provides a good reminder of how the 9/11 truth issue has generally been
handled by the corporately-controlled media.
But it also demonstrates
the fact that the controversy is very much alive in the major media.
Case Study 6
Germany's Weekly TV Guide, "TV Hören und Sehen,"
August 31, 2009
"TV Hören und Sehen", with a paid
circulation of nearly a million copies, is owned by the Bauer Media
Group, which publishes 308 magazines in 14 countries.
The TV magazine
features interviews and articles by prominent German authors.30
It is therefore significant that on August 31, 2009, this magazine
published "Die Geheimakten von 9/11" ("The Secret Files of 9/11") as a
full double-page spread, continuing with photos on two subsequent pages.
It opened by saying:
"9/11 is officially the largest criminal case in
history – but classified documents and witness accounts are surfacing,
that speak against the official versions of the CIA and Pentagon."
It then asks what force could pulverize 200,000 tons of steel in 11.4
seconds, quoting US engineer Neel Ginson:
"In order to bring down this
kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been
artificially exploded outwards."
Ginson added that, looking closely, one
can see small explosions in the Twin Towers always occurring before the
floors are reached by the collapse line. The fact that the towers were
the first steel-frame buildings in the world to collapse because of
fire, he added, was even admitted by
NIST (the National Institute of
Science and Technology, the government agency that produced the official
Among many other questions, the article raises the issue of adjacent
World Trade Center 7, the 47-storey steel-frame building with a base the
size of a football field that collapsed at 5:20 PM the same day:
the official 9/11 investigation never mentions the building once."
With reference to the Pentagon, this article asks: How were the victims
identified by their fingerprints, when even the airplane steel had
Concluding Comment: (Corporate)
Although this article does not
specifically mention nano-thermite, it clearly suggests that artificial
explosions brought down the buildings. By not defending the official
story at all, this large-chain corporate media outlet was among the
first to give an open hearing to the independent 9/11 research
Case Study 7
Two California Newspapers Review the Role of
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, September 2009
In September 2009,
(Silicon Valley's number-one weekly magazine) and the Santa Barbara
Independent, each published slightly different versions of a long
article on the controversy surrounding the WTC building collapses.32
The Independent article – entitled "Twin Towers, Twin Myths?" – begins:
"One of the crucial technical disputes in American history, perhaps
second only to global warming, is underway. It pits hundreds of
government technicians who say the World Trade Center buildings were
brought down by airplane impact against hundreds of professional
architects and building engineers who insist that the Twin Towers could
never have collapsed solely due to the planes and are calling for a new
independent investigation. It is a fight that is not going away and is
likely to get louder as more building trade professionals sign on to one
side or the other." 33
The version in MetroActive – called "Explosive Theory" – says,
years after 9/11, a growing organization of building trades
professionals suspect that there was more to the event than the
government will admit."
It then gives a short history of Gage's now
1,000-strong organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE).34
Deputy Director Michael J. Heimbach of the FBI's counter-terrorism
division, this article adds, had recently acknowledged in a letter to
the organization that Gage's presentation is "backed by thorough
research and analysis."
One local AE member was quoted as saying "it takes too much energy" –
energy that was not there – to collapse the buildings at free-fall
speed, given the resistance that steel offers.
This was borne out, this
member continued, by a team of scientists,
"working at technical
laboratories in the United States and Denmark [who] reported in April
that analysis of dust ... gathered at the World Trade Center found evidence
of the potent incendiary/explosive 'super thermite,' used by the
Almost half of this article deals with the controversy over whether
nano-thermite was used, with most of the space allotted to evidence
supplied by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Near the end, however, spokesman
Michael Newman is brought in to defend NIST's research, saying there was
"no need" to test the dust for thermite.
But the last word was given to engineer Ed Munyak of AE, who said:
"The fact is that the collapses don't resemble any fire-induced behavior
of structures, but it exactly mimics a controlled demolition, so why not
investigate that? It's all very suspicious and that's why an independent
investigation is needed so we can all learn from this."
"Explosive Theory" also focuses pointedly on the growing number of
professional organizations and retired officials calling for a new
... two dozen retired U.S. military brass and eight former U.S. State
Department officials, along with a number of Republicans who have served
in high federal positions since President Reagan, including former
Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts and former Reagan
administration Assistant Defense Secretary (and retired Marine Corps
colonel) Ronald D. Ray.
The version in the Santa Barbara Independent concludes with an unusually
And how would America deal with such an
investigation against the backdrop of suppositions that some
officials in government were complicit? This idea is virtually
unthinkable to most of the public, much less something the American
political system can handle...
of denial, in the system and in most of our minds, are innately powerful
and probably sufficient to mitigate against a reopened investigation.
Despite this, [Richard] Gage [of AE] sees his role as provoking a better
Concluding Comment: (Independent)
The authors of this article, rather
than referring to "conspiracy theorists," present the 9/11 issue as a
"technical dispute" of historic importance.
Both versions of the article
represent a 180-degree turnaround in American newspaper reporting,
providing a useful introduction to the long-ignored research by
The Santa Barbara Independent, curious about
public opinion rather than seeking to hide it, published a local poll
asking if conspiracy was behind the collapses: 75% of respondents
Case Study 8
Dr. Niels Harrit on NRK1's "Schrödinger's Cat,"
September 10, 2009
NRK1 is the Norwegian
Broadcasting Corporation's main TV channel.
It's program "Schrödinger's
Cat", which is about scientific research and technology, comes on every
Thursday following the evening news. It has won several awards, and
averages 487,000 viewers.
For the September 10 program, Dr. Harrit was interviewed for about ten
minutes in his office and laboratory at the University of Copenhagen
Nano-Science Center, where he demonstrated the magnetic quality of a WTC
dust sample. He also showed videotape of molten iron flowing from the
upper South Tower, which was iron, not aluminum (which melts at a much
lower temperature than steel or iron).
Emphasizing that an office fire,
even if fed by jet fuel, could not possibly get hot enough to melt
steel, thereby producing iron, he concluded that the flowing iron had to
have been caused by something such as nano-thermite, which produces "an
enormous amount of heat", and molten iron is created in the process,
with a temperature of 4530° F.36
Although Harrit did not know who placed the explosives, he said, he had
no doubt that a crime had occurred.
In the final third of the program, three other people were asked for
comments. Two of the people tried to cast doubt on Harrit's conclusions,
but their comments were weak, even absurd. An architect argued that the
energy from the airliners brought the Twin Towers down and then Building
7 came down because the collapse of the towers acted like an earthquake
to weaken the ground. American buildings are weak, he explained, because
they don't use reinforced concrete.
Finally, Dr. David Ray Griffin has stated that,
"for scientists and
people who study the facts, the official story about the Twin Towers is
completely ludicrous, but for the general public it has seemed
plausible. Jet fuel fires – they seem so hot. Jet fuel's just kerosene."
Concluding Comment: (Public)
This prime-time coverage by Norway's
largest TV channel was quite a turnaround from the earlier NRK radio
coverage in May. Most of the time was given to Drs. Harrit and Griffin;
the content was groundbreaking; and the opposing views were obviously
Considering Norway's NATO membership and military
participation in the US-led operations in Afghanistan, the program could
prove to be significant.
Case Study 9
London's "Daily Mail" asks whether Osama bin Laden
is Dead, September 11, 2009
This long and detailed article
opens with the menacing bin Laden audiotape of June 3, 2009, timed to
coincide with Barack Obama's arrival on his Middle East tour, and then
moves to the new Anglo-American offensive to "hunt and kill" the al
But, the Daily Mail asks, what if bin Laden isn't alive?
What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes
since the early days after 9/11 is a fake – and that he is being kept
'alive' by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror?
Incredibly, this is the breathtaking theory that is gaining credence
among political commentators, respected academics and even terror
Professors Angelo Codevilla of Boston University and Bruce Lawrence of
Duke University point out that the early, verifiable videotapes of bin
Laden do not match the tapes that have emerged since 2002 – and even one
in late 2001.
Telltale distinguishing features include a changed facial structure and
increasing secularism in the content of the messages.
The article then presents the findings of Dr. Griffin's book on the
Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? – as "provoking shock waves".
This book presents evidence that bin Laden died, probably due to kidney
failure, in mid-December 2001, which would mean that his taped messages
since then have been faked to "stoke up waning support for the war on
terror in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Perhaps the most controversial of all the tapes was released by the
Pentagon on December 13, 2001, claiming that it had been found in a home
in Jalalabad. Prior to this tape, bin Laden had, while praising the 9/11
attacks, consistently denied responsibility for them. But the bin Laden
of this tape boasts about having planned them.
President Bush, the Blair Government, and the
mainstream media all
hailed this message as offering conclusive proof of bin Laden's guilt.
The Daily Mail, however, points to various reasons provided in Griffin's
book to believe that the man in this video was an imposter.
It refers to
the existence of a,
"highly sophisticated, special effects film
technology to morph together images and vocal recordings."
And it quotes Griffin as saying:
"The confession tape came exactly when
Bush and Blair had failed to prove Bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11
and both men were trying to win international public support,
particularly in the Islamic world, for the anti-terrorist campaign."
Far from seeking to ridicule Griffin's book, the
Daily Mail concluded
"[T]he Bin Laden tapes have emerged with clockwork regularity as
billions have been spent and much blood spilt on the hunt for him. Bin
Laden has been the central plank of the West's 'war on terror'. Could it
be that, for years, he's just been smoke and mirrors?"
Concluding Comment: (Corporate)
This 2400-word article is the first
serious mainstream coverage the evidence that Osama bin Laden is dead –
and has been for many years.
Case Study 10
The New Statesman announces Dr. David Ray Griffin
as No. 41 in "The Fifty People who Matter Today," September 24, 2009
Two weeks after the Daily Mail
article, a second corporate British publication put Griffin in 41st
place in a list of people who "matter today.” 38
Because this article was discussed in my earlier paper, Part I of this
series (above report), it is mentioned here only as a significant milepost, one that
gave (grudging) recognition to the fact that the movement challenging
the official account of 9/11 can no longer be ignored.
Its impact on the media is shown by the fact that the New Statesman
placed Dr. Griffin (who scores 200,000 results when googled) above
Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, (who scores over 11 million results)
on its list of influential people.
Concluding Comment: (Corporate)
Although the New Statesman called the
movement represented by Dr. Griffin "pernicious", its evaluation of his
importance represents a point of no return in the media coverage of 9/11
– as we shall see.
Case Study 11
Jean-Marie Bigard on France 2 Public Television,
October 28, 2009
Back in September 2008,
Jean-Marie Bigard, France's most popular stand-up comedian, was led to
apologize for claiming 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.39
But by July 2009, Bigard had started to
post humorous videos on his
website ridiculing the official account of the September 11 attacks.
In October 2009, Bigard and award-winning French filmmaker Mathieu Kassovitz appeared for an hour in a debate on France 2, the publicly
owned French national television channel.40
The hosts, who had refused to include the scientist who was originally
supposed to be on the show (Dr. Niels Harrit) attempted to center the
debate on "straw man" theories that neither Bigard nor Kassovitz held.
This led to arguments, which then allowed Le Figaro, France's second
largest newspaper, to dismiss the debate as "noisy sophistry".41
Concluding Comment: (Public)
Although this program was aimed at
debunking the 9/11 movement, as shown by its refusal to include a
scientist, the fact that it was aired on this state-owned network was a
breakthrough, ending the era in which 9/11 questioning was ignored in
Case Study 12
"The Unofficial Story", by CBC's The Fifth Estate,
November 27, 2009
On November 26, 2009, Canada's
largest newspaper, The Globe and Mail, noting in an objective review
42 that the 9/11 truth movement is "gathering steam,"
reported that a documentary airing that evening "follows up on some
fairly startling public-opinion polls of late."
It was referring to "The Unofficial Story",43 a program in
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's weekly award-winning
investigative series, The Fifth Estate.44
Host Bob McKeown, himself a recipient of multiple awards 45,
opened by saying that eight years after the "most scrutinized day in
history", there may be "more questions than ever", and that an
increasing number of people now believe the US government was behind the
"Incredibly", he adds, "public opinion polls now show that
a majority of Americans believe the Bush Administration had advance
knowledge of those attacks, and one way or another allowed them to
happen, and polls show that one Canadian in three believes that, too."
"The Unofficial Story" then allows leading members of the 9/11 truth
community to present a spectrum of evidence on various issues:
Architect Richard Gage on how the towers were brought down by controlled
Canadian scientist A.K. Dewdney on the impossibility of cell phone calls
at high altitude
David Ray Griffin on the FBI's 2006 admission that, although US
Solicitor General Ted Olson had reported receiving two calls from his
wife, CNN commentator Barbara Olson on Flight 77, the evidence indicates
that she attempted only one call and that it was "unconnected" and hence
lasted "zero seconds"
Dr. Griffin and Canadian media commentator Barrie Zwicker on the
military's explanation of why it did not intercept the airliners
9/11 documentary filmmaker Craig Ranke on the fact that footage of the
Pentagon attack is virtually unavailable to the public in spite of many
cameras trained on the building
Dewdney on evidence that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military
Richard Gage on the presence of nano-thermite in the World Trade Center
In response, defenders of the official account, such as
(of Canada's National Post) and 9/11 Commission counsel John Farmer,
focus more on why the American public is susceptible to conspiracy
theories, than on the disputed evidence itself 46 – although
Kay does credit Richard Gage for being involved in a serious quest for
Jim Meigs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, also directs comments
against the skeptics themselves rather than their evidence. Conspiracy
theorists, he says, are deluded by "the myth of hyper-competence" in
relation to the failure of the US Air Force to intercept the planes.
However, Brent Blanchard, presented as a demolition expert, argues
against the controlled demolition theory by producing seismographs
showing the absence of spikes that, he says, would have been produced by
He also expressed concern that people around the world, by reporting US
government complicity in 9/11 "as fact", are affecting how people view
But actor Daniel Sunjata (of "Rescue Me") ponders the price of not
asking the hard questions:
"Sometimes boils need to be lanced. Sometimes
poison needs to be brought to the surface in order for real healing to
"We did it not to promote one side or the other, but
to shine some light on some of those unresolved issues and unanswered
And indeed, the program website published links to both sides of the
Concluding Comment: (Public)
This hour-long documentary was the first
truly fair opportunity in North America for advocates of the "unofficial
story" of 9/11 to present some of their case on mainstream television.
Representatives of the "official story" were also given time to speak,
but their case was patently weaker.
This imbalance was allowed by the
producers, and indeed by the Canadian government, to stand. Aired
several times across Canada, this program drew unusually high viewer
Case Study 13
New Zealand TV's "Close Up" hosts Architect
Richard Gage, November 27, 2009
The same day "The Unofficial
Story" was broadcast by the CBC, Richard Gage appeared on New Zealand
TV's popular public affairs program, Close-Up, for a six-minute
"WTC 7 was never hit by a plane but it still came down," the host
begins, "and that's what troubles internationally respected architect
Gage is then allowed to explain that the building fell straight down in
6.5 seconds, and that NIST, the agency tasked with explaining the
collapse, admitted that it had come down in absolute free-fall for the
first hundred feet or so.
"That means the structure had to have been
removed," says Gage. "There is evidence of very high-tech explosives in
all the dust throughout lower Manhattan – nanothermite."
Normal office fires, Gage added, would start,
"a large, gradual
deformation – the building would tip over – it wouldn't go straight down
through the path of greatest resistance."
This is why 1,000 engineers and architects around the world are
demanding a real investigation that includes all of the evidence at the
crime scene, not just the planes and the fires, says Gage.
"In the nine months prior to 9/11, we had the largest elevator
modernization in history going on inside the towers... We're looking for an
investigation that includes elevator companies, security companies,
Concluding Comment: (Public)
New Zealand's national television station
allowed open and unopposed discussion, by the founder of the world's
largest professional organization calling for a new 9/11 investigation,
of the claim that nano-thermite was used in a controlled demolition of
the World Trade Center.
The coincidence that this program and the CBC's
"The Unofficial Story" both aired on the same day may prove to be a
turning point in media coverage of the 9/11 issue.
Case Study 14
"9/11 Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura," TruTV,
Premiere December 9, 2009
TruTV is an American cable television
network owned by Time Warner through its subsidiary, Turner
Historically, its has given live homicide trial coverage
and other criminal justice programming, though it has recently expanded
into more caught-on-video reality, which it calls "actuality"
"Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" premiered December 2, 2009, to an
audience of 1.6 million television viewers.
The former Governor of Minnesota has good cause to look into
conspiracies, as seen in his December 29 episode, which shows personal
experience that the "secret state" holds more power than the senior
elected representatives of the people:
"About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the
basement of the capitol to be interviewed by 23 members of the Central
Intelligence Agency, the CIA...
And I said to them,
"look before I answer
any of your questions, I want to know what you're doing here."
in the CIA mission statement it says that they're not to be operational
inside the United States of America.
Well, they wouldn't really give me
an answer on that. And then I said,
"I want to go around the room, and I
want each one of you to tell me your name and what you do."
Half of them
wouldn't. Now isn't that bizarre? I'm the governor, and these guys won't
even answer questions from me."49
Ventura made the 9/11 documentary after being approached by
O'Connor, whose daughter died in the World Trade Center and wanted
"every American exposed to the questions" about 9/11.50
Ventura's documentary contained interviews with the following people:
Janitor William Rodriguez, the last man out of the North Tower and who
was decorated for heroism by President Bush, who reported enormous
explosions in the basements just before the plane hit up above, and
whose testimony to the 9/11 Commission was ignored
Physicist Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who
isolated super-thermite from the enormous dust clouds of the Twin Towers
and Building 7, after which he was contacted by a consultant engineer
from the Department of Homeland Security, who warned Jones that, if he
published his findings "the pain would be great."
Explosives expert Van Romero, of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology, demonstrating how super-thermite can be painted onto a steel
beam, causing it to burn through
Ground Zero rescue worker Mike Mallone, who reported seeing one of the
four black boxes removed from the site, and was told of two others – and
who was told by the FBI that if he talked about it, "there would be a
Investigative journalist Dave Lindorff, who was told "off the record" by
a contact in the National Transportation Safety Board, which
investigated the boxes, that all four had been recovered by the FBI and
taken away, though officially, the contact said, this would be denied
Air crash investigator Dale Leppard, who said that the bright orange
heat-resistant boxes are never lost
Yet the 9/11 Commission Report claimed that the boxes from American 11
and United 175 were never found.
Ventura concluded by asking:
"If everything they told us was true, then
why would they need to stonewall us?"
Concluding Comment: (Corporate)
By calling his series "Conspiracy
Theory with Jesse Ventura", he openly declares that conspiracies do
exist, and that they are a legitimate subject to investigate.
to TruTV, the first episode drew 1.6 million viewers, a record for a new
series on this network.
Case Study 15
German Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth Questions
the Official 9/11 Investigation, December 15, 2009
Heinz Heise is a German
publishing house, which publishes Europe's most popular computer and
technology journals. It also owns Heise Online (heise.de), which is a
top-50 site in Germany, and a top-1000 website in the world as a whole.
On December 15 2008, Heise Online carried an interview with German
Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth on the legality of the Afghanistan war
and the question of whether the attacks were adequately investigated in
In his response, Deiseroth made the following points:
The 9/11 Commission consisted of Bush Administration officials who were
very close to the military industrial complex.
Now, over eight years after 9/11, no independent court has applied legal
procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for
It is not acceptable for a constitutional state to dispense with the
necessary steps in identifying suspects and instead to declare war, bomb
a foreign country where suspects reside, and place it under military
Having made the claim that bin Laden was responsible for the terrorism
of 9/11, the United States was under burden of proof, and yet America's
own FBI admits that it has no evidence presented in court of Osama bin
Laden's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.
Concluding Comment: (Corporate)
This “top-50” online journal exposed
many German people to the illegal and unconstitutional responses to the
9/11 attacks – which were the underpinning for the subsequent wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq – and even to questions about the truth of the
official account of 9/11 itself.
Case Study 16
Germany's “Focus Money” says: “We Do Not Believe
You!” January 8, 2010
With 450,000 to 720,000 readers,
Focus Money is the second most popular German weekly business magazine.
In January 2010, it published a 5-page, highly detailed, and
comprehensively researched glossy feature, "We do not believe you!"
The article first looks at the many professional 9/11 groups, as well as
a 2,000-strong list of prominent and qualified people who question the
9/11 Commission Report at the Patriots Question 9/11 website.
It quotes Richard Gage saying:
"The towers accelerated without
interruption in free fall... as if the lower 90 floors of the building did
not exist. The only way to bring them down like that is controlled
The article weighs Gage's list of ten features of a controlled
demolition, which were exemplified in the World Trade Center collapses,
against the three features of a fire-caused destruction, which were
Focus Money also explores the case of Barry Jennings, a former Deputy
Director of Emergency Services in New York's Housing Authority, who
reported being trapped in WTC 7 after massive explosions in this
building occurred in the morning – before the Twin Towers fell. Focus
Money also reported that Jennings, aged 53, died mysteriously just days
before NIST's report on WTC-7 was to be released in August 2008.
The article recommends films that challenge the official report,
including "Loose Change", which has been seen 125 million times on
Google video alone, "9/11 Mysteries," and "Zero".
Regarding the Pentagon, experienced commercial pilots are cited as
maintaining that no one, let alone a Cessna pilot, could fly the route
that Flight 77 allegedly took to hit the building.
The article pointed out the lack of debris to support the official
"There was no tail, there were no wings, no confirmation of the
crash of a Boeing 757."
And there were no titanium engines, which would
have survived the crash.
Also cited was Sergeant Lauro Chavez of the US Central Command in
Florida, who was involved in exercises the morning of 9/11 to hijack
planes and fly them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the
White House. He asks why, when it became clear that the attacks were
real, were the rogue planes not intercepted?
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11
Commission, in which he reported a conversation between Dick Cheney and
a young officer prior to the strike on the Pentagon, supports Chavez'
conviction that there had been a stand-down order.
Concluding Comment: (Corporate)
This 5,400-word article presented
strong evidence against the official 9/11 account to Germany's economic
and political decision-makers.
Case Study 17
Televised documentary, "The BBC's Conspiracy
Files: Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive?" January 10, 2010
In January 2010, a BBC News
article 53 summarized evidence supporting both sides of the
question stated in the title of its upcoming documentary, "Osama bin
Laden – Dead or Alive?" – a title taken from the David Ray Griffin book
that was previously discussed in a Daily Mail article.54
The documentary, which was part of the BBC Conspiracy Files series,
opened by presenting evidence that bin Laden has long been dead,
including the following points:
Bruce Riedel, chair of President Obama's policy review on Afghanistan
and Pakistan, says the bin Laden trail is cold, "frozen over," meaning
that there has been no intelligence on bin Laden since Tora Bora, either
by sightings or intercepted communications.
Various lines of evidence suggest that bin Laden was suffering from
advanced kidney disease:
CBS News reported, for example, that he was
being treated in the kidney ward of a hospital in Pakistan the night
before the 9/11 attacks, and the last of the undoubtedly authentic
videotapes showed him frail and gaunt, with a whitish beard.
There were reports of his funeral in mid-December 2001 in Pakistani and
Former CIA agent Robert Baer, who believes bin Laden to be dead,
reported that none of his friends in the CIA could state for certain
that bin Laden was still alive.
Colonel Iman, Pakistan's former troop trainer, also believes him to be
The only proof of bin Laden's continuing existence is the audio and
videotapes, and Dr. Griffin has presented evidence (about the structure
of bin Laden's face and hands, and the secular content of his
messages)that some of them are clearly faked, leading to the suspicion
that they all are.
Pakistan's former Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, who knew bin Laden,
supports this conclusion with regard to the alleged confession video.
Professor Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, a student of the bin Laden
tapes, also declared it a fake, especially because bin Laden always
loved the spotlight. He asks why bin Laden has been seen so infrequently
on video and why his contemporary, Ayman al-Zawahiri is seen so often.55
The BBC narrator says that only six of bin Laden's 40 messages were
videotapes, and only two have appeared since Tora Bora in 2001.
Dr Griffin says the first video appeared conveniently just before the
2004 US election, which helped Bush to win; and the second appeared in
2007, showing a very black beard, which had formerly been almost white.56
CIA agent Robert Baer confirmed that the alleged bin Laden audio and
video tapes could have been faked through digital manipulation.
The BBC program also presented evidence that is believed by some to show
that the US may not have been intent on capturing or killing bin Laden:
Dalton Fury, commander of the secret Delta Force, says it was "odd" that
Washington denied him nearby troops and artillery when he had bin Laden
trapped at Tora Bora in December 2001.
Mike Scheuer, formerly of the CIA bin Laden Unit, said the US had ten
chances to easily kill bin Laden between May 1998 and May 1999. Each
time the CIA briefed the White House of the opportunity, the decision
was made not to shoot.
In the final third of the program, the BBC provided rather weak evidence
"the theory that Osama bin Laden died 8 years ago and the US
government is keeping him alive, faking videos, and sending troops to
battle and allowing them to die in pursuit of an imaginary foe."
However, a reviewer for the TV and Radio section of the The Independent,
one of London's leading newspapers, complained that this rebuttal was
too little, too late, saying:
"The Conspiracy Files film about Osama Bin Laden was a dubious affair,
which gave regrettable amounts of air time to an obsessive 9/11 "truther"
called David Ray Griffin. . . . Griffin only got the airtime, as it
turned out, so that Conspiracy Files could systematically work their way
through his claims and dismiss them.
But I think they grievously
overestimated the capacity of common sense to mop up the pollution of
paranoid fantasy that they actively helped to spread around in the first
45 minutes of the film." 57
This seemed to be the commentator's way of saying that the BBC's show
probably increased the number of people who believe that bin Laden is
Concluding Comment: (Public)
This program attempts to neutralize the
evidence that bin Laden has been dead for 8 years, which if true would
mean that fabricated tapes are helping to justify a continuing Western
offensive in the Middle East.
That the program was made at all shows how
seriously the BBC is taking the growing challenge to the official story
Case Study 18
An American Union Paper Calls for a New Probe,
February 1, 2010
The New Hampshire Union Leader is
a daily union newspaper seen by 143,000 people per month in the United
Beth Lamontagne Hall of the Union Leader wrote in February 2010 that,
"Keene resident Gerhard Bedding doesn't buy the government's version of
what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, so he's working on a statewide campaign
calling for another investigation into the terrorist attacks." 58
Bedding and others, she reported, are petitioning New Hampshire's
congressional delegates to push for an independent investigation into
"all the evidence and unanswered questions" pertaining to the 9/11
Quoting Bedding's statement that a new investigation is needed,
of new evidence that has appeared in the last two years," she pointed
out that he mentioned, in particular, the report that scientists had
found traces of explosives at the World Trade Center.
Concluding Comment: (Independent)
This article in a daily union newspaper is a
significant indicator, more than eight years after the attacks, of the
broadening concern over the truth about 9/11, and is another example of
the widespread influence of the nano-thermite paper published by Dr.
Harrit and his co-authors.
IV. Summary and
In the past year, in response to
emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate,
seven public, and two independent media outlets aired examinations
of the issue, which were all – with the exception of the National
Geographic special – reasonably objective, examining the issue as a
legitimate scientific controversy worthy of debate (not as
"conspiracy theorists" vs. science and common sense).
...have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the
full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official
account of 9/11.
These developments may reflect a
relaxation in the international media following the change in the US
and British leaderships.
These developments definitely reflect,
in any case, the fact that scientists in the 9/11 Truth Movement
have recently succeeded in getting papers, such as the nano-thermite
paper, published in peer-reviewed journals.
These developments surely also reflect
the general professionalism of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as
exemplified by the emergence of not only Architects and Engineers
for 9/11 Truth but also,
Pilots, Political Leaders
Veterans for 9/11 Truth
These developments seem to reflect,
moreover, an increased recognition of the importance of the 9/11
Truth Movement, which is demonstrated by two honors given to its
most influential member, Dr. David Ray Griffin, that would have been
unthinkable only a few years ago: the choice by Publishers Weekly of
one of his books as a "Pick of the Week," and his inclusion in the
New Statesman's list of the most important people in the world
This more open approach taken in the
international media – I could also have included the Japanese media – might
be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are
positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible
revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government
were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question
the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way
for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now
known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country's foreign and domestic
policies in the light of this knowledge.
1 "The 50 People Who Matter Today," New
Statesman, September 24, 2009 (http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2009/09/world-fashion-gay-india-church
). Note that Part I of this series, entitled "The Media Response to the
Growing Influence of the 9 /11 Truth Movement: Reflections on a Recent
Evaluation of Dr. David Ray Griffin," was published by Global Research,
December 12, 2009 (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16505)
2 Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank
M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R.
Larsen, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11
World Trade Center Catastrophe," Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2
(April 3, 2009): 7-31 (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm)
3 Ibid., p. 29.
4 Ibid., p. 29.
5 Dr. Harrit is Associate Professor of the Department of Chemistry, and
has been a faculty member at the Nano-Science Center at the University
of Copenhagen since this Center started in 2001. (http://nano.ku.dk/english/
6 "Danish Scientist Niels Harrit on Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust
(English subtitles)," TV2 News, Denmark, April 6, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o).
7 By Lars Sobiraj, May 24, 2009,"Germany's gulli.com (link obsolete now)
Interviews Dr. Niels Harrit on Nanothermite at the WTC," Sunday May
24th, 2009 1:28 PM, http://911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20090525150347423
8 Kevin R. Ryan, "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermite,"
July 2, 2008,
9 Dr. Andrzej W. Miziolek, "Nanoenergetics: An Emerging Technology Area
of National Importance," In: US Department of Defense. "Special Issue:
DOD Researchers Provide a Look Inside Nanotechnology," Amptiac
Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 2002, p. 44
(http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf ) The article reports that,
"Very simply, nanoenergetics can store higher amounts of energy than
conventional energetic materials and one can use them in unprecedented
ways to tailor the release of this energy so as to maximize the
lethality of the weapons." p. 43.
10 See the IoN Advisory Group at http://www.nano.org.uk/aboutus/ukboard.htm
11 My italics. [News]: "Active Thermitic Material Confirmed in Dust from
the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," June 15, 2009 (http://www.nano.org.uk/news/jun2009/latest1881.htm)
12 Thomas Hoffmann, "Danish scientist: an explosive nano material found
in dust from the World Trade Center", Videnskab.dk, April 3, 2009
13 Thomas Hoffmann, "Niels Harrit: Scientific evidence of long-time
knowledge of 9/11," Videnskab.dk, April 3, 2009 (http://www.videnskab.dk/composite-2019.htm
14 Milla Mølgaard, April 4, 2009, (http://politiken.dk/indland/article684567.ece
15 "Niels Harrit presents evidence for nano-thermite in WTC, on
GoodMorning Denmark," (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAUUKPfdeQA )
16 Posted at: http://www.javno.com/en-world/video--911-no-longer-taboo-topic-in-denmark_250703
17 "Did nano-thermite take down the WTC?" (http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html
, and http://rt.com/Politics/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html?fullstory
) . Also available on youtube as "Dr. Niels Harrit on Russia Today – We
need a real 9/11 investigation," (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVbF1ndquZI&feature=PlayList&p=4B3A9D67894B7184&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=20
18 Brian Stelter, "The Political Suspicions of 9/11," New York Times,
February 1, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/business/media/02fx.html?_r=2&ref=business
19 Fox News, "'Rescue Me' From 9/11 Conspiracy Theories," February 4,
2009, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487906,00.html )
20 The mock trial is available on youtube in 4 parts: "911 Devil's
Advocate – English subs – Part 1 of 4", starts at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOdlA_eu-Lw
21 This is said at the beginning of "911 Devil's Advocate – English subs
– Part 2 of 4", at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJX-rIaAbA4&feature=related.
See also, Craig Morris, "Mistranslated Osama bin Laden Video – the
German Press Investigates," December 23, 2001 (http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801
22 Joshua Rhett Miller, "Dutch TV Show Feeds Conspiracy Theories on Bin
Laden's Role in 9/11," Fox News, April 25, 2009 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516195,00.html
23 Johanthan Kay, "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire," Financial
Post, Saturday, April 25, 2009 (http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=f54cf9ee-4637-44de-8819-19d918b3241b&k=21893
24 The radio program may be heard at this link, in Norwegian, without
subtitles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHZHGUd82wc )
25 Norwegian State Radio initiates public debate on 9/11 Truth (update),
26 Richard Gage interviewed by Kim Stephens and Kopi Sotiropulos on KMPH
Fox 26 in Fresno, CA, May 28, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&feature=related
27 "9/11: Science and Conspiracy", (http://www.shallownation.com/2009/08/31/national-geographic-9-11-science-and-conspiracy-video-photos/).
National Geographic Channel is a joint venture of National Geographic
Television & Film and Fox Cable Networks.
28 Tom Conroy. "'9/11: Science and Conspiracy' not quite," Media Life
Magazine, August 31, 2009 (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/TV_Reviews_21/9_11_Science_and_Conspiracy_not_quite.asp
29 Maxine Shen, "The Story Behind 9/11: Hit or Myth? Taking on the
Truthers," New York Post, September 2, 2009 (http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/item_tPXUgMFRZVQywHJg28ON7J;jsessionid=5113BAC6DC385827B1486E60DAA759A8#ixzz0eY7F97Dx)
30 The website for this publication is http://www.tvhus.de/home/home.html
31 Hannes Wellmann, "Die Geheimakten von 9/11," TV Hören und Sehen,
August 31, 2009. The article and its English translation have been
downloaded to http://www.911video.de/news/020909/
32 Whereas the article focuses primarily on Bay-Area resident Richard
Gage, Santa Barbara is the home of David Ray Griffin, so the Independent
version gave more space to him, even including his photo.
33 Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, "Twin Towers, Twin Myths?" Santa Barbara
Independent, September 17, 2009 (http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/17/twin-towers-twin-myths/
34 Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, "Explosive Theory," MetroActive,
September 9, 2009, (http://www.metroactive.com/metro/09.09.09/cover-0936.html)
35 "Is conspiracy behind the World Trade Center's collapse?" (http://www.independent.com/polls/2009/sep/wtc09/results/
36 "Norwegian TV examines 911 part 1," September 10, 2009, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlHuYt_u-kI
) The TV program was followed by a written account of it: Lars Ole
Skjønberg, "World Trade Center ble sprengt" ("World Trade Center was
Blown Up,") September 10, 2009, http://www.nrk.no/programmer/tv/schrodingers_katt/1.6769275
). Further information and partial transcripts are available at
"Norwegian State Television presents 9/11 Truth (en subs), (update)
37 Sue Reid, "Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years – and are
the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?" Daily
Mail, September 11, 2009 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html
38 New Statesman, "The 50 People who Matter Today."
39 "French comedian apolgises for claiming 9/11 was orchestrated by the
US government," Belfast Telegraph, September 10, 2008 (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/french-comedian-apologises-for-claiming-911-was-orchestrated-by-the-us-government-13968453.html
40 "L'objet du scandale, 11 septembre, Bigard, Kassovitz," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uc4Mb9rF0c
The program is also available with English subtitles, at
http://world911truth.org/911-debate-with-kassovitz-and-bigard/ . The
debate was originally intended to include journalist Éric Laurent and
Prof. Niels Harrit, but apparently France 2 could not find anyone to
debate them. See "France 2 backs away from real debate, censors Niels
Harrit and Éric Laurent," October 24, 2009,
41 Hervé de Saint Hilaire, «L'objet du scandale» : sophismes bruyants,
Le Figaro, 30 octobre 2009 (http://www.lefigaro.fr/programmes-tele/2009/10/30/03012-20091030ARTFIG00348-l-objet-du-scandale-sophismes-bruyants-.php
42 Andrew Ryan, "Was 9/11 a conspiracy? 'Truthers' make their case:
CBC's fifth estate airs The Unofficial Story," The Globe and Mail,
November 26, 2009 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/was-911-a-conspiracy-truthers-make-their-case/article1378976/
43 CBC. The Fifth Estate. "The Unofficial Story", November 27, 2009
44 The Fifth Estate has won 243 awards, including an Oscar for best
documentary, three international Emmy Awards, and 31 Geminis.
45 McKeown's awards include two Emmys, two Geminis, two Edward R. Murrow
awards, two Gracies, two National Headliner awards and a National Press
Club award. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McKeown )
46 It is worth noting that attempts to derail critics of the official
story have often framed the issue as "conspiracy theorists" vs. "the
science" or vs. "the facts." But as the current essay illustrates, the
debate is now increasingly being framed in the media as science on one
side of the issue vs. science on the other side.
47 The Fifth Estate, at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/links.html
48 "Richard Gage AIA on New Zealand National Television," November 27,
2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2INIOXe_WI )
49 "Conspiracy Theory Episode 4 Big Brother with Jesse Ventura,"
December 29, 2009 (http://conspiracytheoryjesseventura.com/forums/index.php?board=2.0
50 "9/11 Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura," TruTV, Premiere Wed,
December 9 at 10PM (http://www.conspiracytheoryjesseventura.com/2009/12/watch-episode-2-911-conspiracy-theory-jesse-ventura/
) Also at "Conspiracy theory with Jesse Ventura – 9/11 part 1," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uw5Bz-oL3w
51 Marcus Klöckner, "Das schreit geradezu nach Aufklärung," December 15,
2009 (http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/31/31729/1.html ). The English
Google translation is at http://translate.google.ca/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Ftp%2Fr4%2Fartikel%2F31%2F31729%2F1.html&sl=de&tl=en
52 Oliver Janich, Focus Money, No. 2/2010, January 8, 2010 (http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/terroranschlaege-vom-11-september-2001-wir-glauben-euch-nicht_aid_467894.html
). For English Google translation, see http://translate.google.ca/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.focus.de%2Ffinanzen%2Fnews%2Fterroranschlaege-vom-11-september-2001-wir-glauben-euch-nicht_aid_467894.html&sl=de&tl=en
. For English introduction and commentary, see
53 Mike Rudin, "The Conspiracy Files," BBC News, January 9, 2009
54 David Ray Griffin, "Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?" Interlink Books,
2009. The documentary, "The BBC's Conspiracy Files: Osama bin Laden –
Dead or Alive?" January 10, 2010, is now periodically available on BBC
stations throughout the world, and presently available on youtube: "BBC:
Osama Bin Laden; Dead or Alive (1/6)," (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpqg9SF2x50&feature=related
55 A Wikipedia article lists 34 videos of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri that
have been released since May 2003. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Ayman_al-Zawahiri)
56 Frames from the 2004 and 2007 videos may be seen side by side in the
online article: David Ray Griffin, "Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?"
Global Research, October 9, 2009 (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15601
57 Tom Sutcliffe, "Last Night's Television: By The People: The Election
of Barack Obama, Sat, BBC2; Conspiracy Files: Osama Bin Laden – Dead or
Alive?, Sun, BBC2," The Independent, January 11, 2010 (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/last-nights-television-by-the-people-the-election-of-barack-obama-sat-bbc2brconspiracy-files-osama-bin-laden-ndash-dead-or-alive-sun-bbc2-1863741.html
58 Beth Lamontagne Hall, "NH group cites need for new 9/11 probe," New
Hampshire Union Leader, February 1, 2010