Join the Appeal for Truth about 9/11 –

Join the Appeal for Truth about 9/11

September 11, 2009
Peter Dale Scott, with Michael Berger and Janice Matthews
In the last few days Glenn Beck and the Washington Times have forced Van Jones to resign as environmentalist “green jobs” adviser to the White House. His principal offense: having signed a 2004 Statement from calling for a new investigation of the events of 9/11.

This is a moment of truth for all who want America to be an open society. As the Los Angeles Times reported on September 8, “Other conservatives, smelling blood in the water, are sharpening their knives.” Why should they not? The White House has just capitulated to a dishonest attack claiming that Jones, because he signed the 911truth Statement, “thinks the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Centers and covered it up.” You can check Beck’s capacity for accuracy by comparing this claim to the relevant call in the Statement itself: “for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

Supporting Beck are authors like Charles Krauthammer, arguing that “truthers” – those of us who signed the 911truth statement — are creating “a hallucinatory alternative reality in the service of a fathomless malice.”

In the wake of these attacks, three of the original hundred signers — Van Jones, the environmentalist Paul Hawken and Jodie Evans of Code Pink — have asked that their signatures on the 911truth Statement be removed. I am hoping that numbers of other responsible community leaders will stem this flight from rational inquiry by coming forward to sign the statement at this time.

In fact, nine such individuals have done so already at In “Would you still sign the 9/11 Truth petition?”, reporter Vincent Rossmeier contacted 30 of the original signatories and asked, simply, “If you had to do it all over again, would you still sign the statement?” Of the responses published, all but two “expressed their full-fledged support for the petition.” Several of these people not only reaffirmed their endorsement of the statement, but went on to put forward clear arguments supported by overwhelming facts as to why they now do so.

I am one of the university professors who signed the Statement. One of the many reasons I did so was because of my awareness that Vice-President Cheney had given two conflicting accounts as to whether he was in the White House bunker in precisely the crucial minutes when the most important orders of that day (including the institution of so-called “Continuity of Government” measures which continue to this day) were issued from that place. I discuss this in my book The Road to 9/11 (University of California Press, 2007), pp. 200-03, 228-30, of which the following draft excerpt is available on the Internet:

via Join the Appeal for Truth about 9/11.

The Truth Statement that caused so much controversy, updated for 2009:

2009 Truth Statement

We STILL Want Real Answers About 9/11

September 11, 2009

On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and “consciously failed” to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General. Since that time, multiple professional polling organizations have obtained similar results in polls conducted nationally and internationally.

In 2004, assembled a list of notable Americans and family members of those who died who signed a 9/11 Statement, calling for “immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

On the eighth anniversary of 9/11, in spite of Americans having elected the “other” party in hopes it would deliver on its promise of a change in direction, we find ourselves asking these same questions and encountering the same resistance to transparency. The ensuing wars have destroyed countless lives, our civil liberties (including habeas corpus) are in tatters, posse comitatus is history, and our economy lies essentially in ruin. Meanwhile, thousands of 9/11 responders who rushed to stand with America in its time of need are now sick — many dying — from the exposure to toxins at Ground Zero, receiving inadequate medical help or compensation in return. Because this issue is as relevant as the day we issued this Statement in 2004, we now offer again the opportunity to endorse this call for answers, and join with those who have already taken a stand.

Within the last month, one of these original 12 questions has finally been answered:

Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?

Only now do we know why. Where is the national outcry we would expect had it been top story reported by the media, “liberal”or “conservative”?

via 2009 Truth Statement –

%d bloggers like this: