Reclaiming the “Boston Tea Party” for 9/11 Truth
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
Sep 29, 2010, 00:24
As the Beatles once sang, “oh I’ll get by with a little help with my friends/yes I’ll get high with a little help from my friends.” In this case I received some illuminating help from my friend, journalist, researcher and activist, Barbara Honegger on my last article The making of 9/11 activists.
As I wrote in it, Manny Badillo had related to me that he was a conservative in 2009, even attending a Tea Party in Boston for 9/11 Truth. I assumed and wrote: “Ironically, it was the conservative 9/11 Tea Party given in Boston in 2007 that put him on the path to 9/11 Truth.” The use of conservative was his, but the assumption that the Tea Party was a conservative property was mine.
The truth is quite au contraire, as Barbara points out to me. And she should know, having initiated the vision for that very Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth.
In fact, Manny’s awakening came at the Tea Party for 9/11 Truth in Boston on December 15 and 16 in 2007. That 2007 event and the original one-day Tea Party for 9/11 Truth held on the cobblestones outside historic Faneuil Hall on December 15, 2006, were conceived originally by Barbara Honegger and carried out with the help of her fellow progressives. But it was the larger 2007 event that opened Manny’s eyes and mind wide to the counter theories of what 9/11 really represented: a false flag operation to kick off the march to world hegemony executed by the Bush administration and its minions.
This is no small point, no scholarly nit-picking. It is major. After all, it was the Progressives who had organized the first Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth on the anniversary of the original Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773. The second annual Boston Tea Party took place in 2007, on Saturday December 15-16. In this clip, scientist Dr. Steven Jones, architect Richard Gage, engineer Kevin Ryan, and author Dr. Joel Hirschorn, discuss the fall of Towers 1, 2, and 7 and the use of the explosive nanothermite.
What is ironic -- and which enabled what Honegger calls the theft of the originally-progressive Boston Tea Party vision by “the counterfeit Palin-Murdoch-Fox ‘Tea Party’ movement’” -- is that the venue of the 2007 Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth -- historic Faneuil Hall -- that had been reserved by the progressive organizers for both weekend days, Dec. 15 and 16, was used by Libertarian Ron Paul for a fundraising event for his then presidential campaign on the 16th. When one of Paul’s Boston activists called the Hall to try to reserve it and was told that both days had already been taken by the Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth, he called one of the organizers and begged to be able to have the Hall for one of the two days. The organizer relented and allowed Ron Paul to use the hall on Sunday, Dec, 16.
As a result, just the first of the two days of the 2007 Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth took place in historic Faneuil Hall, and then moved to Boston Commons for speeches on Sunday the 16th. Following the Commons’ speeches, activists marched to Moakley Bridge, where they tossed a huge foam replica of the 9/11 Commission Report stamped ‘REJECTED’ and dozens of faux cases of the Report into Boston Harbor (see Boston Globe’s photo coverage of the 2006 event.). Both days’ events gathered crowds of supporters -- among them future 9/11 activist Manny Badillo -- and shed a light across America as brilliant as the white Boston snow that lit up the Boston Tea Party Truth for 9/11.
Ron Paul and his supporters thus were able to use Faneuil Hall on Sunday, December 16, 2007, for a “money bomb” campaign fund raiser. There, they found leftover posters and flyers created by the progressives for the previous day’s Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth here, and somehow the progressives’ Tea Party concept found its way into Libertarian Ron Paul’s campaign. See, CNN’s coverage linked above.
So it was the progressive movement for 9/11 Truth that graciously lent independent Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul and his supporters the use of Faneuil Hall on Sunday, December 16, 2007. But -- let it be duly noted -- the 9/11 events’ lead organizers, Jason King and Rich McCampbell, agreed only to let Ron Paul use the hall and certainly not the original spirit of a Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth or anything else that day -- or at any other time.
This history is the key to understanding where the original Tea Party idea came from -- it came from Barbara Honegger and her passionately independent Progressive allies. It is the true tale of how that original Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth, which was Honegger’s vision -- a vision for a politically independent and progressive ‘Second American Revolution’ -- happened to be co-opted by the right wing, which Honegger says is “the antithesis of everything our original Tea Parties stood for.” It was first lifted by Ron Paul’s Libertarians then fatefully stolen from him by the Palin/Fox/Koch Brothers/radical right-wing corporatist Republicans. Seeing how Paul and Palin are now candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the corporatists would love to weaken, if not stop, the so-called Libertarian “Tea Party” influence on the future direction of the Republican Party.
Barbara generously shared this history with me in phone interviews and corroborating documents. She modestly added that she happily preferred being called the ‘Patricia Henry’ of the Tea Party for 9/11 Truth, as activists often do, rather than the movement’s ‘mother,’ perhaps because Ron Paul has somehow claimed putative fatherhood for it -- and then Palin became its wicked stepmother.
Bottom line: trust in the progressives to lead, both today as yesterday.
The Third Beam of light
Barbara appreciated the focus on Manny Badillo in my article. She credits both Manny and Willy Rodriquez as the true heroes, being “the most articulate, informed and passionate spokespersons of the whole Movement.” This said, they had some real help from the third articulate hero, Richard Gage, with whom Honegger worked closely on a major surprise event sponsored by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth on Sept. 11 this year in New York City. It was Honegger who originally thought of putting a Third Beam of light into the New York City skyline on the 9th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks to represent the truth about the controlled demolition destruction of WTC 7, at Gage’s February 19th 1,000 signatures press conference and activists’ strategy session in San Francisco. Gage immediately got totally behind the idea, with Architects and Engineers covering half the expenses. Honegger generously covered the other half.
Honegger gives real meaning to the word “activist.” She played a major role in the planning and physical execution of the Third Beam project. This included researching and locating the uniquely small but incredibly bright spotlights called a.d. Lights, of which there are only four rentable on the entire Eastern seaboard with two that had to be driven up from Florida to New York City. She also handled contracts with the spotlight rental companies, interacted constantly with their owners and rented the truck that she and activist Steve White -- who has gathered at least three of the dust samples near Ground Zero containing the red-gray thermite chips analyzed by Steven Jones -- drove two of the four lights to their final location. And she and Steve also found just the right Honda EU-3000 generators that could power two lights at a time. And in a money-pressed movement, Barbara also paid for the generators’ rental.
The final location for the spotlights that produced the two-billion-candlepower Third Beam that burst into the New York City skyline at exactly 9:11 p.m. on Sept. 11 was picked by Manny Badillo -- the corner of Church and Worth Streets. (Hey, there’s a parking space over here, guys!)
Seconds before 9/11 p.m., Barbara pressed the four ‘on’ buttons on the spotlights (what a thrill that must have been) and whoosh, up it soared. She also orchestrated getting telephone numbers for the NYC press and television newsrooms into the hands of attendees at the INN World Report conference on “How the World Changed After 9/11” which was still meeting near Walker and Church Streets a few blocks away. PR Newswire put out the release to all the 500 mainstream NYC media in their Metro distribution at exactly 9:11 p.m. The next morning, Barbara and Steve White returned the Vestal spotlights and -- hopefully -- were able to take a long deep breath.
Phil Restino, an activist friend of Les Jamieson’s from Florida, drove the two Florida lights from there to New York City and back. And Manny and Richard were on all of the Third Beam planning calls with A&E members backing up the project.
The historic Third Beam that finally shot high into the New York skyline at 9:11 p.m. on September 11 made an instantaneous and deep impression on everyone who saw it [see it here], but perhaps deepest of all for Manny who may have seen the soul of his lost uncle rekindled in that shining moment, as many others all over the area saw their lost ones rise again in this tribute to 9/11 Truth.
The Third Beam was an incredible boost to the dean of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Prof. David Ray Griffin, who was unable to attend 9th anniversary events due to a convalescence. News of the plans for the two-billion-candle-power Third Beam over New York City’s sky on the night of 9/11 -- representing WTC 7, whose focus Griffin had called for between now and next year’s 10th anniversary-- so lifted his spirits, Barbara was told, that he took a turn for the better. Like the beam, he began to regain energy. And the moment that it went up –- 9:11 -- Honegger yelled from the bed of the truck where the spotlights burst forth to the 200 placard-bearing activists that the Third Beam was “dedicated to the success of the 9/11 Truth Movement and to David Ray Griffin.” (Here! Here! And to a speedy recovery.)
RICHARD GAGE AND BARBARA HONEGGER AND THE THIRD LIGHTBEAM FOR BUILDING 7
FOX NEWS REPORTS ON THE COLLAPSE OF BUILDING 7 BEFORE IT ACTUALLY COLLAPSED
Lastly, the Third Beam was not “a minor miracle” as I understated it originally. Given all the facts, it was a major miracle -- thanks to Barbara and all the activists involved in this historic happening.
The activist journalists at work
Besides their passionate activism for the truth about what happened on Sept. 11 th., Manny Badillo and Barbara Honegger share something else important in common. Manny Badillo was a journalist for the Air Force some five years, and Barbara has been a Navy journalist for 15. She is the Senior Military Affairs Journalist for DoD’s premiere defense science, technology, national security and homeland security university. As an example, here is one of her recent articles, on 9/11 counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke: Former Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke Calls for New National Cyber Defense Policy to Prevent a Cyber 9/11. Given that Clarke vetted and approved the entire text before publication, note especially the paragraph that begins “Regarding 9/11 itself . . .”
Because of contributions like these and many other achievements, Professor David Ray Griffin recently wrote to Barbara: “If we are successful and someone writes an objective history of our Movement, you will be given a prominent role. Although your official position places limits on what you can do, it also provides you with unique opportunities, of which you have taken good advantage.”
A historian of the 911 Truth Movement, and more
In addition to conceiving and helping to implement the first 9/11 Boston Tea Party in 2006, and the second in 2007 that put Manny on the path to 9/11 Truth, Barbara was the first committed progressive and political independent whose resignation of conscience from the Reagan-Bush White House brought ten days of national and international publicity. She was also the author of the pioneering book October Surprise (Tudor, May 1989) that documents the high treason of the 1980 Reagan-Bush presidential campaign’s secret hostage-release-delay negotiations with the then-new Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran.
As the initiator of those first Boston Tea Parties for 9/11 Truth, she was a keynote speaker at both, introduced by Bob Bowman from the podium as “The Mother of the Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth.” Barbara commented, “I didn’t know Manny then, and didn’t know he was in the audience, but I am grateful he was and that he saw the light there.”
For all these reasons, Barbara adds, “the original 9/11 Tea Parties were and are anything but ‘conservative.’ They were radically independent and non-partisan -- the proof being that “The Declaration of Independents” [that she wrote] was read aloud there.
Amen. As today’s inclusive progressives, we will all profit “with a little help from our friends.”
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer and life-long resident of New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. His new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” is available at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon or Barnesandnoble.com. He has also written hundreds of articles on American and world politics as an Associate Editor of Online Journal.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
CHARLIE SHEEN ON 911
GLENN BECK HATES 911 FAMILIES
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11
The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, April 23, 2010
Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11 230410top
Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.
A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”
“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.
“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.
However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.
In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.
In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department that the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.
Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.
For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder’s comments.
“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.
Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.
Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term “pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
“While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.
Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.
Contradicting Shapiro’s claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.
“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest,” said Bartmer.
EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.”
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*
The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”
Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.
Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.
Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.
In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.
“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”
Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.
Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.
Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.
Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.
Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, “I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks,” fails to ring true.
However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.
Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, April 23, 2010
Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11 230410top
Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.
A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”
“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.
“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.
However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.
In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.
In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department that the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.
Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.
For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder’s comments.
“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.
Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.
Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term “pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
“While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.
Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.
Contradicting Shapiro’s claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.
“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest,” said Bartmer.
EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.”
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*
The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”
Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.
Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.
Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.
In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.
“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”
Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.
Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.
Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.
Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.
Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, “I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks,” fails to ring true.
However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.
Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Friday, December 11, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkio6TF0Ufg
Conspiracy Theory 9/11 Jesse Ventura Part 1 of 4 Episode 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJPciKKLB68
Conspiracy theory with Jesse Ventura - 9/11 part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_CRTUCaN-U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_CRTUCaN-U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKGzQs_hJ44
Conspiracy theory with Jesse Ventura 911 part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1PUCZxXKT8
Conspiracy theory with Jesse Ventura - 9/11 part 6
part six...
Friday, May 15, 2009
Three 9-11 Truth Experts in Monterey,
Hey! Where is the plane? Did somebody drag it away? Looks like nary a plane that Septembeer day. Looks like a big bomb went BOOOOOOOOOOOM. How come it is said that a plane hit the Pentagon? Rumor? Bad Press? No other explanation as to how?
How about a missle like this 911 Commision represenitive Tim Roener "accidentally" admitted..or.. "Bombs planted inside the buiding"? But who would do a thing like that? Terrorists? But how did they get inside the building and plant bombs? Maybe they worked for the "security" that "protects" the building? Oh MY God! Let's find out.
Stay tuned and scroll down inside here for clues and facts.
911truthseattle.org meets Norm Mineta
911 Commission - Trans. Sec Norman Mineta Testimony
Mineta and the secret orders of Cheney
Urgent Message from Richard Gage, AIA
NYC 9/11 Investigation Ballot Initiative
Fellow Architect/Engineer and other Petition Signers,
It looks like 2009 will be the breakthrough year for establishing a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rise on 9/11. At the San Francisco AIA convention, April 30=2 0to May 2, about 60 architects signed our petition calling for a new investigation, bringing the total number of architects and engineers calling for a new investigation to over 700.
Out on the East coast, a different petition is happening—one that we must support FULLY. In the very city where these tragic events took place, over 38,000 New Yorkers have so far signed the petition calling for a citywide referendum on the formation of a new, independent, impartial investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. When the voters of New York City collect the required number of signatures to put this referendum on the ballot and pass it by majority vote, a new Commission will be formed, this time consisting of pre-selected individuals who will follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Such a Commission will give us the legally established venue to present the evidence for the explosive controlled demolition of the three WTC high-rises.
For over three years, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have called upon Congress to reopen the 9/11 investigation. Our demand has fallen on deaf ears. Now, we have the opportunity to help make this investigation a reality.
The dedic ated team at NYCCAN in New York City need OUR support. To guarantee their referendum will make it on the ballot, they must to collect 35,000 more signatures by the end of June. Their goal is attainable if they have adequate funding. Their petitioning staff has become so effective that they collect 1 signature for every dollar spent – “a buck a sig”, as they like to put it. If 2,000 of us donate only $25, they will immediately raise the $50,000 needed for the completion of their petitioning effort. And with 75,000 signatures, the referendum will indeed make it on the ballot. This donation must be in addition to your ongoing support of AE911Truth. We cannot afford to lose any of your valued support at this time – as our upcoming architect convention projects are equally important in the overall 9/11 truth effort.
Now is the time for us to put our money where our heart is. Donate $25 right now, and we will be able to present the evidence before an independent, impartial Commission. Now is the time to support the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now, because NYC CAN.
www.NYCCAN.org
One real chance. One real investigation. Donate now.
Sincerely,
Richard Gage, AIA
Pentagon Attack Papers Honnegger
Pentagon attack where;s the palne?
Have You Forgotten...Ace Baker
How about a missle like this 911 Commision represenitive Tim Roener "accidentally" admitted..or.. "Bombs planted inside the buiding"? But who would do a thing like that? Terrorists? But how did they get inside the building and plant bombs? Maybe they worked for the "security" that "protects" the building? Oh MY God! Let's find out.
Stay tuned and scroll down inside here for clues and facts.
911truthseattle.org meets Norm Mineta
911 Commission - Trans. Sec Norman Mineta Testimony
Mineta and the secret orders of Cheney
Urgent Message from Richard Gage, AIA
NYC 9/11 Investigation Ballot Initiative
Fellow Architect/Engineer and other Petition Signers,
It looks like 2009 will be the breakthrough year for establishing a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rise on 9/11. At the San Francisco AIA convention, April 30=2 0to May 2, about 60 architects signed our petition calling for a new investigation, bringing the total number of architects and engineers calling for a new investigation to over 700.
Out on the East coast, a different petition is happening—one that we must support FULLY. In the very city where these tragic events took place, over 38,000 New Yorkers have so far signed the petition calling for a citywide referendum on the formation of a new, independent, impartial investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. When the voters of New York City collect the required number of signatures to put this referendum on the ballot and pass it by majority vote, a new Commission will be formed, this time consisting of pre-selected individuals who will follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Such a Commission will give us the legally established venue to present the evidence for the explosive controlled demolition of the three WTC high-rises.
For over three years, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have called upon Congress to reopen the 9/11 investigation. Our demand has fallen on deaf ears. Now, we have the opportunity to help make this investigation a reality.
The dedic ated team at NYCCAN in New York City need OUR support. To guarantee their referendum will make it on the ballot, they must to collect 35,000 more signatures by the end of June. Their goal is attainable if they have adequate funding. Their petitioning staff has become so effective that they collect 1 signature for every dollar spent – “a buck a sig”, as they like to put it. If 2,000 of us donate only $25, they will immediately raise the $50,000 needed for the completion of their petitioning effort. And with 75,000 signatures, the referendum will indeed make it on the ballot. This donation must be in addition to your ongoing support of AE911Truth. We cannot afford to lose any of your valued support at this time – as our upcoming architect convention projects are equally important in the overall 9/11 truth effort.
Now is the time for us to put our money where our heart is. Donate $25 right now, and we will be able to present the evidence before an independent, impartial Commission. Now is the time to support the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now, because NYC CAN.
www.NYCCAN.org
One real chance. One real investigation. Donate now.
Sincerely,
Richard Gage, AIA
Pentagon Attack Papers Honnegger
Pentagon attack where;s the palne?
Have You Forgotten...Ace Baker
Monday, April 6, 2009
David Ray Griffin AND April Gallup interviews
SCROLL PAST THE APRIL GALLUP INTERVIEW FOR DAVID RAY GRIFFINS VIDEOS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY..
9/11: Time for a Second Look SEE BELOW FOR APRIL GALLUP INTERVIEW..SHE WAS INSIDE THE PEATAGON ON 911 AND SAID "NO AIRPLANES HIT THE PENTAGON"..AN INTERNAL EXPLOSION CAUSED THE DAMAGE.
VERY IMPORTANT1 APRIL GALLUP WAS IINSIDE TYHE PENTAGON ON 911.."THERE WAS NO AIRPLANE!
April Gallup 911 Pentagon Survivor on alex Jones TV : No Plane Part One
April Gallup Was there a bomb in the Pentagon #2
alexJones April Gallup #3
Aprol Gallup #4
“9/11 Conspiracy Guru” David Ray Griffin
to speak at Boston University -- April 11, 2009
No single proponent of alternative theories concerning the events of September 11, 2001 has received more attention – supportive and critical – than Professor David Ray Griffin, who will be giving a public lecture at Boston University’s Morse Auditorium on Saturday, April 11, 2009 at 7pm. Dr. Griffin’s appearance at Boston University will be his first ever in Boston, after which he will embark on his second European tour, where he will present the most thorough, up-to-date and popularly accepted alternative critique of the 9/11 story to audiences in London, Brussels, Paris, Madrid, Lausanne, Lucerne, Hamburg, Stockholm, Trondheim, and Oslo. The BU event is co-sponsored by the Boston University School of Theology and the Boston 9/11 Truth Committee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb_MzN5DWQc
Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University:
“David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed.”
David Ray Griffin is Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies.
He has published (as author or editor) 34 books, primarily in theology, philosophy, and philosophy of religion, with special emphases on the problem of evil and the relation between science and religion.
Seven of his books deal with 9/11: The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), Christian Faith and the Truth about 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006), 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006, co-edited with Peter Dale Scott), Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (2007), 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, and his latest, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-U and the Exposé (2008). In 2008 Griffin also made presentations on 9/11 at the European Parliament and the Japanese Diet.
In his latest book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 911, the Cover -Up, and the Expose, Dr. Griffin once again invokes the tragic events of December 7, 1941, laying out further evidence for why he believes the attack of September 11, 2001 was an “inside job” — a false flag attack that can be traced to the highest levels of the US government.
In defense of his thesis, Griffin: –points out the continued failure of the mainstream press to investigate any of the questions and anomalies which appear to contradict the official account of 9/11, and claims the media dishonestly uses the term "conspiracy theory" to prevent criticism of the government’s conspiracy theory involving 19 “radical” Muslims.
–deconstructs, using expert testimony, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) five “crucial claims” about the World Trade Center (WCT) collapses, showing that NIST, in fact, provides no supporting evidence for any of its claims. He further points out that NIST and the 911 Commission ignored vast amounts of relevant evidence for controlled demolition of all three WTC buildings (WTC 1, 2, 7) that collapsed on 9/11, among which are the sudden, symmetrical collapses at near-freefall speeds (in the case of WTC7 into its own building footprint), pools of molten metal under the debris pile for weeks indicating temperatures considerably higher than jet-fuel and office-materials fires could possibly generate, and residue of explosives found in WTC dust.
–presents what he suspects to be motives that high level government officials had for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. Griffin contends that the 9/11 Commission suppressed any mention of these possible motives, as well as the fact that key members of the Bush Administration were signatories to the radical plan drawn up in 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), for increased militarization and global dominance. The PNAC report suggested the necessity for a “New Pearl Harbor” event to persuade the American public in favor of its stated goals, hence, the title of Griffin’s first and latest exposé, The New Pearl Harbor (Revisited).
Griffin’s 9/11 books have been endorsed by Michael Chossudovsky, William Sloane Coffin, Harvey Cox, Richard Falk, Catherine Austin Fitts, David Griscom, Jim Hightower, British MP Michael Meacher, Mark Crispin Miller, Rosemary Ruether, Marcus Raskin, Paul Craig Roberts, Peter Dale Scott, Gerry Spence, Lorie Van Auken, Howard Zinn, and former CIA officials Robert Baer, Bill Christison, and Ray McGovern.
Four of these books have been given special recognition: The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortion received the 2006 Helios Foundation Award for 2006. Debunking 9/11 Debunking was a Bronze Medal Winner in the 2008 Independent Publisher Book Awards. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited was named a “Pick of the Week” in 2008 by Publishers Weekly.
His essays and interviews about 9/11 have appeared in such disparate publication as
1. Zion’s Herald,
2. Hustler Magazine,
3, Global Outlook
4. LA Times Magazine
5. Conversations in Religion and Theolog
6. Penthouse Netherlands
7. Whole Earth Times
8. Tikkun
9. Le Monde Diplomatique
10. Griffin has been featured on “The Richard & Judy Show” (London)
11. C-Span (twice),
12. ABC News Radio
13. “Tucker” on MSNBC
14, CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation)
15, the BBC’s “Heaven and Earth,”
16 and in over 400 radio talk-shows
17, including Democracy Now!
18. Many videos of his talks and interviews are available on the Internet
During the week prior to his lecture in Boston, Dr. Griffin will also give lectures in Wayne, PA, Vassar College, Portsmouth and Keene, NH.
[1] “9/11: A Christian Theologian’s Response: Deceptions of Empire and the Anti-Imperial Gospel of Jesus,” Zion’s Herald, July/August 2005: 5-6, 39-40
(available at http://www.anthonyflood.com/griffin911xntheologiansresponse.htm ).
[2] “What If Everything You Know about 9/11 Is Wrong?” Interview with Bruce David and Carolyn Sinclair, Hustler Magazine, August, 2005: 32-35, 108 (available at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story 050604140153943 [text only] and http://911truth.org/docs/drgHfull.pdf (with graphics).
[3] “Truth and Politics of 9/11: Omissions and Distortions of The 9/11 Commission Report,” Global Outlook (www.GlobalOutlook.ca
[4] “Getting Agnostic about 9/11” (an interview conducted by Mark Ehrman), LA Times Magazine, August 28, 2005 (http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-crgriffin35aug28,1,3835884.story?coll=la-headlines-magazine ).
[5] “Response to Ian Markham” (to Markham’s review of The New Pearl Harbor), Conversations in Religion and Theology, 3/2 (November, 2005): 220-236.
[6] “Rokende Pistolen Gezocht: De Echte Daders Achter 9/11” (Interview), Penthouse (Dutch), December, 2006: 088-091.
[7] “9/11 Under Attack: David Ray Griffin: Why the Official Story Just Doesn’t Make Sense.” Interview by Abigail Lewis. Whole Life Times, September 2006: 53-54.
[8] “The American Empire and 9/11,” Tikkun, March-April 2007) (http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0703/frontpage/empire911 ).
[9] “The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory: A Reply to Alexander Cockburn,” Le Monde Diplomatique Norway, English version, March 2007 (http://www.lmd.no/index.php?article08#fotnoter ).
[10] June 22, 2004.
[11] (1) “9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond?”, Lecture at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, April 18, 2005, broadcast on C-SPAN2 [BookTV], April 30, 2005 (available at http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html); BookTV, C-SPAN 2, November 24 & 25. (2) “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” September 24, 2006, Berkeley, CA, edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin. The event featured remarks by Griffin, Scott, Peter Phillips, Kevin Ryan and Ray McGovern, who served as host.
[12] ABC News Radio, September 11, 2005.
[13] “Tucker,” MSNBC, August 9, 2005 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxKW3EqbfRE).
[14] “9/11: Truth, Lies and Conspiracy: Interview: David Ray Griffin,” CBC News, August 25, 2006 (http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html ).
[15] “Heaven and Earth,” BBC1, September 10, 2006 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid81676883393469552 ).
[16] For some of these, see http://www.radiodujour.com/guests/griffin_david_ray/index.html .
[17] “The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks,” Democracy Now! May 26, 2004 (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid/05/26/150221 ). Wednesday, May 26th.
[18] See http://video.google.com/videosearch?qid+ray+griffin&num&so=0&start0 .
[19] Independent Publishers (http://www.independentpublisher.com/article.php?page57&urltitle=Announcing%202007%20Independent%20Publisher%20Book%20Awards%20Results
http://www.independentpublisher.com/article.php?page57&urltitle=Announcing%202007%20Independent%20Publisher%20Book%20Awards%20Results )
9/11: Time for a Second Look SEE BELOW FOR APRIL GALLUP INTERVIEW..SHE WAS INSIDE THE PEATAGON ON 911 AND SAID "NO AIRPLANES HIT THE PENTAGON"..AN INTERNAL EXPLOSION CAUSED THE DAMAGE.
VERY IMPORTANT1 APRIL GALLUP WAS IINSIDE TYHE PENTAGON ON 911.."THERE WAS NO AIRPLANE!
April Gallup 911 Pentagon Survivor on alex Jones TV : No Plane Part One
April Gallup Was there a bomb in the Pentagon #2
alexJones April Gallup #3
Aprol Gallup #4
“9/11 Conspiracy Guru” David Ray Griffin
to speak at Boston University -- April 11, 2009
No single proponent of alternative theories concerning the events of September 11, 2001 has received more attention – supportive and critical – than Professor David Ray Griffin, who will be giving a public lecture at Boston University’s Morse Auditorium on Saturday, April 11, 2009 at 7pm. Dr. Griffin’s appearance at Boston University will be his first ever in Boston, after which he will embark on his second European tour, where he will present the most thorough, up-to-date and popularly accepted alternative critique of the 9/11 story to audiences in London, Brussels, Paris, Madrid, Lausanne, Lucerne, Hamburg, Stockholm, Trondheim, and Oslo. The BU event is co-sponsored by the Boston University School of Theology and the Boston 9/11 Truth Committee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb_MzN5DWQc
Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University:
“David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed.”
David Ray Griffin is Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies.
He has published (as author or editor) 34 books, primarily in theology, philosophy, and philosophy of religion, with special emphases on the problem of evil and the relation between science and religion.
Seven of his books deal with 9/11: The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), Christian Faith and the Truth about 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006), 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006, co-edited with Peter Dale Scott), Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (2007), 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, and his latest, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-U and the Exposé (2008). In 2008 Griffin also made presentations on 9/11 at the European Parliament and the Japanese Diet.
In his latest book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 911, the Cover -Up, and the Expose, Dr. Griffin once again invokes the tragic events of December 7, 1941, laying out further evidence for why he believes the attack of September 11, 2001 was an “inside job” — a false flag attack that can be traced to the highest levels of the US government.
In defense of his thesis, Griffin: –points out the continued failure of the mainstream press to investigate any of the questions and anomalies which appear to contradict the official account of 9/11, and claims the media dishonestly uses the term "conspiracy theory" to prevent criticism of the government’s conspiracy theory involving 19 “radical” Muslims.
–deconstructs, using expert testimony, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) five “crucial claims” about the World Trade Center (WCT) collapses, showing that NIST, in fact, provides no supporting evidence for any of its claims. He further points out that NIST and the 911 Commission ignored vast amounts of relevant evidence for controlled demolition of all three WTC buildings (WTC 1, 2, 7) that collapsed on 9/11, among which are the sudden, symmetrical collapses at near-freefall speeds (in the case of WTC7 into its own building footprint), pools of molten metal under the debris pile for weeks indicating temperatures considerably higher than jet-fuel and office-materials fires could possibly generate, and residue of explosives found in WTC dust.
–presents what he suspects to be motives that high level government officials had for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. Griffin contends that the 9/11 Commission suppressed any mention of these possible motives, as well as the fact that key members of the Bush Administration were signatories to the radical plan drawn up in 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), for increased militarization and global dominance. The PNAC report suggested the necessity for a “New Pearl Harbor” event to persuade the American public in favor of its stated goals, hence, the title of Griffin’s first and latest exposé, The New Pearl Harbor (Revisited).
Griffin’s 9/11 books have been endorsed by Michael Chossudovsky, William Sloane Coffin, Harvey Cox, Richard Falk, Catherine Austin Fitts, David Griscom, Jim Hightower, British MP Michael Meacher, Mark Crispin Miller, Rosemary Ruether, Marcus Raskin, Paul Craig Roberts, Peter Dale Scott, Gerry Spence, Lorie Van Auken, Howard Zinn, and former CIA officials Robert Baer, Bill Christison, and Ray McGovern.
Four of these books have been given special recognition: The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortion received the 2006 Helios Foundation Award for 2006. Debunking 9/11 Debunking was a Bronze Medal Winner in the 2008 Independent Publisher Book Awards. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited was named a “Pick of the Week” in 2008 by Publishers Weekly.
His essays and interviews about 9/11 have appeared in such disparate publication as
1. Zion’s Herald,
2. Hustler Magazine,
3, Global Outlook
4. LA Times Magazine
5. Conversations in Religion and Theolog
6. Penthouse Netherlands
7. Whole Earth Times
8. Tikkun
9. Le Monde Diplomatique
10. Griffin has been featured on “The Richard & Judy Show” (London)
11. C-Span (twice),
12. ABC News Radio
13. “Tucker” on MSNBC
14, CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation)
15, the BBC’s “Heaven and Earth,”
16 and in over 400 radio talk-shows
17, including Democracy Now!
18. Many videos of his talks and interviews are available on the Internet
During the week prior to his lecture in Boston, Dr. Griffin will also give lectures in Wayne, PA, Vassar College, Portsmouth and Keene, NH.
[1] “9/11: A Christian Theologian’s Response: Deceptions of Empire and the Anti-Imperial Gospel of Jesus,” Zion’s Herald, July/August 2005: 5-6, 39-40
(available at http://www.anthonyflood.com/griffin911xntheologiansresponse.htm
[2] “What If Everything You Know about 9/11 Is Wrong?” Interview with Bruce David and Carolyn Sinclair, Hustler Magazine, August, 2005: 32-35, 108 (available at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story 050604140153943
[3] “Truth and Politics of 9/11: Omissions and Distortions of The 9/11 Commission Report,” Global Outlook (www.GlobalOutlook.ca
[4] “Getting Agnostic about 9/11” (an interview conducted by Mark Ehrman), LA Times Magazine, August 28, 2005 (http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-crgriffin35aug28,1,3835884.story?coll=la-headlines-magazine
[5] “Response to Ian Markham” (to Markham’s review of The New Pearl Harbor), Conversations in Religion and Theology, 3/2 (November, 2005): 220-236.
[6] “Rokende Pistolen Gezocht: De Echte Daders Achter 9/11” (Interview), Penthouse (Dutch), December, 2006: 088-091.
[7] “9/11 Under Attack: David Ray Griffin: Why the Official Story Just Doesn’t Make Sense.” Interview by Abigail Lewis. Whole Life Times, September 2006: 53-54.
[8] “The American Empire and 9/11,” Tikkun, March-April 2007) (http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0703/frontpage/empire911
[9] “The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory: A Reply to Alexander Cockburn,” Le Monde Diplomatique Norway, English version, March 2007 (http://www.lmd.no/index.php?article08#fotnoter
[10] June 22, 2004.
[11] (1) “9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond?”, Lecture at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, April 18, 2005, broadcast on C-SPAN2 [BookTV], April 30, 2005 (available at http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html); BookTV, C-SPAN 2, November 24 & 25. (2) “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” September 24, 2006, Berkeley, CA, edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin. The event featured remarks by Griffin, Scott, Peter Phillips, Kevin Ryan and Ray McGovern, who served as host.
[12] ABC News Radio, September 11, 2005.
[13] “Tucker,” MSNBC, August 9, 2005 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxKW3EqbfRE).
[14] “9/11: Truth, Lies and Conspiracy: Interview: David Ray Griffin,” CBC News, August 25, 2006 (http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html
[15] “Heaven and Earth,” BBC1, September 10, 2006 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid81676883393469552
[16] For some of these, see http://www.radiodujour.com/guests/griffin_david_ray/index.html
[17] “The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks,” Democracy Now! May 26, 2004 (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid/05/26/150221
[18] See http://video.google.com/videosearch?qid+ray+griffin&num&so=0&start0
[19] Independent Publishers (http://www.independentpublisher.com/article.php?page57&urltitle=Announcing%202007%20Independent%20Publisher%20Book%20Awards%20Results
http://www.independentpublisher.com/article.php?page57&urltitle=Announcing%202007%20Independent%20Publisher%20Book%20Awards%20Results )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)