UFPPC (www.ufppc.org) — Digging Deeper LIIJuly 21, 2008, 7:00 p.m.

David Ray Griffin,

9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press

(Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press/Interlink Publishing, March 2008).

Preface.

Contradictions may be between or among differentsources, self-contradictions, or contradictions with mediaaccounts (vi-vii). This book is non-technical: “Each chapterrevolves around a simple contradiction, which anyone canrecognize” (vii). This book is not a conspiracy theory, becauseit “contains no theory about what really happened” (viii; cf.“This book . . . is about contradictions, not mysteries” [160]).“Here, then, is the point of the book: 9/11 has clearly beenthe most important event in recent history. The acceptedstory about 9/11 has been used to increase military spending, justify wars, restrict civil liberties, and exalt the executivebranch of the government. And yet there are seriouscontradictions within this accepted story: this bookdocuments 25 of them. The existence of so manycontradictions within such an important story is intolerable.Congress and the press are the two principal institutions withthe power and the responsibility for looking into such matters. This book is intended as a tool to help them fulfill thisresponsibility” (viii). Research has relied on “the Complete911 Timeline produced by Cooperative Research” (viii[www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project]).Special thanks to Matthew Everett, Elizabeth Woodworth, and Tod Fletcher, as well as Griffin’s editor and wife (viii-ix).

PART I: QUESTIONS ABOUT BUSH ADMINISTRATIONAND PENTAGON LEADERSCh. 1: How Long Did George Bush Remain in theClassroom?

On the first anniversary of 9/11, the WhiteHouse apparently organized promotion of the notion that Bushleft the classroom quickly, but a contrary account had alreadybeen published in the

Tampa Tribune

on 9/1/02 and was laterconfirmed by the now well-known video (2-4). The WhiteHouse seems to have made efforts to orchestrate supportingstatements until abandoning the effort in 2004 (4-6). Possiblemotive: the true account called Secret Service conduct intoquestion, and even suggested the president knew he was notin danger (6-11).

Ch. 2: When Did Dick Cheney Enter the UndergroundBunker?

Among the conflicting accounts of when in the hourafter the second plane hit the World Trade Center VicePresident Dick Cheney went to the Presidential EmergencyOperations Center (PEOC), the 9/11 Commission chose onewith weak support and ignored many others which impliedthat he was there as early as 9:10 or 9:15 a.m.; the questionof whether Cheney was there before or after the Pentagonwas hit, and what “orders” he may have given (according toSec. of Transportation Norman Mineta’s recollection) is animportant one (12-21).

Ch. 3: Was Cheney Observed Confirming a Stand-DownOrder?

Mineta reported, and later confirmed, that Cheneywas heard around 9:25 or 9:26 to confirm “orders” that onlymake sense if they were stand-down orders not to shoot downa plane bearing down on Washington, but other accounts andthe 9/11 Commission’s account replace this with various“harmless” versions (22-30).

Ch. 4: Did Cheney Observe the Land-All-Planes Order?

The 9/11 Commission said FAA chief Ben Sliney ordered allplanes down on his own, but Norman Mineta claimed to havemade the order; Griffin speculates the reason is becauseevidence for the latter is associated with accounts that placeCheney in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit (31-39).

Ch. 5: When Did Cheney Issue ShootdownAuthorization?

The 9/11 Commission reported (as did thefilm “United 93”) that Cheney gave shoot-down authorizationsometime between 10:12 and 10:18, after Flight 93 hadcrashed, ignoring much evidence, including testimony byRichard Clarke, that the order was given between 9:45 and9:55 (40-45).

Ch. 6: Where Was General Richard Myers?

Gen. Myers,the acting chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was in Sen.Max Cleland’s office, which the 9/11 Commission endorsed,ignoring altogether counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke’spublished report that Myers was at the Pentagon (and thusreinforcing the idea that “the military was not informed aboutthe hijacking of either American Flight 77 or United Flight 93prior to their crashes” (52; 46-57).

Ch. 7: Where Was Donald Rumsfeld?

Richard Clarkewrote in

Against All Enemies

that Rumsfeld participated in avideo conference shortly after the second plane hit the World Trade Center (58-59). The 9/11 Commission ignored Clarke’saccount and endorsed Rumsfeld’s version, not acknowledgingthe discrepancy for the 9:10-9:40 period (59-61). Accountsdiffer on when and whether Rumsfeld went to the ExecutiveSupport Center, where a teleconferencing studio is located(61-63). Accounts differ on whether Rumsfeld discussed rulesof engagement for shooting down civilian airliners before orafter the Pennsylvania plane was shot down, and whenDEFCON 3 was effected (63-68). Questions remain about whyRumsfeld abandoned his command post to go to the Pentagonattack site after it was hit (68-70). The Clarke-Commissiondiscrepancy is “[t]he main question” (71).

Ch. 8: Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?

“It is certainly strange that Ted Olson’s original story, that hereceived two cell phone calls from his wife [Barbara Olson],was later contradicted by Olson himself [saying that she hadused the airliner’s phones to place a collect call; however, nosuch phones existed on that plane]; that his later story,according to which she had used an onboard phone to makethese calls, was implicitly contradicted by American Airlines;and that both versions of his story were implicitly contradictedby the FBI, which is part of the very governmental departmentfor which Olson formerly worked” (78; 72-78).

PART II: QUESTIONS ABOUT THE US MILITARY Ch. 9: When Was the Military Alerted about Flight 11?

A NORAD document issued on Sept. 18, 2001, provided timeswhen the military was notified of the four hijacked flights thatwere widely used until Jun. 17, 2004, when the 9/11Commission “began providing a new account, which was thenfully developed in

The 9/11 Commission Report

, publishedthat July” (80; 80-81). NORAD gave 8:40, and the 9/11Commission 8:38, as the time of notification for Flight 11 (81).But three independent accounts place it much earlier—8:20,8:31, or 8:27 (81-85).

Ch. 10: When Was the Military Alerted about Flight175?

Although the record shows it was aware of them, in itsreport the 9/11 Commission simply ignored all evidence (fromabout half a dozen independent sources) that the militaryknew of the second plane in time to intercept it (86-93).

Ch. 11: When Was the Military Alerted about Flight 77?

NORAD’s 9/18/01 news release said it was notified at 9:24 (94-95). The

New York Times

reported on 9/15 that the militarywas discussing the hijack by about 8:45 (95-96). The FAA toldthe 9/11 Commission that prior to “formal notification” at9:24, it was communicating “continuously” with the militaryfrom about 8:50 (96-100).

The 9/11 Commission Report

saidthis was “incorrect,” and even that the 9:24 report was not“received”; “NEADS [NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector]never received notice that American 77 was hijacked,” it saidon p. 34 of its report (100-01). The 9/11 Commission dealtwith contradictions either by omitting other evidence(Mineta’s account, an FAA memo, a

NYT

report, an FBI report,an American Airlines report, the Secret Service’s links to theFAA, the presence of military liaisons at the FAA, as well as theimplausibility of claimed ignorance of the Indianapolis air

controller), or declaring it “incorrect” (NORAD’s officialtestimony) (100-08).

Ch. 12: When Was the Military Alerted about Flight 93?

The 9/11 Commission concluded that the military learned of the hijacking of United 93 only at 10:07, after its 10:03[according to the 9/11 Commission] crash in a field outsideShanksville, PA, ignoring evidence from four White Houseofficials, three military officers, and the 2003 FAA memodiscussed in ch. 11, as well as the fact that military liaisonswere at the FAA Command Center and that there is evidencethat the Secret Service and the FBI had prior knowledge of thehijacking (109-18).

Ch. 13: Could the Military Have Shot Down Flight 93?

Despite repeated official denials, rumors persist that United93 was shot down by military aircraft (119-20). The 9/11Commission’s account claimed to explain how the plane wasbrought down (hijackers fearing passengers were about totake control of the aircraft), to rule out that the military knewof the hijacking and that any shoot-down authorization hadbeen given, and to know that the crash took place at 10:03,rather than at 10:06, as previously reported (120-21). Fivesources, however, maintain that shoot-down authorizationcame before United 93 crashed (121-23). Ten sources saidthat military jets were positioned and ready to shoot downUnited 93, and one published report said a pilot said ordershad been given to down the flight, and that the plane crashed“just as [Lt. Anthony] Kuczynski and his crew were about tointercept” (124; 123-26). Despite “virtuously unanimousagreement on the 10:06 crash time during the first week after9/11” and a confirming seismological study in spring 2002,the 9/11 Commission embraced a time given on a NORADtimeline issued on 9/18/01, putting the crash at 10:03—whichhelped explain the flight cockpit’s going completely silentthen, but ignored a contradiction with its timeline in theaccount given by Lyz Glick of a phone conversation with herhusband, Jeremy Glick, a passenger on the plane (126-30).

Ch. 14: Had 9/11-Type Attacks Been Envisioned?

At leasteleven statements from U.S. officials denied that thepossibility of domestic civilian airliners being used to attackthe U.S. had ever been envisioned (131-33). Althoughabundant evidence exists that such attacks had beenimagined and that they had even been the basis for trainingexercises, the 9/11 Commission concluded on p. 17 of itsreport that “the threat of terrorists hijacking commercialairliners within the United States—and using them as guidedmissiles

—

was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11” (133-39).

PART III: QUESTIONS ABOUT OSAMA BIN LADEN & THEHIJACKERSCh. 15: Were Mohamed Atta and the Other HijackersDevout Muslims?

The 9/11 Commission portrayedMohamed Atta as a devout Muslim and gave an account of hisvarious residences in 2001, and ignored many accounts of him involved in drinking and gambling, as well as newspaperaccounts (later suppressed from Lexis-Nexis) of a relationshipand cohabitation with a Venice, FL, stripper (142-56).

Ch. 16: Where Did Authorities Find Atta’s TreasureTrove of Information?

The official account contains a hard-to-explain displacement to Portland, ME, by Atta and aconfederate the day before the attacks, with them then takingearly morning US Air flight 5930 to Logan Airport fromPortland to board the Boston-to-Los Angeles flight AA11 (157-60). Originally, accounts reported that two brothers, Adnanand Ameer Bukhari, went to Portland and were believed to behijackers, but these were quickly revised when one of theBukharis was discovered in Florida, and the other wasreported to have died earlier in a plane crash (160-64). OnSept. 14-16, the narrative was progressively revised to thefinal version, introducing inconsistencies in the record thathave never been explained (164-67). In 2002, evidence of Atta’s presence in NYC on the 10

and possibly 9

of September was reported, adding another problem (167-68).“The 9/11 Commission dealt with these contradictions byignoring them” (168). The “treasure trove” is importantbecause it “played a central role in the process of placingblame on al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks” (169).

Ch. 17: Were Hijackers Reported on Cell Phone Calls?

“It has been widely believed that there were at least fifteen. . . cell phone calls” from UA 93 (11), UA 175 (2), and AA 77(2) (177; 170-77). But evidence presented by the FBI in the2006 trial of Zacharias Moussaoui “entails” that only two cellphone calls were made at relatively low altitude from Flight93, contradicting

The 9/11 Commission Report

, hundreds of articles, explicit testimony from survivors’ relatives, and atleast four popular films (177-81). Since the FBI evidencepresented dated from Sept. 20, 2001, why did the FBI permituntrue public accounts to proliferate? (181-82).

Ch. 18: Is There Hard Evidence of bin Laden’sResponsibility?

Although “

The 9/11 Commission Report

isentirely constructed around the idea that Osama bin Ladenwas responsible for the 9/11 attacks,” evidence for this “wasnever provided,” and “an FBI spokesperson has evencontradicted the assumption that the FBI has such evidence”(183). The report presents an explicit narrative linking binLaden to the attacks (183-84). On Sept. 23 Secretary of StateColin Powell said the U.S. would present the evidenceconnecting bin Laden to 9/11 in “a paper, a document”; thispromise was withdrawn the next day on the grounds that allthe evidence was “classified,” but Seymour Hersh reported inthe Oct. 1, 2001,

New Yorker

that there was a lack of hardevidence (184-89). The British government on Oct. 4 assertedbin Laden’s guilt, but said the evidence was “too sensitive torelease” and that the document asserting it “does not purportto provide a prosecutable case” (190). The FBI’s chief of investigative publicity, Rex Tomb, in June 2006 said “the FBIhas no

hard evidence

connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” but themainstream press has not pursued this story (191; 191-94). Though aware of the problem, and the 9/11 Commission didnot claim hard evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility either(194-96).

PART IV: QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PENTAGONCh. 19: Could Hani Hanjour Have Flown American 77into the Pentagon?

Though Hani Hanjour was a notoriouslybad pilot, the flight trajectory of AA 77 was one demanding“extraordinary skill”; the 9/11 Commission dealt with this byasserting in a footnote referring to a flight instructor whominvestigators have been unable to locate: “Hanjoursuccessfully conducted a challenging certification flightsupervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters inGaithersburg, MD” (203; 198-206).

Ch. 20: What Caused the Hole in the C Ring?

Firstreports attributed to the hole in the C Ring of the Pentagon tothe nose of AA 77’s Boeing 77, but it was too fragile topenetrate the structure (207-08). Official reports failed tosupport the nose theory (208-11). The book produced by

Popular Mechanics

, entitled

Debunking 9/11 Myths

, said areport of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)attributed the hole to the landing gear, which it did not (212-13). Witnesses reported the landing gear elsewhere (213-14).

Ch. 21: Did a Military Plane Fly over Washington duringthe Pentagon Attack?

According to

The 9/11 CommissionReport

, the only military plane in the air near Washington,D.C., was a C-130H that identified the incoming aircraft as aBoeing 757 (214). But several observers are on record asseeing a white plane circling the White House (214-15). TheAir Force denies any knowledge of it (216-17). On Sept. 12,2007, CNN broadcast a segment on the plane, identifying it asan Air Force E-4B, presumably the one that serves as theNational Airborne Operations Center (217-18). There isevidence it was over Washington before the Pentagon wasstruck (218-20). While plausible explanations have beenadvanced, official denials and the 9/11 Commission’s silenceon the matter need explanation (220-23).

PART V: QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WORLD TRADECENTERCh. 22: How Did Rudy Giuliani Know the Towers WereGoing to Collapse?