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 […]

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. […]

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.

Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory by Erik Larson

Beginning with his book New Pearl Harbor (2004) David Ray Griffin raised questions concerning the veracity of reports of phone calls from the 9/11 hijacked airliners, specifically, Ted Olson’s account. Since at least 2006, he has promoted a theory that the 9/11 plane passenger phone calls were faked, and has speculated this was done with ‘voice-morphing’ technology. He’s done this in many different articles, in books, in speaking appearances, in interviews on radio and television, and in a debate with Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine. In his 1/12/10 essay, Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners: Response to Questions Evoked by My Fifth Estate Interview, David Ray Griffin gives the most comprehensive overview of this theory to date, as well as a response to critics, which include people who support a new 9/11 investigation. A Professor Emeritus and skilled rhetorician, Griffin makes a case that is seemingly compelling. However, as I show in this essay, there is no actual evidence the phone calls were faked, while there is a substantial body of evidence demonstrating the calls were not only possible, but did happen. There are many credible reasons to doubt the official 9/11 story and support a full investigation, but the cause of compelling a new 9/11 investigation is undermined by the promotion of theories that are flawed, and not based on hard evidence. In addition, the claim that the phone calls were faked is obviously offensive to those family members who spoke with passengers before they died, and it has the potential to drive a wedge between truth and justice activists and potential allies among the family members, many of whom support a full investigation.

‘Terrorist Threats’ Covered by CA Penal Code Sec. 422 by Erik Larson [updated 1/1/2011]

I’m retracting the article originally posted here as it has been brought to my attention that threats prosecuted under Section 422 of the California Penal Code are sometimes referred to as “terrorist threats.”

Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts vs. CIT Methods by Erik Larson

Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) have cited Shinki and Ed Paik’s witness accounts to support their claims that the plane said to have hit the Pentagon on 9/11 (American Airlines Flight 77), actually flew on a different flight path (‘north of Citgo’) and flew over the Pentagon. Ed Paik’s account appears in their films ‘The Pentacon’, and most recently ‘National Security Alert’ (NSA). In addition, Ed’s account has been cited repeatedly in their articles and online discussions. However, my January 2010 interviews of Ed and Shinki, as well as a 2006 interview of Ed recorded by Dylan Avery, Ed Paik’s drawings and gestures for CIT, and other related material, show that certain facts have been omitted or distorted by CIT in their attempt to make their case for the ‘north of Citgo path’.

Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods by Erik Larson

From their apartment, Dawn Vignola and her roommate Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman saw American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, September 11, 2001. Shortly afterward, they gave witness accounts to local and national TV media. In 2007, they were interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), who attempted to discredit their testimony. I interviewed Dawn and her husband, Dan Ferrigno, January 5, 2010 at that same apartment and found them credible; they talked openly with me, their accounts have not changed since they were first offered, and I saw for myself that Dawn and Tim could have easily seen what they claimed to have seen.

Raw Story Investigation: Pentagon Domestic Propaganda

April 20, 2008 The New York Times broke the news that the Pentagon (and members of the Bush Administration) had been coordinating with retired military analysts on talking points to cover in their media appearances, as part of a ‘psyop’ on the American public to sell the ‘post-9/11 world’, the ‘War on Terror’, Guantanamo, torture, and the continued occupation of Iraq. These ‘analysts’, many of whom had undisclosed conflicts of interest such as financial ties to defense contractors, appeared over 4500 times in the media, as part of this campaign. The media outlets responsible for participating in the program- which includes the NY Times- have generally not acknowledged any fault on their own part, and some commentators attempted to spin the psyop as simply the Pentagon telling their side of things. A DOD Inspector General investigation found no wrong doing on the part of the Pentagon, but that report was later found to be so flawed, it was retracted and removed from the DOD’s website. More recently, RawStory.com has published the results of its own investigation into the program, which has uncovered further evidence, as well as indications that the Pentagon’s efforts to manipulate public opinion are continuing under the Obama Administration.

Transcript: John Farmer on Malloy Show with Brad Friedman 9/11/09

Transcript of Brad Friedman’s September 11, 2009 interview of John Farmer on the Mike Malloy radio show. Farmer was a Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission and Team 8 leader- he has a new book out, ‘The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11’, and Friedman asked him questions about the book, posed four questions to him that got Glenn Beck so upset about Van Jones, and also a couple of listener questions.

Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I) – Erik Larson

Dr. Peter Dale Scott, researcher, author and UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus, recently praised the latest video from CIT, ‘National Security Alert’. However, due to receiving many emails critical of CIT’s work, he issued a qualifying statement, which I asked for and received permission to post publicly. CIT’s film presents witnesses whose statements indicate, or seem to indicate, that American Airlines Flight 77 did not fly the path that we have been told knocked down light poles and caused the damage at the Pentagon, as well as the testimony of an apparent eyewitness to a plane that flew over the building. The film also contends that it is “conclusive” that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that instead it flew over the building. However, in his qualifying statement, Dr. Scott says, “I do not personally believe it.” He explains, “All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses…. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does.”