excerpts from the book
The New Pearl Harbor
Disturbing Questions about the
Bush Administration and 9/11
by David Ray Griffin
Olive Branch Press, 2004, paper
Ever since 9/11 the mainstream media have worked hand-in-glove
with the government in orchestrating a mood of patriotic fervor
making any expressions of doubts about the official leadership
of the country tantamount to disloyalty. Media personalities,
such as Bill Maher, who questioned, even casually, the official
narrative were given pink slips, sidelined, an silenced, sending
a chilling message intimidation to anyone tempted to voice dissident
opinions. Waving the American flag became a substitute for critical
and independent ( thought, and slogans such as "United We
Stand" were used as blankets to smother whatever critical
impulses existed. This thought-stopping equation of patriotism
with unquestioning acceptance of the present administration's
... As the spell cast by patrioteering
has begun to wear off, there is another related dynamic at work
to keep us from the truth- what psychiatrists describe as "denial."
... Part of the impulse to deny is a desperate
wish to avoid coming face-to-face with the gruesome realities
that are embedded in the power structure of government that controls
our lives ... collective denial that has paralyzed the conscience
and consciousness of the nation during these past few years
... There is no excuse at this stage of
American development for a posture of political innocence, including
an unquestioning acceptance of the good faith of our government.
After all, there has been a long history of manipulated public
beliefs, especially in matters of war and peace. Historians are
in increasing agreement that the facts were manipulated (1) in
the explosion of the USS Maine to justify the start of the Spanish-American
War (1898), (2) with respect to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
to justify the previously unpopular entry into World War II, (3)
in the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964, used by the White House
to justify the dramatic extension of the Vietnam War to North
Vietnam, and, most recently, (4) to portray Iraq as harboring
a menacing arsenal of weaponry of mass destruction, in order to
justify recourse to war in defiance of international law and the
United Nations. The official explanations of such historic events
as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the assassination
of President Kennedy have also not stood up to scrutiny by objective
scholars. In these respects, the breaking of trust between government
and citizenry in the United States has deep historical roots ...
Ben Franklin's celebrated response when asked what the Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia had accomplished:
"A republic, if you keep it."
The American press has ... provided no in-depth investigation
of whether the official account of what happened [on 9-11] fits
with the available evidence and is otherwise plausible."
Many newspaper and television stories have, to be sure, raised
several disturbing questions about the official account, showing
that there are elements of it that do not seem to make sense or
that seem to contradict certain facts. But the press has not confronted
government officials with these apparent implausibilities and
contradictions. The mass media have not, moreover, provided the
public with any comprehensive overviews that lay out all the disturbing
questions of which they are aware. There have been many very important
stories by a number of journalists, including the internationally
known, award-winning journalist Gregory Palast and Canada's award-winning
Barrie Zwicker. But such stories, if even seen, have been largely
forgotten by the collective consciousness, as they have remained
individual products of brilliant and courageous reporting, having
thus far not been allowed to add up to anything significant. Finally,
although strong criticisms of the official account have been presented
by many otherwise credible individuals, the mass media have not
exposed the public to their views.
Criticisms of the official account are
to be sure, inflammatory, for to reject the official account is
to imply that US leaders, including the president, have constructed
a massive lie. And if they did construct a false account, they
would have done so, most people would assume, in order to cover
up their own complicity. And that is indeed the conclusion of
most critics of the official account. That would certainly be
an inflammatory charge. But how can we claim to have a free press-a
Fourth Estate-if it fails to investigate serious charges made
against a sitting president on the grounds that they are too inflammatory?
Rena Golden executive vice-president and general manager of CNN
International, August 2002
'Anyone who claims the US media didn't
censor itself is kidding you. And this isn't just a CNN issue-every
journalist who was in any way involved in 9/11 is partly responsible."
CBS anchorman Dan Rather
There was a time in South Africa that
people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented.
And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here,
you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around
your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking
the toughest of the tough questions."
September 14, 2001 President Bush said:
"Our responsibility to history is
already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.
War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder.
This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger In
every generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom.
They have attacked America, because we are freedom's home and
defender. And the commitment of our fathers is now the calling
of our time .... [W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation,
and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come ....
And may He always guide our country. God bless America."
former State Secretary in the German Defense Ministry
"For 60 decisive minutes, the military
and intelligence agencies let the fighter planes stay on the ground."
"Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) were completely and
inexplicably dropped on 11th September - something that had never
occurred before. The question then remains as to who was responsible
for ensuring that routine emergency response rules were not adhered
Bykov and Israel, Guilty for 9-11
"The sabotage of routine protective
systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been
contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the
supreme US military command. This includes at least US President
George Bush, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting
Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force General Richard B
... after the collapse of the towers, the debris, including the
steel, was quickly removed before there could be any significant
investigation. The New York Times complained, saying: "The
decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses
from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive
answers may never be known."
Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force General Richard B Myers
"... [a] way to prove that the supporting
steel columns of the Twin Towers had been blasted by explosives
would be to examine fragments from them among the debris for evidence
of what metallurgists call "twinning." But the WTC debris
was removed as fast as possible and no forensic examination of
the debris was permitted .... Almost all the 300,000 tons of steel
from the Twin Towers was sold to New York scrap dealers and exported
to places like China and Korea as quickly as it could be loaded
onto the ships, thereby removing the evidence."
In an essay entitled "WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse,"
Scott Loughtey says:
FEMA's nonchalance about WTC-7's collapse
is stunning. Structural failures of this magnitude do not normally
take place .... [Do] we now live in an era when tall steel buildings
can collapse in large cities without any significant discussion
"Building 7 collapsed at its bottom...
When Building 7 collapsed, the interior fell first, and that caused
the outside of the building to move inward .... The result was
a very tiny pile of rubble, with the outside of the building collapsing
on top of the pile. This is how conventional demolitions operate."
FEMA report actually gave no explanation. It instead said:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC
7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown
at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained
massive potential energy; the best hypothesis has only a low probability
Although the evidence that the collapse of the WTC was an inside
job might mean that it was planned by private parties, he fact
that the federal government allowed forensic evidence to be removed
suggests ... official complicity in a cover-up.
The attacks on the WTC ... could not have succeeded unless some
US officials had given "stand down" orders for standard
operating procedures to be canceled on that particular day...
it would be difficult to believe that such orders could have been
given without White House approval.
investigative journalist Patrick Martin:
In examining any crime, a central question
must be "who benefits?" The principal beneficiaries
of the destruction of the World Trade Center are in the United
States: the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the CIA and FBI,
the weapons industry, the oil industry. It is reasonable to ask
whether those who have profited to such an extent from this tragedy
contributed to bringing it about.'
Nafeez Ahmed quotes a statement by social philosopher john McMurtry
that sums up the argument:
[T]he forensic principle of "who
most benefits from the crime?" dearly points in the direction
of the Bush administration. One would be naive to think the Bush
Jr. faction and its oil, military-industrial and Wall Street backers
...do not benefit astronomically from this mass-kill explosion.
If there was a wish-list, it is all granted by this numbing turn
of events. Americans are diverted from a free-falling economy
to attack another foreign Satan, while the Bush regime's popularity
climbs. The military, the CIA, and every satellite armed security
apparatus have more money and power than ever, and become as dominant
as they can over civilians in "the whole new era" already
being declared by the 'White House.
The Evidence for Official Complicity A Summary
Nafeez Ahmed's summary of his evidence,"
supplemented with points contributed by Chossudovsky, Thompson,
Meyssan, and other researchers, contains the following elements:
1. Evidence that the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq were already planned for geopolitical reasons, so that
9/11 provided not the reason for the wars but merely the pretext.
2. Evidence that men with connections
to al-Qaeda were allowed into the United States in spite of regulations
that should have kept them out.
3. Evidence that men with connections
to al-Qaeda were allowed to train in US flight schools.
4. Evidence that the attacks of 9/11 could
not have succeeded without an order from the highest level of
government to suspend normal operating procedures for responding
5. Evidence that US political and military
leaders made misleading and even false statements about their
response to the hijackings.
6. Evidence in particular that the presently
accepted official account, according to which jet fighter planes
were scrambled but arrived too late, was invented some days after
7. Evidence that the collapse of the WTC
buildings was brought about by explosives, so that participation
by the US government in the prevention of an adequate examination
of the debris, especially the steel, constitutes evidence of its
participation in a cover-up.
8. Evidence that someone in authority
sought to ensure that there would be deaths in the attacks on
the second WTC tower and the Pentagon by not having these buildings
9. Evidence that what hit the Pentagon
was not a Boeing 757 but a much smaller aircraft, and, in particular,
a small military aircraft.
10. Evidence that Flight 93 was shot down
after authorities learned that the passengers were gaining control
11. Evidence that Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld revealed advance knowledge of two of the attacks.
12. Evidence that President Bush on 9/11
feigned ignorance of the occurrence and seriousness of the attacks.
13. Evidence that President Bush and his
Secret Service knew on 9/11 that he would not be a target of attacks.
14. Evidence that the FBI had specific
knowledge of the time and targets of the attacks at least a month
15. Evidence that the CIA and other intelligence
agencies would have had very specific advance knowledge of the
attacks by means of the put options purchased shortly before 9/11.
16. Evidence that the Bush administration
lied about not having had specific warnings about the attacks.
17. Evidence that the FBI and other federal
agencies prevented investigations prior to 9/11 that might have
uncovered the plot.
18. Evidence that US officials sought
to conceal evidence of involvement by Pakistan's 151 in the planning
19. Evidence that US officials sought
to conceal the presence of the ISI chief in Washington during
the week of 9/11.
20. Evidence that the FBI and other federal
agencies blocked investigations after the attacks that might have
revealed the true perpetrators.
21. Evidence that the United States did
not really seek to kill or capture Osama bin Laden either before
or after the attacks.
22. Evidence that figures central to the
Bush administration had desired a "new Pearl Harbor"
because of various benefits it would bring.
23. Evidence of motive provided by the
predictable benefits that this event, called by Bush himself "the
Pearl Harbor of the 21st century" did bestow on the Bush
24. Evidence against the alternative explanation-the
incompetence theory-provided by the fact that those who were allegedly
guilty of incompetence were not fired but, in some cases, promoted.
Problems for a Coincidence Theory
... the price for rejecting [a] conspiracy
theory [for 9-11] is to accept a coincidence theory. And, critics
of the official account can point out, the number of coincidences
that would need to be accepted is enormous. A complete list would
include the following coincidences:
1. Several FAA flight controllers exhibited
extreme incompetence on 9/11, and evidently on that day only.
2. The officials in charge at both NMCC
and NORAD also acted incompetently on 9/11, and evidently on that
3. In particular, when NMCC-NORAD officials
did finally order jet fighters to be scrambled to protect New
York and Washington, they ordered them in each case from more
distant bases, rather than from McGuire and Andrews, respectively.
4. After public statements saying that
Andrews Air Force Base had no jet fighters on alert to protect
Washington, its website, which had previously said that many jets
were always on alert, was altered.
5. Several pilots who normally are airborne
and going full speed in under three minutes all took much longer
to get up on 9/11.
6. These same pilots, flying planes capable
of going 1,500 to 1,850 miles per hour, on that day were all evidently
able to get their planes to fly only 300 to 700 miles per hour.
7. The collapse of the buildings of the
World Trade Center, besides occurring at almost free-fall speed,
exhibited other signs of being controlled demolitions: molten
steel, seismic shocks, and fine dust were all produced.
8. The video and physical evidence suggesting
that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse of the
Twin Towers co-exists with testimony from people in these buildings
that they heard, felt, and saw the effects of explosions.
9. The collapse of WTC- 1 and WTC-2 had
some of the same features as the collapse of WC-7, even though
the latter collapse could not be attributed to the impact and
jet fuel of an airplane.
10. Both the North Tower and the South
Tower collapsed just as their respective fires were dying down,
even though this meant that the South Tower, which had been hit
second, collapsed first.
11. Governmental agencies had the debris,
including the steel, from the collapsed WTC buildings removed
without investigation, which is what would be expected if the
government wanted to prevent evidence of explosives from being
12. Physical evidence suggesting that
what hit the Pentagon could not have been a Boeing 757 co-exists
with testimony of several witnesses that the aircraft that did
hit the Pentagon was far smaller than a 757.
13. This evidence about the aircraft that
hit the Pentagon co-exists with reports that Flight 77 crashed
in Kentucky or Ohio.
14. This evidence co-exists with the fact
that the only evidence that Flight 77 did not crash was supplied
by an attorney closely associated with the Bush administration.
15 Evidence that Flight 77 did not return
to Washington to hit the Pentagon co-exists with the fact that
when the flight control transcript was released, the final 20
minutes were missing.
16. The fact that the aircraft that hit
the Pentagon did so only alter executing a very difficult maneuver
co-exists with the fact that it struck a section of the Pentagon
that, besides containing none of its leaders, was the section
in which the strike would cause the least death and destruction.
17. On the same day in which jet fighters
were unable to protect the Pentagon from an attack by a single
airplane, the missiles that normally protect the Pentagon also
failed to do so.
18. Sounds from cell phones inside Flight
93 suggesting that the plane had been hit by a missile were matched
by many reports to this effect from witnesses on the ground.
19. This evidence that Flight 93 was shot
down co-exists with reports from both civilian and military leaders
that there was intent to shoot this flight down.
20. The only plane that was evidently
shot down, Flight 93, was the only one in which it appeared that
passengers were going to gain control.
21. The evidence that Flight 93 was shot
down after the passengers were about to gain control co-exists
with the fact that the flight control transcript for this flight
was not released.
22. That coincidence co-exists with the
fact that when the cockpit recording of Flight 93 was released,
the final three minutes were missing.
23. Evidence showing that the US government
had far more specific evidence of what was to occur on 9/11 than
it has admitted co-exists with evidence that it actively blocked
investigations that might have prevented the attacks.
24. Reports of obstructions from FBI agents
in Minneapolis co-exist with similar reports from Chicago and
25. Reports of such obstructions prior
to 9/11 co-exist with reports that investigations after 9/11 were
26. These reports of obstructionism co-exist
with multiple reports suggesting that the US government did not
really try to capture or kill Osama bin Laden either prior to
or after 9/11, with the result that several people independently
suggested that the US government must be working for bin Laden-or
27. All these reports co-exist with reports
of hijackers being allowed in the country in spite of known terrorist
connections or visa violations.
28. These reports about immigration violations
co-exist with evidence that some of these same men were allowed
to train at US flight schools, some on military bases.
29. This evidence of training at various
American flight schools co-exists with reports that US officials
tried to conceal this evidence.
30. The traumatic events of 9/11 occurred
just a year after a document published by the Project for the
New American Century, an organization whose founders included
several men who became central figures in the Bush administration,
referred to benefits that could come from "a new Pearl Harbor."
31. The "unifying Pearl Harbor sort
of purple American fury" produced by the 9/11 attacks did
benefit the Bush administration in many ways.
32. A credible report that spokespersons
for the Bush administration had earlier announced that the US
government was planning a war on Afghanistan, which would begin
before the middle of October, co-exists with the fact that the
attacks of 9/11, by occurring on that date, gave US military forces
time to be ready to attack Afghanistan on October 7.
33. Ahmad Masood, whose continued existence
would have posed problems for US plans in Afghanistan, was assassinated,
reportedly by ISI operatives, just after the head of the ISI,
General Mahmoud Ahmad, had been meeting in Washington for several
days with the head of the CIA.
34. In the White House's version of the
recording of Condoleezza Rice's press briefing on May 16, the
only portion that was inaudible was the portion in which the person
under discussion, mentioned as having been in Washington on 9/11,
was identified as "the ISI chief."
35. Evidence of official efforts to conceal
General Ahmad's presence in Washington co-exists with evidence
that, after it became known that General Ahmad had ordered $100,000
wired to Mohamed Atta, US leaders exerted pressure on the ISI
to dismiss him from his post quietly.
36. Evidence of these attempts to conceal
General Ahmad's involvement in 9/11 co-exists with evidence that
the FBI and other federal agencies sought to obscure the fact
that Saeed Sheikh, the man who wired the money to Atta, was an
37. The fact that agents in FBI headquarters
who presided over the alleged intelligence failure that allowed
9/11 to happen, widely called the biggest intelligence failure
since Pearl Harbor, were promoted instead of fired or otherwise
punished co-exists with the fact that other intelligence agencies
also reported that there had been no punishments for incompetence
related to 9/11.
38. This evidence of lack of punishment
for poor performance co-exists with reports that intelligence
officers who were diligently trying to pursue investigations related
to 9/11 suffered negative treatment from superiors.
As can be seen, what some critics call
the incompetence theory can be understood as simply part of a
larger coincidence theory, because it entails that FAA agents,
NMCC and NORAD officials, pilots, immigration agents, US military
leaders in Afghanistan, and numerous US intelligence agencies
all coincidentally acted with extreme and unusual incompetence
when dealing with matters related to 9/11.
But the coincidence theory requires even
greater credulity. To accept it requires holding not only that
each conjunction of events on the above list-which a conspiracy
theory could explain by regarding each one as part of a pattern
of events that had been planned-was purely coincidental. It also
requires holding that the fact that there are so many events related
to 9/11 that involve coincidences-at least 38 such events-is itself
Seen in this light, the fact that a complicity
theory may not at this time be able to answer all the questions
it evokes, revisionists can say, is a relatively trivial problem.
Once the relevant facts are put before us, the official account
involves a coincidence theory that would require far greater credulity
than that of which "conspiracy theorists" are accused.
I have often been asked whether there
are any "smoking guns" pointing to complicity by the
Bush administration. This is a question I did not explicitly address
in the body of the book. Rather than focusing on those reported
events that most strongly suggest such complicity, I instead presented
a cumulative argument, suggesting that what is most persuasive,
assuming the truth of at least a significant
portion of the reported evidence, is that so many lines of evidence
all seem to point in the same direction. However, I did add that
"some of the strands [in this cumulative argument] are such
that, if the evidence on which they are based is confirmed, the
case could be supported by one or two of them" (page xxiv).
I said, in other words, that we have some primafacie smoking guns.
Because this question has come up so often,
I will conclude with a list of the reported items that I would
so classify. In going back through the book to assemble this list,
I was surprised to see how many there are. I came up, in fact,
with a list of 40:
1. The failure of standard operating procedures
(SOP) to intercept Flight 11.
2. The failure of SOP to intercept Flight
3. The failure of SOP to intercept Flight
4. The fact that the official story as
to these failures changed a few days after 9/11.
5. The fact that according to the second
version of the official story, the order to scramble jet fighters
to intercept Flights 11 and 175 went to Otis Air Force base instead
of the nearer base, McGuire.
6. The fact that according to this second
version, the order to scramble jet fighters to protect Washington
went to Langley Air Force base instead of the nearer base, Andrews.
7. The fact that, even given NORAD'S timeline
and the greater distances the pilots had to cover from Otis and
Langley, their fighter jets, flying at full speed, should have
reached New York and Washington in time to prevent the attacks
on the South Tower and the Pentagon.
8. The fact that according to this second
version, the fighter jets that were too late to intercept Flights
11 and 175 were not ordered to continue on to Washington, even
though it was then known that Flight 77 had been hijacked and,
according to the official story, was headed back toward Washington.
9. Secretary of Transportation Minetas
report of a conversation that may have reflected a stand-down
order by Vice President Cheney.
10. The fact that in New York on 9/11,
three steel-framed high-rise buildings, for the first time in
history, collapsed because of fires-quite localized fires at that,
especially in the South Tower and Building 7.
11. The fact that the South Tower fell
first even though, according to the hypothesis that the buildings
collapsed because of fire, this tower, having been hit second
and having the smaller fire, should not have collapsed first .71
12. The multiple types of physical evidence
that the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed by means of controlled
demolition. (Because there are many types of such evidence-such
as the fact that the steel beams and columns were broken into
pieces the right size to be loaded onto trucks-this point could
have been divided into many smoking guns.)
13. Larry Silverstein's statement that
he and the fire department decided to "pull" 'WTC-7,
combined with the evidence that the fire department had prior
knowledge of its collapse, despite the lack of any physical evidence
indicating imminent collapse.
14. Mayor Giuliani's statement that he
knew in advance that the Twin Towers were going to collapse.
15. The quick removal of the steel from
all three buildings-especially Building 7, where there would have
been no victims-before it could be examined.
16. The fact that photographic evidence
shows that the hole created in the Pentagon was much smaller than
a hole created by a Boeing 757 would be.
17. The fact that photographs show that
there were no remains of a large airliner in front of the crash
site, even though, given the small entrance hole, not all of a
Boeing 757 could have gone inside
18. The fact that witnesses also reported
seeing no remains of a large airliner inside the Pentagon.
19. The fact that the west wing, far from
being the most likely part of the Pentagon for terrorists to target,
was the least likely, as well as technically difficult to hit.
20. The fact that any non-military plane,
not having a transponder sending out a "friendly" signal,
would have been automatically shot down by the Pentagon's battery
21. The extreme unlikelihood that a hijacked
757 could have flown undetected through American airspace, especially
toward the Pentagon, for some 40 minutes.
22. The evidence that the Bush administration
lied about not having shot down Flight 93.
23. The fact that President Bush gave
the impression upon his arrival at the Sarasota school, even after
a telephone conversation with Condoleezza Rice, that he was unaware
that two more airliners, beyond the one that had crashed into
the North Tower of the WTC, had been hijacked.
24. The fact that Bush, after being told
about the attack on the South Tower, did not act like a commander
in chief who was surprised to learn that the United States was
suffering the greatest terrorist attack in its history.
25. The fact that Bush and his entourage,
including his Secret Service detail, showed no sign of fear that
they would be attacked while in Florida, even though at that time
they-assuming the truth of the official account-would have known
neither how many planes had been hijacked nor what the terrorists'
26. The multiple denial by Bush administration
officials that they had had any idea that planes might be used
as weapons in a terrorist attack against the United States, even
though such knowledge was widespread-partly because of warnings
the Bush administration itself had received that terrorists were
in fact planning such attacks.
27. The fact that the FBI must have had
specific advance knowledge of the attacks, given (a) its confiscation
of a film of the attack on the Pentagon within five minutes, (b)
its confiscation of student files from Florida flight schools
within 18 hours, and (c) the reported testimony of FBI agents
(to David Schippers and the New American) that they knew the dates
and targets of the New York attacks months in advance.
28. The repeated denial by Bush administration
officials that they had received any specific advance knowledge
about the attacks of 9/11, contradicting strong evidence to the
contrary, including that provided by the purchases of enormous
amounts of put options on United Airlines, American Airlines,
and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter.
29. The evidence that although Osama bin
Laden was officially America's "most wanted" criminal,
he was treated by an American surgeon and visited by a CIA agent
in an American hospital in Dubai two months prior to 9/11.
30. The evidence that local FBI agents
in Minnesota, New York, and Chicago were prevented by FBI headquarters
from carrying out investigations that could have uncovered the
31. The harassment and demotion of DIA
agent Julie Sirrs after she brought back information about a plan
in Afghanistan to assassinate Ahmad Massood.
32. The evidence that the Bush administration
had already determined by July of 2001 that it would attack Afghanistan
"by the middle of October at the latest," combined with
the fact that the attacks of 9/11, by occurring on that date,
gave the US military sufficient preparation time to begin its
assault on October 7.
33. The evidence that during the "Hunt
for Bin Laden" after 9/11, he and his Al Qaeda forces were
repeatedly allowed to escape.
34. The evidence that the Bush administration
sought in multiple ways to conceal the connections between 9/11
and Pakistan's ISI.
35. The fact that the FBI, the Justice
Department, and the Air Force all refused to answer questions
about the report that many of the (alleged) hijackers had received
training at US flight schools.
36. The multiple reasons to doubt the
official conspiracy theory's tale of Arab-Muslim hijackers.
37. The firing and subsequent gagging
of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds after she reported that a 9/11-related
investigation was being sabotaged by a spy.
38. The fact that while people such as
Julie Sirrs and Sibel Edmonds have been punished, there have been
no reports of punishment for anyone who acted incompetently or
obstructively in relation to 9/11 whether in the FAA, the FBI,
the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, the Justice Department the White House,
NORAD, the Pentagon, or the US military more generally.
39. The fact that the Bush administration
has not revealed the identities of those who purchased the put
options on United Airlines, American Airlines, and Morgan Stanley
40. The fact that the 'White House repeatedly
obstructed the attempts of the 9/11 Commission-as feeble as they
appear to have been-to learn how the attacks of 9/11 could have
These smoking guns could provide some
starting points for a real investigation-if and when one is ever