Sort the media by relevance: MSM response to Zelikow MFR re 9/11 Commission Bush-Cheney interview classic example of spin for social control

Sort the media by relevance: MSM response to Zelikow MFR re 9/11 Commission Bush-Cheney interview is a classic example of spin for social control

The New York Times did not acknowledge the recent release of a rough transcript the 9/11 Commission’s 2004 interview of Bush-Cheney [PDF] from going on 20 years ago, but two days BEFORE that April 29, 2004 meeting, the NYTimes reported there would be no recording of it. The fact of President Bush and VP Cheney testifying together, not under Oath but in the Oval Office, had already been the subject of public criticism, including by the 9/11 Commission Family Steering Committee, as well as jokes about Bush being Cheney’s puppet.

News of the release of this historic record — the ONLY record of the Bush-Cheney interview, with the exception of Commissioner notes — was broken with a pre-Nov 9 leak to the Wall Street Journal. September 11 was called the ‘worst attack on the US since Pearl Harbor’, and a massive intelligence ‘failure’. It was immediately exploited by the Bush Administration and the upper class Establishment for war and mil/intel budget increases.

Mainstream media, including the Washington Post, reported on the WSJ article, the first draft of which incorrectly reported that the MFR had not already been released, that morning. The Journal presented the 9/11 Commission interview, and the Bush-Cheney answers, without context, as if they were credible at face value, and ABC did the same superficial job in their own reporting.

The only media so far that have done a serious reporting and analysis of the MFR are Jeremy Scahill at the Intercept, and Dan Christensen at the Florida Bulldog, and 9/11 truth and justice activist Jon Gold.

It’s said, ‘Americans don’t read,’ but Americans who read the Intercept and Bulldog articles will be better informed of what went on in the meeting than from the MSM spin.

Among many other relevant points, Christensen highlights the part of the MFR that says Bush told the Commissioners that he “didn’t see much point in assigning personal blame for 9/11.”

Two Americans who were personally and deeply affected by the 9/11 attacks, and who did read the Zelikow Bush-Cheney MFR [PDF] for themselves, were quoted by Christensen:

9/11 victim family member Kristen Breitweiser, on Bush’s comment about avoiding responsibility for 9/11: “It would have been pure outrage … We felt that in the face of nearly 3,000 dead bodies in lower Manhattan that people would have been held accountable.”

9/11 attack survivor Sharon Premoli: “This document makes my blood boil … That our lives were in the hands of these incompetents is chilling and [explains] why 3,000 were murdered, 6,000 injured.”

On a plain reading of the Zelkow Bush-Cheney MFR [PDF], it’s obvious that 1) known liars Bush-Cheney were being incredibly obtuse, and 2) ALL of the Commissioners were excusing this while seeking answers they could use to sell the story Zelikow and the Commission wanted to tell: The Philip Zelikow-Ernest May outline written before the 9/11 investigation that later became the table of contents for the 9/11 Commission Final Report; the public myth [PDF] of 9/11to sell the War on Terror for military/intelligence budgets, oil and Full Spectrum Dominance.

More coming on the MFR contents and context. Below are screenshots of the Google News and Web results for coverage of the MFR.

“The First Draft of History and the Truth”

Jamie Gorelick, 9/11 Commission Cover Up

9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick, at a PIDB public meeting May 18, 2021 concerning the importance of public disclosure of government records re 9/11 and generally, said the following:

The third is a little more of a global question, which is whether there are lessons to be learned about the differences between the first draft of history and the truth.

And you might want to study the story that was first told to us about the plane that was heading for the capital, United 93. And how the Air Force said it was tracking the plane and was prepared to shoot it down, had the Capitol been threatened, and NORAD testified that it was ready to intercept American 77 and united 93.

Both statements turned out to be wrong. Whether they were intentionally false is a whole other question. But the people who gave us those stories had ample opportunity to gather the facts. It wasn’t like they were talking to us, just off the top of their heads, and yet, the presentation of organizations as really on top of things turned out to be wrong. 27:34

The 9/11 Commission Report glosses over the issue of the false statements that were made by military personnel, even though the 9/11 Commission was required by law to do a full investigation of the 9/11 attacks, including, per Section 602 of Public Law 107–306, 107th Congress:

The purposes of the Commission are to--
(1) examine and report upon the facts and causes relating to
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at the
World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;
(2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence
developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the
facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks;
(3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and
avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of--
(A) the Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, (hereinafter in this title referred
to as the ``Joint Inquiry''); and
(B) other executive branch, congressional, or
independent commission investigations into the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, other terrorist attacks,
and terrorism generally;
(4) make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances
surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States'
preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks; and
(5) investigate and report to the President and Congress on
its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective
measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.

There were repeated calls by Republicans as well as objective people for Gorelick to resign from the 9/11 Commssion due to her creating the 1995 ‘Wall Memo’ between counter-terrorism and law enforcement investigations, but these calls were rebuffed by her fellow Commissioners, whose careers, finances, politics and personal relationships were also riddled with unacceptable conflicts of interest.

Prior to the Commission, Gorelick was Vice Chair at Fannie Mae from 1997–2003, earning millions while Fannie Mae ending up paying 400 million in fines. Since the Commission, Gorelick has gone on to advise Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.

9/11 Commission Executive Director and cover up architect Philip Zelikow personally intervened in the potential criminal referral to DOJ over false statements made to the Commission by military personnel, and was caught lying about this to Phil Shenon by History Commons contributor and author Kevin Fenton. Zelikow cared enough about his reputation online to respond, making himself look worse.

2006 New York Times/CBS public opinion poll found that only 16% of Americans believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth about 9/11. This was two years after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Since then, additional disclosures have further undermined the credibility of the 9/11 Commission and their conclusions, but Americans have kept supporting the same kind of business leaders and Establishment Democrats and Republicans that covered up 9/11. Even as, going on two decades later, the cover uppers glibly release to the public the very records that tell on them, such as the Nov 9 release of the Zelikow MFR of the April 29, 2004 ‘interview’ of Bush-Cheney by the 9/11 Commission.

Zelikow knew what he was doing, which is why he was chosen to create the ‘public myth’ of 9/11, i.e. that the dots couldn’t be connected, that Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda were solely responsible for 9/11, that the permanent War on Terror with mass domestic warrantless spying and ultra-billions for the military & intelligence communities is ‘THE ONLY WAY’, and anyone who questions this is ‘with the enemies.’

More soon on the Bush-Cheney Zelikow MFR.

It was business as usual at the 9/11 Commission

“It was a beautiful spring day,” 9/11 Commission Executive Director thought worthy of remark on April 29, 2004, as he took notes to further the cover up of the September 11 attacks. He had been appointed ED to exploit “catastrophic terrorism” and the mass murder of 2977 people to create another of his “public myths” [PDF] in service to US global hegemony. Unprosecuted Vietnam war criminal Henry Kissinger had resigned, rather than disclose his Bin Ladin family clientele.

Decorated Vietnam vet Senator Max Cleland had also resigned, saying the Bush administration wanted to “cover it up”and the Bush-Cheney obstruction of the 9/11 Commission “should be a national scandal”.

Reading the MFR opening, I was reminded of the lyric from Biko, Peter Gabriel’s song for cop-murdered South African civil rights activist Steve Biko:

September ‘77
Port Elizabeth, weather fine. 
It was business as usual 
In police room 619

Biko by Peter Gabriel
Voorbije tijden: Bush en Cheney tijdens de campagne in 2000. Foto AP

The Truth & Reconciliation Commission of South Africa may be a model for the USA to resolve the socio-political and economic corruption furthered by 9/11 and those most responsible, which includes the 9/11 Commission and its cover up, as well as us Americans, who’ve essentially tolerated the cover up by continuing to go about our business as usual, consuming junk food/media, and voting for Establishment politicians.

For the 9/11 Commission, President Bush and Dark President Cheney had agreed to be interviewed — on the condition that they be together; privately and in the Oval Office; not under Oath or recorded; and with notes subject to confiscation, review and censorship prior to return.

April 4, the Family Steering Committee urged Bush-Cheney and the Commission to reconsider their decision to testify together and without Oath or recording, given the obvious appearance of conflicts of interest, but to no avail. In addition, the FSC’s questions, which Jamie Gorelick had promised would be the roadmap for the Commission, were largely ignored.

See this Jon Gold video of C-Span viewer reactions to Bush-Cheney being interviewed together, with clips of George W. Bush after the 9/11 Commission interview, ducking questions while saying how much he “enjoyed” meeting with the Commissioners.

You can blow out a candle
But you can’t blow out a fire
Once the flames begin to catch
The wind will blow it higher  

Biko by Peter Gabriel

The Zelikow MFR for the 9/11 Commission interview of Bush-Cheney is available for download at the National Archives: Commission Meeting with the President and Vice President ofthe United States 29 April 2004, 9:25–12:40[PDF]

I’ll have more to say about this.

Declassified: Zelikow MFR of the 9/11 Commission Interview of Bush & Cheney

The declassification and release today (November 9, 2022) of the interview with President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney conducted by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission) follows recommendations long advocated by the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB). The release of the transcript addresses one of the Boards mandates, to release records and materials of extraordinary public interest.

The declassified transcript of the interview is now available at:

“The release of this historical record regarding then President Bush and Vice President Cheney’s actions in the period leading up to and immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attack is an important step towards additional public transparency. The Board thanks all members of the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP), who diligently participated in the declassification review and made it possible for this important historical record to be released to the public. We hope that in the coming months additional records regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks will be declassified, consistent with President Biden’s September 2021 order. The resource intensive process required to release this record highlights the need to reform and streamline the entire declassification process,” said Chair Ezra Cohen.


As noted and linked from the PIDB blog post, interviews with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Condolezza Rice, Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke and Michael Scheuer are on the ‘fast track’ for declassification review, as well as a summary of all the PDB’s George W. Bush received prior to the 9/11 attacks:

U.S. Government Quietly Declassifies Post-9/11 Interview with Bush and Cheney: In a newly declassified interview conducted in 2004, Bush shows not a glimmer of awareness of the destruction and carnage he had unleashed on the world. By Jeremy Scahill

Thanks to Jon Gold for recalling that 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow was interviewed as part of the 9/11 Commission’s work, just for his role on the transition team. This MFR has now been submitted for MDR.

Also see this Jon Gold video made from George W. Bush giving public remarks after the 9/11 Commission interview, and the reactions from C-Span viewers:

Link to PDF copy of Sep 9, 2022 ISCAP letter informing me of the likely Nov 9 release of the MFR: 

Biden Order May Compel Disclosure of FBI Investigation re US Persons Involved in Nuclear Espionage & 9/11

Biden Order May Compel Disclosure of FBI Investigation re US Persons Involved in Nuclear Espionage & 9/11

If the FBI follows President Biden’s 9/3/21 Executive Order 14040 “Declassification Reviews of Certain Documents Concerning the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” it should declassify and release information in FBI file 203A-WF-210023. Disclosure of information in this file, and concerning how this reportedly-closed FBI counterintelligence investigation was handled, is critical and in the public interest. The very existence of 203A-WF-210023 was once denied by the FBI. It has been credibly alleged it contains evidence of nuclear espionage, and 9/11-related crimes and corruption, by high-ranking US officials.

Sept 2022 ISCAP email to Erik Larson re MDR Appeal for FBI File 203A-WF-210023

In 2014, regarding my 2012 Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) request for FBI File 203A-WF-210023, the ISCAP Appeals Panel voted unanimously to “affirm the classification of the information in its entirety.”

After the legislated two-year period had passed, I again requested MDR, and appealed to ISCAP in 2018, following FBI and DOJ denials.

Sept 8, 2020, an email to me from ISCAP stated:

This appeal remains in the “Materials Requested from Agency” status. The ISCAP Staff periodically contacts agencies who have not yet provided relevant materials for appeals; we will do so for this appeal, tracked as ISCAP appeal 2018–059, when we resume classified processing.

Sept 12, 2022, ISCAP informed me they still have not received the relevant records from the FBI, and that:

Connecting with the FBI regarding obtaining the responsive materials for appeal 2018–059 remains on our list of staff actions.

In reviewing the file for your appeal I see that the record you are appealing is the same record as the ISCAP decided upon in December 2014 under appeal 2013–068. In that decision, the ISCAP affirmed the classification of the record in its entirety.

The ISCAP staff will continue to work with the FBI to obtain responsive materials for this appeal. As the ISCAP has adjudicated the content of this appeal in the comparatively recent past, we have not prioritized this complex appeal for re-adjudication. Our prioritization principles, as well as the ISCAP bylaws, are available on our website at

I’ve also been requesting this file from the FBI under FOIA since 2011. In an initial response, the FBI stated, “We have located approximately 3429 pages potentially responsive to your request.” The information in the file was withheld in its entirety due to classification status.

Credible sources have reported on FBI file 203A-WF-210023, the name of which signifies an FBI Washington Field Office, Counterintelligence Division Turkish Unit investigation. It’s said the investigation is closed, and the file contains evidence of crimes and corruption by high-ranking past/deceased and current members of Congress, as well as officials at State, Defense and other agencies.

The allegations are many and broad, but include trafficking in US nuclear secrets to Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and Sibel Edmonds has alleged US knowledge of and/or cover up of the 9/11 plot.

In affirming the classification in 2014, the only exemptions ISCAP cited were E.O. 13526 §§ 1.4(c) and 1.4(d):

(c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

The Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel website states:

The ISCAP member body consists of senior level representatives appointed by the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice, the National Archives, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Advisor.

October 13, 2022, I submitted a new FOIA/FOIPA request thru the FBI FOIPA portal for the following records:

1) The entire FBI file: 203A-WF-210023

2) Any and all FBI records that mention or reference FBI file 203A-WF-210023, including, but not limited to, memos, written directives or orders, and emails

In my request, I included links to supporting evidence, and stated:

It is in the public interest that the file, and any related records, be disclosed as soon as possible, so the public can review the primary source material, to the fullest extent possible.

September 3, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14040, ordering the disclosure of records related to 9/11. Based on the news reporting, it is believed that parts of FBI file 203A-WF-210023 are covered by EO 14040, but it does not appear they’ve been uploaded yet to

Sec 2: (d) “not later than 180 days after the date of this order, of all records from any separate FBI investigation other than the PENTTBOM investigation or the subfile investigation of any individual subjects of the subfile investigation that are relevant to the 9/11 terrorist attacks or to any of the individual subjects’ connection to an agency relationship with a foreign government.”

Also, as President Biden stated in Section 1 of EO14040, “It is therefore critical to ensure that the United States Government maximizes transparency, relying on classification only when narrowly tailored and necessary. Thus, information collected and generated in the United States Government’s investigation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks should now be disclosed, except when the strongest possible reasons counsel otherwise.”

I requested expedited processing and quoted Biden from EO14040. Legally, the FBI is required by FOIA to respond within 20 days, and up to 30 with an unusual circumstance exemption, but most US agency FOIA departments don’t have the needed resources to keep up with requests.

In any case, I’ll report again on this when there’s more information.


In a 2002 60 Minutes interviewFBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds made allegations regarding obstruction of FBI investigations prior to 9/11 by FBI personnel and others. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was also interviewed; he said, “She’s credible. … And the reason I feel she’s very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.”

At that time, Judiciary Committee chairs Grassley and Senator Patrick Leahy sent letters to Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, Attorney General Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller requesting information and an audit of the translation department.

The DOJ OIG report is still classified, but Fine released a summary of his investigation, which found, “that many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services. Rather than investigate Edmonds’s allegations vigorously and thoroughly, the FBI concluded that she was a disruption and terminated her contract.”

Sibel Edmonds testified under Oath for a few hours to the 9/11 Commission, and the MFR was classified for years. In the 9/11 Commission Final Report, the only reference to Edmonds’ info is an endnote commenting on the need to improve the FBI’s translation unit.

9/11 victim’s families attempted to have her testify under Oath in lawsuits, but AG John Ashcroft gagged her so completely she was forbidden from even disclosing her date of birth and nationality, as chronicled by the ACLU, which fought for her right to speak.

Since then, Sibel Edmonds has made public other allegations, and those researching her case have independently corroborated some of these. This information concerns “the trafficking of nuclear secrets, arms and drugs, in addition to bribery, blackmail, money-laundering and obstruction of investigation into 9/11,” as I noted in a 2012 blog article, DOJ Confirms Previously-Denied File Said to Implicate US Officials in Nuclear Espionage.

On January 6, 2008, Sibel Edmonds published a ‘State Secrets Privilege Gallery’ which included photos, and no other info, of the following men:

Pentagon and State Department officials: Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eric Edelman, Marc Grossman, Brent Scowcroft, Larry Franklin

Congressmen: Dennis Hastert, Roy Blunt, Dan Burton, Tom Lantos, Bob Livingston, Stephen Solarz. There’s also an image of a ? in this category, which may have been a place holder for Jan Schakowsky, who Edmonds later made allegations about under oath.

As noted by Luke Ryland,

“The 3rd group includes people who all appear to work at think tanks — primarily WINEP, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy”: Graham E. Fuller, David Makovsky, Alan Makovsky, Yusuf Turani, Sabri Sayari, Mehmet Eymur. There were two questions marks in this category.

Sibel Edmonds gave 2008 interviews to the Times of London regarding FBI file 203A-WF-210023, and in which she repeated many of her allegations and corroborated their independent reporting.

In a 2009 deposition under oath, Edmonds testified to her allegations of corruption and cover ups by US government officials, with specific allegations directed at many of the US officials listed in her State Secrets Privilege Gallery.

Doug Feith and Richard Perle responded publicly to Sibel Edmonds’ allegations in 2009, with statements to Perle is quoted saying, “This woman is a nutcase. Certifiable,” Perle said. “She makes wild accusations. She was fired from her job, and has been on a vendetta against … imagined demons ever since.” Feith wrote in an email, “What I’ve read on the Internet about Ms. Edmonds’s claims about me is wildly false and bizarre.” None of those named by Edmonds have ever sued her for defamation, libel or slander.

Edmonds was also responsible for news sites Boiling Frogs Post and Newsbud, as well as the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, but these websites are currently all down. Sibel Edmonds has made other controversial and inflammatory allegations on these and other sites in more recent years, regarding events which she does not have direct knowledge of, and for which there may not be credible public evidence.

Prior to 9/11, John Patrick O’Neill‘s efforts to disrupt what was the 9/11 plot were obstructed and disrupted by superiors. Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke warned the Bush Administration that an attack was coming, went public in 2002 with his book Against All Enemies, and gave testimony under Oath to the 9/11 Commission that is still not public. 

In 2011, Clarke alleged that CIA Director, Counter-terrorism Director Cofer Black and CIA Bin Laden Unit Director Richard Blee obstructed him from receiving information prior to 9/11 that would have stopped the attacks, and then lied to the 9/11 Commission to cover it up, because they were running an illegal domestic operation to infiltrate and possibly ‘turn’ the Al Qaeda agents they knew were in the US.

Soon after 9/11, other FBI whistleblowers also went public, including Coleen Rowley and Robert Wright. They also alleged actions and inaction prior to 9/11 that may be evidence of criminal negligence or conspiracy, and were retaliated against for their efforts to inform the public.  

No high-ranking US officials at US agencies or the White House were ever held accountable for the policies and decisions that led to 9/11. Instead, the 9/11 Commission produced a white-wash report and ultimately enabled cover ups at relevant agencies. Those most responsible for failing to prevent 9/11 — or even enabling it — got promotions and budget increases, as well as a popular license for permanent war, and a domestic surveillance state that continues to this day. 

President Biden, like Trump and Obama before him, has renewed the Bush 9/11 State of Emergency every year

9/11 Watchdogs yank the ‘chop chain’— Book review

The book The Watchdogs Didn’t Bark by John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski, with new insider interviews and documentary evidence, convincingly establishes that named people at the CIA and NSA actively prevented the FBI from learning information that could have disrupted the 9/11 plot. Principals at these agencies manipulated government investigations to cover up responsibility, and to exploit the public’s fear after 9/11 in order to justify the so-called ‘war on terror’, the Iraq invasion, torture, the NSA’s massive warrantless domestic spying programs, indefinite detention and extrajudicial killing even of Americans. The authors don’t claim to have proved that US government officials deliberately allowed or facilitated the 9/11 plot, but that’s what the actions and inactions of key people accomplished, and the Establishment has rewarded their incompetence or criminality. The authors quote Stafford Beer: “The purpose of a system is what it does.” While ‘serendipity’ for the Military-Industrial Complex may be in the range of theoretical possibility, official responsibility for 9/11 and it’s evil consequences remains an urgent issue for the People of the US and the world, along with establishing effective public oversight of government and elite power. Continue reading

Who’s lying about 9/11? Commentary on Jon Gold’s new book – by Erik Larson


In the aftermath of 9/11, those in power who failed to protect the US and defend the Constitution before 9/11 used the attacks as a pretext for suppressing rights and launching wars – and they still do. Those doing so have received public support, and increased authority and budgets from the Executive branch and Congress. Whistleblowers and witnesses pointing to false statements and other wrongdoing were silenced and punished, and still are. There were limited IG and congressional inquiries, and then the 9/11 Commission. All of the Commission’s members and half its staff had political, professional, personal and/or economic conflicts of interest. Its investigation and final report ignored or spun important evidence and witnesses, as well as the vast majority of the questions posed by the Family Steering Committee. Without the efforts by 9/11 families, there may not even have been the 9/11 Commission. A new book by by researcher and activist Jon Gold documents and examines all of this: We Were Lied to About 9/11: The Interviews. Continue reading

The History Commons Needs Your Support (fka is a unique and useful web-based tool for documenting facts that are suppressed or spun in Establishment narratives, for researching complex events and sometimes murky relationships between entities and events, and for educating the public (thus increasing transparency and facilitating accountability). The principal feature is the ‘timeline’, which is composed of written entries based on events and facts from mainstream or otherwise credible sources. These facts and events may or may not be well-known; often important details, which may have been buried in a document release, court filing, congressional testimony, the end notes of a government publication, or in a mainstream news report, can be discovered by skimming or searching a timeline. Also, the significance of certain facts, events and relationships generally becomes clearer in the contexts provided by the entry and through association with other entries; the timelines also reveal the bigger picture. Members of the public are welcome to contribute information or edits to, but, unlike Wikipedia, each new entry or edit undergoes at least two levels of editorial review, to help ensure accuracy and stylistic consistency.

The History Commons has received praise from a number of respected independent journalists, such as Glenn Greenwald, Craig Unger, Philip Shenon, James Ridgeway and Peter Lance.

If you’re unfamiliar with, or are mainly familiar with the Complete 9/11 Timeline that it has primarily become known for, please explore the site. In the last several years, the 9/11 coverage has been improved and expanded, and the site has grown to include more than 30 timelines covering a diverse range of topics, including health care, climate change, elections, foreign interventions and civil liberties: Many more have been proposed:

This website, first as, and then as, has existed continuously since 2002, but it is now in dire need of financial assistance; if funding does not significantly increase, the site may go offline by the end of this summer. The History Commons does not accept advertising and has never received funding from government, corporations or foundations. It has relied on the support of the grassroots, and needs to in order to remain independent. More information, including links for donating, is available here:

If you can’t offer financial support but do believe in the work the History Commons is doing, you can still help by letting others know about And if you’d like to contribute research, writing or editing on any timeline topic, that would be welcomed. Also, any feedback or ideas you have would also be appreciated.

Volunteer History Commons admin, editor, contributor

DOJ Confirms Previously-Denied File Said to Implicate US Officials in Nuclear Espionage by Erik Larson

In a March 12, 2012 FOIA appeal response, the US Dept. of Justice (DOJ) implicitly acknowledged the existence of FBI File 203A-WF-210023, which FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has said contains evidence of top US officials’ complicity in the trafficking of nuclear secrets, arms and drugs, in addition to bribery, blackmail, money-laundering and obstruction of investigation into 9/11. In 2008, the Sunday Times of London reported that the FBI, in response to a different FOIA request, denied the existence of the file.

Continue reading

Flaws in the Citizens’ 9/11 Commission Campaign by Erik Larson

A new investigation of 9/11 is needed, as all investigations so far have been superficial or corrupted, and have failed to meaningfully address significant issues. However, the Commission proposed by the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign will be unable to meaningfully address these issues, and there are significant problems with the Campaign itself; this essay will address three. First, state authority will be of little value in a 9/11 investigation due to the ‘sovereign immunity’ of the US federal government. Second, the Campaign and proposed Commission are not structured in a way that makes them accountable to the public; mechanisms are not built in to ensure the public has adequate oversight of the course of investigation, the use of funds and those entrusted with responsibility for these things — short of passing another ballot initiative, or petitioning their state legislature to act. Finally, the Campaign has made inaccurate and misleading representations: The proposed Campaign promotes itself as a way to circumvent the federal government’s failure to adequately investigate 9/11, but state-level authority does not meaningfully provide a way to do this. And, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Campaign and the Commission do not truly represent direct democracy, as the Campaign Steering Committee and Board of Directors are self-selected and the commissioners would by chosen by them, not by the people. The first two points will be addressed in separate sections below, and the third point will be addressed in both sections.

Continue reading