My lecture is called “9/11 - Time for a
Second Look.”
In suggesting that it is time for people to
take a second look at 9/11, I have in mind primarily people who decided
long ago that the attacks of 9/11 happened essentially the way the
Bush-Cheney administration and the official reports about 9/11 said they
happened, and who therefore decided that the so-called 9/11 Truth
Movement, which disputes that account, is comprised of crazy conspiracy
theorists with no capacity to evaluate evidence objectively.
Having formed these views long ago, such
people, including most journalists, have been impervious to any
arguments presented by the Truth Movement. They simply roll their eyes
and move on.
However, both the Truth Movement and the available evidence have changed
dramatically in the past 3 years. Because of these changes, it is not
rational to reject the claims of this movement out of hand, without
taking a second look. If you are a person who has had such an attitude,
you cannot, in the face of these changes, simply roll your eyes without
exhibiting the very irrationality of which you accuse the people you
dismiss as “conspiracy theorists.”
My lecture is also addressed, albeit indirectly, to fellow members of
the Truth Movement. Some members have decided that, now that Bush
and Cheney are out of office and the Obama administration has reversed
some of their 9/11-based policies, getting the truth about 9/11 revealed
is no longer so important.
Other members of the movement, seeing that
the Obama administration is still presupposing that al-Qaeda attacked
America on 9/11, have concluded that there is no hope that this
truth will ever be revealed, so we might as well give up. To such
people, I suggest that getting the truth revealed is just as important
as ever, because many 9/11-based policies, especially the war in
Afghanistan, have not been reversed.
I also suggest that, because of the changes
in the political landscape combined with developments in the 9/11 Truth
Movement, we now have, really for the first time, a realistic chance of
getting a genuine investigation.
I turn now to my topic: Why official conspiracy theorists should take a
second look at 9/11. I use the name “official conspiracy theorists”
advisedly. Quite often, people who believe the official theory about
9/11 speak contemptuously of members of the Truth Movement as
“conspiracy theorists.”
But this is irrational.
A conspiracy occurs whenever two or more
people plan in secret to do something illegal, such as rob a bank or
defraud a corporation’s customers. To hold a conspiracy theory about
some event is simply to believe that it resulted from a conspiracy.
According to the Bush-Cheney interpretation of 9/11, which became
the official account, the attacks resulted from a conspiracy between
Osama bin Laden and 19 members of al-Qaeda.
This official account is, therefore, a
conspiracy theory.
What this means is that everyone holds a conspiracy theory about 9/11.
The debate about 9/11 is not, therefore, a debate between conspiracy
theorists and anti-conspiracy theorists. It is simply a debate between
those who accept the Bush-Cheney administration’s conspiracy theory and
those who accept the alternative theory, according to which 9/11
resulted from a conspiracy within the
Bush-Cheney administration.
Those who believe the official conspiracy theory, therefore, cannot
rationally reject the alternative theory on the grounds that it is a
conspiracy theory. To be rational, they must ask: Which theory is better
supported by the relevant facts?
Let me make clear that I do not use the term “official conspiracy
theorist” as a term of reproach. There’s nothing wrong with believing
the official conspiracy theory. I accepted it at one time myself.
It is only a problem if you are a “true
believer,” meaning that you are so certain that the Bush-Cheney
conspiracy theory is true that you cannot look open-mindedly at evidence
that may contradict it.
Reasons to be Skeptical of the Bush-Cheney
Conspiracy Theory
One reason why it is irrational to keep believing the Bush-Cheney
conspiracy theory, without being willing to look at new evidence, is
that there are now grounds for being skeptical of that theory that did
not exist at the time this theory became imprinted on most minds.
At that time, for example, it was not known that the Bush-Cheney
administration would tell enormous lies that would lead to millions of
deaths, including thousands of American deaths. But we now know this.
Besides the lies about weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, the White House after 9/11 ordered the
Environmental Protection Agency to lie about the air at the World
Trade Center site, saying that it was safe to breathe. As a result,
about 60 percent of the people who worked in the rescue and clean-up
operations are ill, if they have not died already, and the number of
those who will die from these illnesses will probably exceed the number
of people who died on 9/11 itself.
In the face of this information, it would be
difficult to claim that the Bush-Cheney administration would have been
morally incapable of orchestrating 9/11 and its cover-up.
We also now have reasons, not widely known at the time, to be skeptical
of the official reports.
Most people have assumed that the 9/11
Commission was run by its co-chairmen, former Republican governor
Thomas Kean and former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton.
They have thought of it, therefore, as an independent, non-partisan
body.
But the 9/11 Commission was actually run by
Philip Zelikow. He controlled the 85-person staff and was in
charge of producing of
The 9/11 Commission Report. And yet he was
essentially a member of the Bush-Cheney White House, being especially
close to Condoleezza Rice, with whom he had co-authored a book.
Thanks to a book about the 9/11 Commission
by New York Times reporter Philip Shenon, we now know that
Zelikow, in spite of promises to the contrary, remained in contact with
Rice and also with Karl Rove, the ultimate political operator in
the White House. Shenon also revealed that, before his staff had even
begun its work, Zelikow had already written a detailed outline of the
report that would be issued, complete with “chapter headings,
subheadings, and sub-subheadings.”
Shenon also revealed that Kean and Hamilton
conspired with Zelikow to keep the existence of this outline a secret
from the staff.
In a book they wrote about the 9/11 Commission, Kean and Hamilton
criticized “conspiracy theorists” because, rather than forming their
theories on the basis of the facts, they start with their theories and
then look for facts to support them.
By contrast, Kean and Hamilton claimed, the
9/11 Commission started with the relevant facts, not with a conclusion:
We were “not setting out to advocate one
theory or interpretation of 9/11 versus another,” they said.
And yet, they admit, Zelikow assigned,
“the subject of ‘al Qaeda’ to [one of
the staff’s teams],” which was told to “tell the story of al Qaeda’s
most successful operation - the 9/11 attacks.”
If that was not starting with a theory about
9/11, what would have been?
If the 9/11 Commission was not independent of the Bush-Cheney White
House, what about NIST - the National Institute of Standards
and Technology - which prepared the official reports on the
destruction of the World Trade Center? NIST is an agency of the US
Department of Commerce. During the years it was preparing its reports,
therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration,
run by an appointee of that administration.
Recently, a former employee of this agency has spoken out, saying that
NIST had been,
“fully hijacked from the scientific into
the political realm.” Scientists working for NIST, he says, “lost
[their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired
guns.’”
Everything that came from the hired guns was
[he added] routinely filtered through the front office, and assessed for
political implications before release.
Moreover, he said, NIST’s reports on the World Trade Center also had to
be approved by the National Security Agency and the Office of Management
and Budget - “an arm of the Executive Office of the President” - which,
“had a policy person specifically
delegated to provide oversight on our work.”
As a result, NIST’s reports, which say the
Twin Towers and Building 7 came down without the aid of explosives, are
political, not scientific, reports - as any serious examination of these
reports will reveal.
The authors, with their PhD’s in physics and
engineering, could not possibly believe the things they have written.
The New Shape of the 9/11 Truth Movement
If reasons to take a second look at 9/11 are provided by new information
about the Bush-Cheney administration and the official reports supporting
its conspiracy theory, the same is true of the new shape of the 9/11
Truth Movement.
At one time, it was dismissed as “a bunch of
kids on the Internet.”
Then after I joined the movement by
publishing The New Pearl Harbor, it was dismissed as “a bunch of
kids on the Internet plus an ageing theologian.”
George Monbiot, writing in The
Guardian, referred to members of the movement as “morons” and
“idiots.” Alexander Cockburn, writing in Counterpunch, The
Nation, and Le Monde Diplomatique, referred to the movement’s members as
the “9/11 Conspiracy Nuts,” saying that they know nothing about the
“real world,” especially about military history. Lacking “any conception
of evidence,” he added, they represent “the ascendancy of magic over
common sense [and] reason.”
Insofar as critics of the 9/11 movement, ignoring the fact that its
early leaders included a pilot, a former police officer, a political
economist, and a historian, could portray me as its head - Monbiot
referred to me as its “high priest,” another left-wing critic called me
its “guru” - they could somewhat plausibly portray it to the general
public as a religious movement, comprised of people who know nothing
about the real world.
As one critic put it,
“Griffin, being a theologian, is not
qualified to talk about anything except myths and fairy tales.”
I did reply that I should, therefore, be
eminently qualified to discuss the official conspiracy theory about
9/11. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Truth Movement can be easily dismissed
insofar as people retain an image of it that was formed several years
ago, when it could be portrayed as led by people who have no expertise
in the relevant fields.
Even if that caricature, like most caricatures, contained a grain of
truth then, it is now completely false. The intellectual leadership of
the 9/11 Truth Movement is now exercised by scientists and other
professionals who definitely know something about the real world. Many
of these professionals have formed organizations dedicated to
discovering and publicizing the truth about 9/11.
A few years ago, some scientists formed the
Scientific Panel for the
Investigation of 9/11. Others, more recently, formed
Scholars for
9/11 Truth and Justice, the main work of which has been carried out
by physicists and chemists.
Shortly thereafter, detractors of the Truth
Movement said that, if there were any validity to these scientists’
claims about the World Trade Center, they would be able to get papers
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Over the past year,
scientists affiliated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice have
published 3 papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
The lead author of the most recent of these
papers, which appeared in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, is
Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor at the University of
Copenhagen.
These scientists, who know something about
the chemical constituents of the real world, report finding many
elements in World Trade Center dust that should not be there if the
official theory, according to which nothing but fire and gravity brought
the buildings down, were true.
A few years ago, after some physicists and chemists had joined the
movement, detractors said:
“They don’t really count. The question
of what brought down the World Trade Center buildings is a question
for engineers, and your movement doesn’t have any.”
That was true in 2005. The following year,
however, architect Richard Gage formed
Architects and Engineers
for 9/11 Truth, and by now over 600 licensed architects and engineers
have signed its petition calling for a new investigation.
These are people who know about that part of
the real world that consists of steel-frame high-rise buildings, and
they know that the official story - according to which fires caused the
Twin Towers and Building 7 to come straight down in virtual free fall -
simply cannot be true.
For example, Jack Keller, emeritus
professor of engineering at Utah State University, who had been given
special recognition by Scientific American, has said about the collapse
of Building 7:
“Obviously it was the result of
controlled demolition.”
A similar judgment has been offered by two
emeritus professors of structural engineering at Switzerland’s Federal
Institute of Technology, along with hundreds of other engineers and
architects.
Firefighters also have expert knowledge that is relevant to what
happened in New York City on 9/11, and this past year brought the
formation of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, who point out, on the basis of
their professional expertise, why the NIST reports about the World Trade
Center should not be believed.
There is now, moreover, an organization of
Veterans for 9/11 Truth, with
several former military officers. They probably, I would venture to say,
know more about the real world of military affairs than does Alexander
Cockburn.
Another professional organization with relevant expertise is
Pilots
for 9/11 Truth, which includes in its ranks many former commercial
and military pilots, who call incredible the official story about why
the 9/11 airliners were not intercepted. This organization has also
devoted much attention to the Pentagon attack, pointing out many reasons
why the official account of that attack cannot be true.
The latest of the professional organizations to form is
Intelligence
Officers for 9/11 Truth. One of the first people to join was William
Christison, a former senior CIA official.
If you are one of the many people who “just
knows” that the position of the 9/11 Truth Movement is too implausible
to be worth a few days of your time to study its evidence, listen to
what he wrote in 2006:
I spent the first four and a half years
since September 11 utterly unwilling to consider seriously the
conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks of that day... [I]n the
last half year and after considerable agony, I’ve changed my mind...
I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of
September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11
Commission would have us believe.
The backbone of the 9/11 Truth Movement
is now constituted by these professional organizations of scientists,
architects, engineers, firefighters, military officers, pilots, and
intelligence officers. And there are still more.
The past year has witnessed the formation of,
...which already includes
past or present members of the parliaments of Italy, Japan, New Zealand,
Sweden, Europe, and the UK, and also a former United States governor.
Accordingly, people who have thought of the
movement as constituted by people who can be dismissed as conspiracy
nuts, even morons and idiots, need to reevaluate - if
they want their opinions to be based on the real world.
Here is the present situation - and if you are going to quote one
sentence from my lecture, I would recommend this one: Among independent
scientists and professionals in the relevant fields who have studied the
evidence, the weight of scientific and professional opinion is now
overwhelmingly on the side of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Whereas well over 1,000 such people have
gone on record publicly questioning the official theory, there are
virtually no scientists or professionals in the relevant fields who have
gone on record in support of the official story - except for such people
who are not independent, meaning that their whose livelihoods would be
threatened if they refused to support the official theory.
This caveat is important, because, as
Sinclair Lewis famously observed:
“It is difficult to get a man to
understand something when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it.”
Except for such people, virtually everyone
who has expertise in a relevant field, and who has seriously studied the
evidence, rejects the official conspiracy theory. It is time, therefore,
for journalists and everyone else to take a second look.
New Evidence
Journalists often say that they
cannot write about an issue that is considered “old news.” They must
have new evidence. Another reason why it is time for a second look at
9/11 is the existence of a wealth of new evidence. There is so much that
I can mention only a small portion of it.
New Evidence from the FBI: Some of this new evidence has,
amazingly, been supplied by the FBI. Although the FBI was originally the
main agency creating and protecting the official account, it has
recently provided several revelations that undermine this account.
One example involves one of the central pillars of the official
conspiracy theory: the claim that the attacks were authorized by Osama
bin Laden. That claim is still used to support the American military
effort in Afghanistan, which President
Obama
recently encouraged Europeans to support more wholeheartedly.
But if you will go to the website labeled “Most
Wanted Terrorists” and turn to its page on “Usama bin Laden,”
you will find that, although he is wanted for various terrorist attacks,
the 9/11 attacks are not mentioned.
When a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement
contacted FBI headquarters to ask why not, the FBI’s Chief of
Investigative Publicity replied:
“[B]ecause the
FBI has no hard evidence
connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Another example involves the reported
telephone calls from the airliners, through which people on the ground
were told that the planes had been hijacked by Middle Eastern
terrorists. Some 15 people reported that they had been called by loved
ones using mobile phones.
United Flight 93 - the plane that reportedly
crashed in Pennsylvania - was by itself said to have been the source of
about a dozen of these mobile phone calls. Deena Burnett alone
reported having received 3 or 4 such calls from her husband, Tom
Burnett. She knew he was using his mobile phone, she told the FBI,
because she looked at her Caller ID and recognized his number. Most of
these calls were reportedly made when the airliners were flying at
35,000 or even 40,000 feet.
Pilots and scientists in the 9/11 Truth Movement, however, pointed out
that, given the mobile phone technology available in 2001, successful
calls from high-altitude airliners were not possible. Defenders of
the official conspiracy, such as Popular Mechanics, argued that such
calls could indeed be made. But while Popular Mechanics was making this
claim, the FBI was pulling the rug out from under it.
In 2006, at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called
20th hijacker, the FBI was required to present evidence about the
phone calls from all 4 airliners. Its report said that of the 37 phone
calls from Flight 93, mobile phones had been used to make only two of
them, which had occurred when the plane, being ready to crash, was at a
very low altitude.
The FBI, in other words, implicitly
supported the Truth Movement’s claim that mobile phone calls from
high-altitude airliners were impossible. Popular Mechanics was left with
egg on its face.
For our purposes, however, the important point is that the FBI was now
saying that people such as Deena Burnett, who were certain that they had
been called from mobile phones, were wrong. But how could Deena Burnett
have been wrong, given the fact that she had repeatedly recognized Tom’s
number on her Caller ID?
The FBI, which had taken her testimony on
9/11 without disputing it, did not answer this question. The only
possible answer, in any case, seems to be that the calls to Deena
were faked. The technology for faking such calls did exist.
There are devices with which you can fake any phone number you wish. And
the technology of voice morphing had progressed to the point where it
was good enough to fool even the spouse of the purported caller.
By changing the official story about these
phone calls, therefore, the FBI implicitly admitted that the mobile
calls had been faked. And if someone was prepared to fake all the mobile
calls, then surely all the reported calls were faked.
The FBI contradicted the official story even more seriously in its
report on phone calls from Flight 77. The most important of all the
“phone calls from the planes” were those from Barbara Olson, a
well-known commentator on CNN and the wife of Ted Olson, the Solicitor
General at the Department of Justice.
He was the attorney who argued successfully
before the Supreme Court in 2000 that the Bush-Cheney ticket should be
declared the winner of the presidential election in Florida. On 9/11,
Olson told CNN and the FBI that his wife, Barbara, who was on American
Flight 77 - the one that supposedly struck the Pentagon - had called him
twice, reporting that hijackers, armed with knives and box-cutters, had
hijacked the plane.
This was a very important call. It was taken as evidence that Flight 77
was still in the air, rather than, as some thought, having crashed in
Ohio or a nearby state. This meant that it could have been the aircraft
that damaged the Pentagon.
Most of all, the idea that Muslims had
killed Barbara Olson, who was a favorite with the right-wing, was
instrumental in creating enthusiasm for the so-called war on terror.
However, the FBI report to the Moussaoui trial did not support Ted
Olson’s claim about these calls. In its report on phone calls from
Flight 77, it did mention Barbara Olson. But it said that she
“attempted” one call, that it was “unconnected,” and that it, therefore,
lasted “0 seconds.” This is an amazing story.
The FBI is part of the Department of
Justice. And yet the FBI’s 2006 report declared, in effect, that the two
phone calls reported by the former solicitor general of the Department
of Justice never happened. This leaves only two options. Either Ted
Olson simply made up this story, or else he, like Deena Burnett and
several others, was duped. Either way, one of the official conspiracy
theory’s foundational stories was based on a lie.
How many people would still believe this conspiracy theory if they knew
about this and the other ways in which it has been undermined by the
FBI? Not very many.
This illustrates my point - that most people
who continue to believe the
Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory about 9/11
are unaware of the dozens of facts that contradict this theory.
Building 7 of the World Trade Center
For my final illustration of this point, I will discuss the collapse of
Building 7 of the World Trade Center.
The Truth Movement has long considered this
collapse the official conspiracy theory’s Achilles’ Heel - its most
vulnerable element - for several reasons:
-
Building 7 was not hit by a plane
-
it had fires on only a few floors
-
it came straight down in virtual
free fall, looking every bit like the kind of controlled
demolition known as implosion, in which the building
folds in on itself and ends up as a rather compact debris pile
for Video "click" above
image
Defenders of the official story clearly did
not want the public to focus on the collapse of this building.
The 9/11 Commission did not even mention
it. After the day of 9/11 itself, this collapse was seldom if ever
shown on TV until 2008, when NIST finally issued its report on it.
And NIST had delayed this report year after
year, releasing it only when the Bush-Cheney administration was about to
leave office.
My next book will be about NIST’s report on Building 7. It will
show that this report inadvertently reveals that a plausible defense of
the official theory about this building, according to which it was
brought down by fire alone, is impossible. To attempt this defense, NIST
had to ignore various kinds of physical evidence in the World Trade
Center dust, such as the existence of particles that could have been
formed only at extremely high temperatures - several times higher than
could have been caused by fire.
It also includes elements that seem
explainable only as the residue from nanothermite, which is
classified as a high explosive. The dust even includes active thermitic
material, discovered by physicist Steven Jones, which appears to
be unreacted nanothermite.
This is the conclusion of the new
paper, which I mentioned earlier, for which the lead author is
Copenhagen’s Niels Harrit, who is an expert in nanochemistry.
A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite
in the WTC dust
April 10, 2009
When NIST was asked whether it had checked
the dust for evidence of thermite, it said No.
When a reporter asked Michael Newman,
a NIST spokesman, why not, he said:
“because there was no evidence of that.”
This circular answer led the reporter to
ask:
“But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it
first?”
Newman gave another circular reply, saying:
“If you’re looking
for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time... and the
taxpayers’ money.”
NIST also ignored and distorted testimonial evidence that explosions had
gone off in Building 7.
The most important such testimony was given by
Barry Jennings of the New York City Housing Authority. As soon as the
North Tower was struck that morning at 8:46, Jennings rushed, as he was
supposed to do, to the 23rd floor of Building 7, which housed Mayor Rudy
Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management.
But when he and Michael Hess,
Giuliani’s corporation counsel, got there at about 9:00, they found that
everyone had left. Calling to ask what they should do, they were told to
leave the building immediately. Finding that the elevator would not
work, they started running down the stairs. When they got to the 6th
floor, however, a huge explosion blew the landing out from under them.
Climbing back up to the 8th floor, Jennings broke a window to call for
help, at which time he could see that both of the Twin Towers were still
standing.
However, when Giuliani wrote about the 9/11 experience of his friend
Michael Hess, he claimed that the big event, which Hess and Jennings had
called an explosion, was really just some effects caused by debris from
the collapse of the North Tower. It did not collapse until 10:28, so
Giuliani put this big event at least an hour later than did Jennings.
Giuliani’s version of this event became the official story.
It was
defended by NIST in its 2005 report on the Twin Towers and then, in
2008, by a BBC special on Building 7.
Jennings had told his story in an interview for the producers of
Loose
Change Final Cut. But before the film was released, Jennings, fearing
that it would cost him his job, asked that his interview not be
included, and the producers took it out. Later, however, Jennings told
his story in an interview for the BBC.
But the BBC placed Jennings’
story within the official timeline, making it appear as if the huge
explosion he had reported was really, as the narrator put it,
“just
debris from a falling skyscraper.”
The BBC even made it seem as if
Jennings was all by himself, rather than accompanied by Hess, even
though Jennings was repeatedly heard saying “we.”
This BBC program aired in July 2008. NIST, whose timeline the BBC had
followed, released the first draft of its report on Building 7 the
following month. Shortly before this release - evidently only two days
before - Barry Jennings, who was 53 years old, died mysteriously. People
who have tried to find out the details of his death have been unable to
learn anything, beyond the fact that he evidently died in a hospital.
Whatever the cause of his death, it was certainly convenient. He was not
around to be interviewed again, perhaps by the Loose Change producers,
after the publication of NIST’s report. And the BBC was able to put out
a second version of its program on the BBC, this time including Michael
Hess, who since 2002 had been the vice chairman of former Mayor
Giuliani’s consulting business.
Hess, not surprisingly, supported the
timeline defended by Giuliani, NIST, and the BBC, along with their claim
that no explosions had gone off in Building 7.
To see the falsity of that timeline, however, one only has to look at
the interview of Jennings by the Loose Change producers, which is now on
the Internet as “Barry Jennings Uncut.”
The timely and
mysterious death
of Jennings, moreover, may well indicate just how threatening the truth
about Building 7 is to the official conspiracy theory about 9/11.
In any case, I will point out one more way in which
Building 7 has
proved to be the Achilles’ Heel of the Bush-Cheney administration’s
conspiracy theory about 9/11.
I mentioned earlier that Building 7 came down in virtual free fall. In
the first draft of its report, which was issued in August 2008 for
public comment, NIST claimed that the collapse took far longer than
would a free-fall collapse. It also explained why, given its theory,
which is a theory of “progressive collapse,” absolute free fall would
have been impossible.
But David Chandler, a high-school physics teacher,
produced a video showing that the building came down in absolute free
fall for over two seconds. Besides putting it on the Internet, Chandler
confronted NIST with his evidence at a public meeting, which was
broadcast live. In its Final Report, issued in November, NIST,
amazingly, conceded that Building 7 had come down in free fall for over
2 seconds. But NIST had not altered its theory.
Its Final Report,
therefore, NIST admitted free fall as an empirical fact while
articulating a theory that simply does not allow for free fall.
This contradiction can well be seen as the ultimate self-destruction of
the official conspiracy theory about 9/11, which says that Muslim
terrorists brought down three buildings of the World Trade Center by
flying planes into two of them.
Conclusion
I will conclude by addressing members of the 9/11 Truth Movement - both
old members and any new members that this lecture may have created.
Rather than letting up on our efforts to get the truth about 9/11
revealed, now is the time to work even harder.
We have a new president in the White House.
I suggest that the 9/11 Truth Movement’s efforts should now be directed
primarily at him. He has promised to base his policies on good science
and good intelligence. He is also a lawyer, a politician, and a
religious man, so he may well be moved by learning that these types of
people have all formed organizations calling on him to authorize a new
investigation.
So besides carrying forward our present
activities, we should also do everything we can to bring more scientists
into the movement and to build up the size of Lawyers for 9/11 Truth,
Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth,
and especially Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth - because this is now
what is most needed:
Pressure from political leaders around
the world to authorize a new, truly independent, investigation,
through which the truth about 9/11 can be revealed, so that the
policies based upon the Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory can be
completely abolished.
David Ray Griffin
