9-11 Revisited Part 1
Subscribe FREE to ViewPoint by clicking here.
"Exploring The Powerful Issues & Emotions of The Middle East"
Reaching out to 51,228 Viewpoint readers around the globe
Many people do not know who David Ray Griffin is. He is
a scholar who did not think the official story was quite
right about 9-11. So he began an intensive study that
led him on an amazing journey.
We at Viewpoint have decided to print this two-part
analysis that takes us to the very heart of world politics.
We have included all of his footnotes. If you have never
dived into these waters before, this just might be the
most important 15 minutes of your life.
A Stylish Way to Show Your Support
Now available is the authentic, high-quality Palestinian
headdress known as the kuffiyeh or hatta. But you don't
have to wear in the traditional way if you don't want to.
Wear it as a scarf, drape it over a chair or simply display
it as a sign of solidarity with Palestinians who have been
struggling for freedom for fifty-five years. Each one is
made by Palestinians in the refugee camps of Jordan. These
are difficult to import, so order while we still have
stock. Only $9.99 for this top quality, 100 percent cotton,
black and white kuffiyeh. To see it or to order visit:
Video Clip Of The Week
Explosions Brought The Towers Down
Eyewitness accounts are plentiful in this clip, with all
of them saying that they heard a series of explosions,
and then the collapse.
View: Explosions Brought The Towers Down
The American Empire
In his 2002 book American Empire, Andrew Bacevich pointed
out that it had long been a “cherished American tradition
[that] the United States is not and cannot be an empire.”
The words “American empire” were “fighting words,” so that
uttering them was an almost sure sign that the speaker was
a left-wing critic of America’s foreign policy.
As Bacevich also pointed out, however, this had all
recently changed, so that even right-wing commentators
were freely acknowledging the existence of the American
empire. As columnist Charles Krauthammer put it in 2002:
“People are coming out of the closet on the word
Given this consensus about the reality of the American
empire, the only remaining issue concerned its nature.
This empire was generally portrayed, especially by
neoconservatives, as benign. Robert Kagan spoke of “The
Benevolent Empire.” Dinesh D’Souza, after writing
that “America has become an empire,” added that happily
it is “the most magnanimous imperial power ever.”
Commentators from the left, however, presented a radically
different view. A 2003 book by Noam Chomsky was subtitled
America’s Quest for Global Dominance. Richard Falk wrote
of the Bush administration’s “global domination project,”
which posed the threat of “global fascism.” Chalmers
Johnson, once a conservative who believed American foreign
policy aimed at promoting freedom and democracy, described
the United States as “a military juggernaut intent on world
Bacevich, although still a conservative, had come to accept
the left’s assessment of this empire. He ridiculed the
claim “that the promotion of peace, democracy, and human
rights and the punishment of evil-doers--not the pursuit
of self-interest--[has] defined the essence of American
diplomacy.” Pointing out that the aim of the US military
has been “to achieve something approaching omnipotence,”
Bacevich mocked the idea that such power in America’s hands
“is by definition benign.”
The historical evidence clearly supports this non-benign
view of the American empire. Part of this evidence is the
fact that U.S. political and military leaders have arranged
“false-flag operations” as pretexts for war. We did this
to begin the wars with Mexico and the Philippines and to
begin the full-out attack on Vietnam.
Also important is Operation Northwoods, a plan submitted by
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to President Kennedy containing
“pretexts which would provide justification for U.S.
military intervention in Cuba.” Some of the ideas, such
as the proposal to “blow up a U.S. ship in Guantánamo Bay
and blame Cuba,” would have required killing Americans.
This history shows that U.S. military and political leaders
have not been averse to using the same tricks as military
and political leaders in other countries with imperial
ambitions, such as Japan, which in 1931 manufactured the
Mukden incident as a pretext for taking control of
Manchuria, and Nazi leaders, who in 1933 set the
Reichstag Fire as a pretext for rounding up leftists and
annulling civil rights, then in 1939 had German troops
dressed as Poles stage attacks on German posts at the
Polish border, allowing Hitler to present his attack on
Poland the next day as a “defensive necessity.” In each
case, evidence was planted to implicate the people these
governments wanted to attack.
9/11: A False-Flag Operation?
Given this background information, I might have immediately
concluded that the 9/11 attacks were false-flag attacks
orchestrated by the Bush administration to enlarge the U.S.
empire under the cover of the “war on terror.” But when I
first heard this allegation, about a year after 9/11, I
replied that I did not think even the Bush administration
would do such a heinous thing. I checked out some proffered
websites but found the evidence unconvincing. (I tell this
story because of the widespread allegation that those who
call 9/11 an inside job do so because of antagonism to Bush
and Cheney and/or their policies.)
A few months later, however, another colleague suggested
that I look at a website containing the massive 9/11 time-
line created by Paul Thompson. I found that it
contained an enormous number of reports, all from main-
stream sources, that contradicted the official account.
This discovery started a process that led me to publish
The New Pearl Harbor, which summarized much of the
evidence that had been discovered by previous researchers
---evidence, I concluded, that provided a “strong prima
facie case for official complicity.” I will summarize
some of this evidence in terms of six questions.
I. How Could Hijacked Airliners Have Struck the WTC and
If standard operating procedures of the FAA and the U.S.
military had been carried out on 9/11, AA Flight 11 and
UA Flight 175 would have been intercepted before they
reached Manhattan, and Flight 77 would have been
intercepted long before it could have reached the Pentagon.
Such interceptions are routine, being carried out about
100 times a year. A month after 9/11, the Calgary Herald
reported that in the year 2000, NORAD had scrambled
fighters 129 times. Just a few days after 9/11, Major
Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesperson, told the Boston Globe
that “[NORAD’s] fighters routinely intercept aircraft.”
Why did such interceptions not occur on 9/11? We have never
been given a plausible explanation. Indeed, we have received
three mutually inconsistent stories.
In the first few days, military officials said that no
fighter jets were sent up by NORAD until after the strike
on the Pentagon at 9:38, even though signs that Flight 11
was in trouble had been observed at 8:15. That would mean
that although interceptions usually occur within 15
minutes, in this case over 80 minutes had elapsed before
any fighters were even airborne. This story suggested that
a “stand-down” order had been issued.
Within a few days, a second story was put out, according to
which NORAD had ordered fighters aloft but they did not
arrive in time, because FAA notification had unaccountably
come very late. Critics showed, however, that even if the
FAA notifications had come as late as NORAD’s timeline
indicated, there was sufficient time for interceptions.
This second story did not, therefore, remove the suspicion
that a stand-down order had been given.
The 9/11 Commission Report, issued in 2004, gave a third
account, according to which, contrary to NORAD’s timeline
of September 18, 2001, the FAA did not notify NORAD about
Flights 175, 77, and 93 until after they had crashed. As I
showed in books published in 2005 and 2006, however, this
new story contains many problems.
In August 2006, Michael Bronner, who was an associate
producer for the film United 93, published an essay,
“9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes,” which popularized the 9/11
Commission’s new story and emphasized tapes supplied by
NORAD, purportedly from 9/11, on which it is based. This
new story was further publicized by the simultaneous
publication of Without Precedent by Thomas Kean and Lee
Hamilton, the chair and vice chair, respectively, of the
9/11 Commission. This book and Bronner’s essay caused a
minor sensation with their suggestion that the account
given by the military between 2001 and 2004, which only
partly absolved the military from responsibility for
failing to prevent the attacks, had been a lie. The new
story puts all the blame on the FAA, except for a little
confusion on the military’s part, thereby lessening the
grounds for suspicion that the military had been given a
stand-down order. This new story has been widely accepted.
However, in my most recent book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking,
 I show even more fully than I had before that this
new story is incredible. Besides contradicting many well-
documented reports, it is inherently implausible, because
it claims that military leaders lied in a way that made
them look worse than does the truth (as described by the
9/11 Commission). This new story does not, accordingly,
remove grounds for suspicion that a stand-down order had
II. Why Did the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the WTC
The Bush-Cheney administration has also failed to provide
a credible explanation for the destruction of the World
Trade Center buildings. According to the official
explanation, the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2) collapsed
because of the impact of the airplanes and the heat of
the ensuing fires. But this explanation faces several
First, WTC 7 also collapsed, and in roughly the same way.
This similarity implies that all three buildings collapsed
from the same causes. However, unlike the Twin Towers,
WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane.
Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot,
or long-lasting as fires in steel-frame high-rises that
have not induced collapses. In 1991, a fire in Philadelphia
burned for 18 hours; in 2004, a fire in Caracas burned for
17 hours. But neither fire produced even a partial collapse.
 The World Trade Center’s north and south towers burned
only 102 and 56 minutes, respectively, before they
collapsed. WTC 7, moreover, had fires on only a few floors,
according to several witnesses and all the photographic
Third, total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings
have never been brought about by fire and externally caused
structural damage. All such collapses have been caused by
explosives in the procedure known as “controlled
Fourth, the collapses of these three buildings all
manifested many standard features of the kind of controlled
demolition known as “implosion,” such as: sudden onset
(whereas steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin
to sag); straight-down collapse (as opposed to falling
over); collapse at virtually free-fall speed (indicating
that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete,
were offering no resistance); total collapse (indicating
that the massive steel columns in the core of each building
had been broken into many pieces---which is what explosives
do in controlled demolitions); the production of molten
metal; and the occurrence of multiple explosions. Although
none of these six features can be explained by the official
theory, let us focus on only the last two.
ROBOTIC LED BOOK LIGHT
Store Price: $7.99
DEAL PRICE: $2.49 or two for $3.98
This is so cool... You can light up your book papers, lap-
top and more anywhere you go... on the plane, in a meeting
or in bed. Plus the LED light better for your eyes, reduces
* Super bright LED light
* Light opens with touch of a button
* Adjustable light angle
* Portable Take with you anywhere
Get one of these for just $2.49. BONUS: Save even more when
you buy two or more, get them for just $1.99 each. This
makes a wonderful gift... and College Kids especially love
it. Robotic Book Light
To begin with the molten metal: Many people have been led
to believe, by misleading TV documentaries, that the Twin
Towers collapsed because their steel melted. But steel
does not begin to melt until it reaches 2800°F, whereas
open fires based on hydrocarbons such as kerosene---which
is what jet fuel is---cannot get much above 1700°F (even
with an ideal mixture of fuel and oxygen, which seldom
occurs in building fires). Nevertheless, molten metal was
produced, according to many witnesses. For example, Peter
Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved
in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of
“literally molten steel” at the site.
That would be no surprise only if the buildings’ steel
columns had been sliced by the use of high-temperature
explosives, such as thermite, thermate, or RDX, which
are regularly used to cut steel. That this is what
happened is supported by reports that sometimes when steel
beams were lifted from the rubble, they were dripping
With regard to explosions, literally dozens of people---
including journalists, police officers, WTC employees,
emergency medical workers, and firefighters---reported
hearing explosions in the Twin Towers, with some of them
explicitly saying that the collapses appeared to be
instances of controlled demolition. One fire captain
said: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the
building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one
after another, boom, boom, boom." One paramedic said:
“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set
the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop,
pop, pop, pop.’” One firefighter said: “It seemed like on
television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed
like it was going all the way around like a belt, all
Steven Jones, a physicist who long taught at Brigham Young
University, has pointed out that to believe the official
account is to believe that some very basic laws of physics
Given all the features that indicate controlled demolition,
it is not surprising that when a controlled demolition
expert in Holland was shown videos of the collapse of WTC
7, without being told what the building was (he had
previously thought that only the Twin Towers had collapsed
on 9/11), he said: “They have simply blown away
columns. . . . A team of experts did this. . . . This is
controlled demolition.” It is also not surprising that
two emeritus professors of structural analysis and
construction at Zurich’s prestigious ETH Institute of
Technology say that WTC 7 was “with the highest probability
brought down by explosives.”
All evidence suggesting controlled demolition is ignored
in The 9/11 Commission Report, which simply assumed the
truth of the official story. Indeed, after FEMA, the first
agency given the task of explaining the collapse of the
WTC, said that its best explanation for the collapse of
WTC 7 had “only a low probability of occurrence,” the
9/11 Commission avoided the problem by simply not finding
room to mention this collapse in its 571-page report.
This behavior is no surprise given the fact that the
Commission was run by its executive director, Philip
Zelikow, who was virtually a member of the Bush-Cheney
administration: He had worked with Condoleezza Rice on
the National Security Council in the administration of
the first President Bush; when the Republicans were out
of office during the Clinton administration, Zelikow and
Rice co-authored a book; Rice then, as National Security
Advisor for the second President Bush, asked Zelikow to
help make the transition to the new National Security
Council, after which he was appointed to the President’s
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; Rice later brought
in Zelikow to be the primary author of the 2002 National
Security Strategy of the United States of America, which
used 9/11 to justify a new doctrine of preemptive warfare,
according to which the United States can attack other
nations even if they pose no imminent threat. The
idea that the 9/11 Commission was independent and impartial
is, therefore, ludicrous.
If the first two reports on the WTC collapses (FEMA’s and
the 9/11 Commission’s) were carried out by investigative
bodies that were closely tied to the Bush-Cheney White
House, the same is true of the supposedly definitive report
produced by the National Institute for Standards and
Technology (NIST). It is an agency of the U.S. Commerce
Department, headed by Bush’s secretary of commerce. It
could hardly publish a report that contradicted the
official story. In any case, NIST’s explanation of the
collapses of the Twin Towers---at this writing it still
has not published a report on WTC 7---itself collapses
when scrutinized from a scientific point of view. As
I show in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, for example, the NIST
scientists, who knew molten metal could not have been
produced by the fires, handled the problem by casting doubt
on its existence, in spite of the abundant evidence for
III. Could the Official Account of the Pentagon Possibly Be
According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck
by AA Flight 77 under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani
Hanjour. This account is challenged by many facts.
First, Flight 77 allegedly, after making a U-turn in the
mid-west, flew back to Washington undetected for 40 minutes,
even though it was then known that hijacked airliners were
being used as weapons and even though the U.S. military has
the best radar systems in the world.
Second, in order to get into position to hit Wedge 1 of the
Pentagon, the aircraft had to execute an amazing downward
spiral and come in at ground level, which according to some
pilots would have been impossible for a Boeing 757, even
under the control of an expert. Hanjour, moreover, was
known as “a terrible pilot,” who could barely fly a single-
engine airplane. Russ Wittenberg, who flew large
commercial airliners for 35 years after serving in Vietnam
as a fighter pilot, has said that it would have been
impossible for Flight 77 to have “descended 7,000 feet in
two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree
banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor
wall without touching the lawn.” It would, he added, have
been “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even
fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly
professional manner.” Ralph Omholt, a captain-qualified
757 pilot, agrees: “The idea that an unskilled pilot could
have flown this trajectory,” says Omholt, “is simply too
ridiculous to consider.”
Third, terrorists brilliant enough to outfox the U.S.
military’s defense system would not have struck Wedge 1,
for many reasons: It had been reinforced, so the damage
was less severe than a strike anywhere else would have
been; it was still being renovated, so relatively few
people were there; the secretary of defense and all the
top brass, whom terrorists would presumably have wanted
to kill, were on the opposite side of the building; and
hitting Wedge 1 required a difficult maneuver, whereas
crashing into the roof—-of, say, the area with the
offices of Rumsfeld and the top brass---would have been
much easier and deadlier.
Fourth, there is considerable evidence that the aircraft
that struck the Pentagon was not even a Boeing 757. Unlike
the strikes on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon strike did
not create a detectable seismic signal. Also, according
to photographs and eyewitnesses, the kind of damage and
debris that would have been produced by the impact of a
Boeing 757 was not produced by the strike on the Pentagon.
With regard to the debris, the eyewitnesses include Karen
Kwiatkowski, who was then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel
employed at the Pentagon. She writes of “a strange lack of
visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only
moments after the impact. . . . I saw nothing of any
significance at the point of impact---no airplane metal or
cargo debris.” Another eyewitness was CNN’s Jamie
McIntyre, who said during a live report from the Pentagon
on 9/11: “The only pieces left that you can see are small
enough that you pick up in your hand.”
The lack of the expected debris inside the Pentagon has
been reported by April Gallop, who, along with her two-
month-old son, was seriously injured. She says:
I was located at the E ring. . . . [W]e had to escape the
building before the floors . . . collapsed on us. And I
don't recall at any time seeing any plane debris. . . .
If I wasn't informed [at the hospital that it was a plane]
I would have never believed it. I walked through that
place to try to get out before everything collapsed on
us . . . . [S]urely we should have seen something.
With regard to damage, Omholt, discussing the photographic
evidence, writes: “There is no hole big enough to
swallow a 757. . . . There is no viable evidence of burning
jet fuel. . . . The expected ‘crash’ damage doesn’t
exist. . . . Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged! The
geometry of the day certifies the ‘official’ account as a
blatant lie.” Significant testimony is also provided
by Army Reservist Isabelle Slifer, whose fourth-floor
office was directly above the strike zone between the
first and second floors. Even though a 757 has a very
large tail fin, her office was not damaged by the
Fifth, the Pentagon is surely the best defended building
on the planet. It is within an ultra-restricted zone. It
is only a few miles from Andrews Air Force Base, which,
assigned to protect this zone, has at least three squadrons
with fighter jets on alert at all times. (The claim by The
9/11 Commission Report that no fighters were on alert the
morning of 9/11 is wholly implausible and contradicted by
the military’s own website.) Also, the Pentagon is
reportedly protected by batteries of surface-to-air
missiles, so if any aircraft without a U.S. military
transponder---a military transponder radiates a “friendly”
signal---had entered the Pentagon’s airspace, it would have
been automatically shot down---unless officials in the
Pentagon had deactivated its anti-aircraft defenses.
Accordingly, whether the Pentagon was struck by a military
or a nonmilitary aircraft, the strike had to be an inside
A sixth reason to be dubious of the official story is
that, as at the World Trade Center, evidence was quickly
destroyed. Shortly after the strike, officials picked up
debris in front of the impact site and carried it off.
Shortly thereafter the entire lawn was covered with dirt
and gravel, so that any remaining forensic evidence was
literally covered up.
FBI agents, moreover, quickly confiscated videos from
security cameras on nearby buildings. The Justice
Department, after long refusing to release any of them,
finally in May 2006 released one purporting to showing a
Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon. But it did not. Even
Bill O’Reilly of Fox News had to say: “I can’t see a
plane there.” If there were any videos giving clear
support to the official story, would we not have seen
them as often as we have seen the strikes on the
World Trade Center?
These six problems, besides conflicting with the official
account, collectively indicate that the strike on the
Pentagon was orchestrated by forces within our own
In the light of these first three challenges to the
official account, we can reflect on President Bush’s
advice not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories
about the attacks of 11 September.” This is excellent
advice. But it deflects attention from the fact that the
truly outrageous conspiracy theory is the official theory,
according to which a band of Arab Muslims conspired to
defeat not only the most sophisticated defense system in
history but also, in the attacks in both New York and
Washington, some basic laws of physics. The problems in
the official account, moreover, do not end there.
To be continued – Part 2 tomorrow
David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy emeritus of
religion and theology at Claremont School of Theology. He
has published 32 books, including The American Empire and
the Commonwealth of God and 9/11 and American Empire:
Intellectuals Speak Out.
Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and
Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2002), 30, 218-19.
Quoted in Emily Eakin, “All Roads Lead To D.C.,” New
York Times, Week In Review, March 31, 2002.
Robert Kagan, “The Benevolent Empire,” Foreign Policy,
Summer 1998: 24-35.
 Dinesh D’Souza, “In Praise of an American Empire,”
Christian Science Monitor, April 26, 2002.
 Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for
Global Dominance (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2003).
Richard Falk, “Will the Empire Be Fascist?” Global
Dialogues, 2003; “Resisting the Global Domination Project:
An Interview with Prof. Richard Falk,” Frontline, 20/8
(April 12-25, 2003).
Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism,
Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York:
Metropolitan Books, 2004), 33, 4.
Bacevich, American Empire, 7, 46.
Ibid., 133, 52.
 On Mexico, see Richard Van Alstyne, The Rising
American Empire (1960; New York, Norton, 1974), 143.
On the Philippines, see Stuart Creighton Miller,
Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the
Philippines, 1899-1903 (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1982), 11, 57-66, 237, 245-47. On Vietnam, see Marilyn B.
Young, The Vietnam Wars 1945-1990 (New York: HarperCollins,
1991), 116-21, and George McT. Kahin, Intervention: How
American Became Involved in Vietnam (Garden City: Anchor
Press/Doubleday, 1987), 220-23.
 See James Bamford, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the
Ultra-Secret National Security Agency (2001: New York:
Anchor Books, 2002), 82-91.
 See Walter LaFeber, The Clash: U.S.-Japanese Religions
throughout History (New York: Norton, 1997), 164-66.
 See William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third
Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), 191-93, whose
position has been substantiated in Alexander Bahar and
Wilfried Kugel, Der Reichstagbrand: Wie Geschichte Gemacht
Wird (Berlin, Edition Q, 2001); reviewed in Wilhelm Klein,
“The Reichstag Fire, 68 Years On,” World Socialist Website,
July 5, 2001.
 See “Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Vol. II:
Criminality of Groups and Organizations”; Ian Kershaw,
Hitler: 1936-45: Nemesis (New York: Norton, 2001), 221;
and “Gleiwitz Incident,” Wikipedia.
 Thompson’s timeline was originally published at
www.cooperativeresearch.org. Much of it has now been
published as The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by
Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the
Road to 9/11--and America’s Response (New York: ReganBooks,
2004). The online version continues to be up-dated and is
the most complete source of information about 9/11 based
on mainstream sources.
 David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing
Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11
(Northampton, Mass.: Olive Branch, 2004).
 Ibid., xxiii.
 Calgary Herald, Oct. 13, 2001; Glen Johnson, “Otis
Fighter Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt the Attacks,”
Boston Globe, Sept. 15, 2001.
 David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report:
Omissions and Distortions (Northampton: Olive Branch,
 Ibid., 155-226. For a briefer account, see “Flights
of Fancy: The 9/11 Commission’s Incredible Tales about
Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93” in David Ray Griffin,
Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to
Reflection and Action (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2006).
 David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer
to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official
Conspiracy Theory (Northampton, Mass.: Olive Branch, 2007).
 “High-Rise Office Building Fire One Meridian Plaza
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,” FEMA; “Fire Practically
Destroys Venezuela’s Tallest Building”.
 New York Magazine reporter Mark Jacobson, referring to
the building a few minutes before it collapsed, said: “It
wasn’t a 47-story building that was engulfed in flames. The
whole building wasn’t on fire. . . . There was a lot of
fire coming out of a few floors” (Jacobson can be seen
making this statement in Michael Berger’s film, “Improbable
Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic”). ”Chief Thomas
McCarthy of the FDNY said that while the firefighters “were
waiting for 7 World Trade to come down,” there was “fire on
three separate floors” (9/11 Oral History of Thomas
McCarthy, 10-11). Emergency medical technician Decosta
Wright said: “I think the fourth floor was on fire. . . .
[W]e were like, are you guys going to put that fire out?”
(9/11 Oral History of Decosta Wright, 11). These quotations
are from the 9/11 oral histories recorded by the New York
Fire Department at the end of 2001 but released to the
public (after a court battle) in August 2005, then made
available on a New York Times website.
 A photograph taken by Terry Schmidt can be seen on
page 63 of Eric Hufschmid’s Painful Questions: An Analysis
of the September 11th Attack (Goleta, Calif.: Endpoint
Software, 2002). According to Schmidt, this photo was taken
between 3:09 and 3:16 PM, hence only a little over 2 hours
before Building 7 collapsed. It shows that on the north
side of the building, fires were visible only on floors
7 and 12. Therefore, if there were more fires on the south
side, as some witnesses have claimed, they were not big
enough to be seen from the north side.
 Quoted in Christopher Bollyn, “New Seismic Data
Refutes Official Explanation,” American Free Press, Updated
April 12, 2004. For several more examples, see the
subsection labeled “Molten Steel” in my chapter, “The
Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official
Account Cannot Be True,” in Christian Faith and the Truth
Behind 9/11, or the discussion of molten metal in Chap. 3
of Debunking 9/11 Debunking.
 For example, Joe “Toolie” O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter
who worked for many months on the rescue and clean-up
efforts, said with regard to a beam that had been lifted
by a crane from deep within the catacombs at Ground Zero:
“It was dripping from the molten steel” (Jennifer Lin,
“Recovery Worker Reflects on Months Spent at Ground Zero,”
Knight Ridder, May 29, 2002).
 See my “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the
Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories” in Christian Faith
and the Truth Behind 9/11. See also Graeme MacQueen,
“118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions
in the Twin Towers,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 2/August
 Captain Dennis Tardio as quoted in Dennis Smith,
Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts
at the World Trade Center (New York: Penguin, 2002), 18.
 9/11 Oral History of Daniel Rivera, 9, and 9/11 Oral
History of Richard Banaciski, 3-4.
 Steven E. Jones, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings
Collapse?” In David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds.,
9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out
(Northampton: Olive Branch, 2006), 33-62. The online
version, to which Jones refers for photographs, is now in
the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 3/September 2006.
 For videos of all the WTC collapses, see “9/11/01 WTC
Videos” and “9/11 Videos: The Controlled Collapse of WTC 7”.
 This interview can be seen at “Demo Expert Confirms
WTC-7 Was ‘Controlled Demolition”.
 See Daniele Ganser, “Der erbitterte Streit um den 11.
September,” Tages-Anzeiger, September 9, 2006. The statement
quoted in the text is from Jörg Schneider. Hugo Bachmann is
quoted as saying: "In my opinion WTC 7 was with the utmost
probability brought down by controlled demolition done by
See FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance
Study, Ch. 5, Sect. 6.2, “Probable Collapse Sequence,”
which I discussed in The New Pearl Harbor, 22.
 This is only one of the most egregious of the 115 lies
of omission and distortion that I discuss in The 9/11
Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which are
summarized in “The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie,”
Global Outlook, April 2006: 100-106; originally posted at
911Truth.org, May 22, 2005.
 See The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions, 7-12, 282-85.
 I discuss the full significance of Zelikow’s dual role
in “Imperial Motives for a New Pearl Harbor,” chap. 6 of
Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11.
 NIST, Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade
Center Towers (PDF document).
 See Steven Jones, “Why Indeed Did the World Trade
Center Collapse?”; Judy Wood, “A Refutation of the Official
Collapse Theory,” Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Jim Hoffman,
“Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-
Up of the Crime of the Century,” 911 Research, Version 1.0,
Dec. 8, 2005; and Kevin Ryan, “What is 9/11 Truth? The
First Steps,” Journal of 9/11 Studies August 2006/Volume 2:
1-6, and “Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC
by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories,” in Griffin and
Scott, eds., 9/11 and American Empire, 63-71. I discuss
these and other critiques in Debunking 9/11 Debunking,
chap. 3, “The Disintegration of the World Trade Center:
Has NIST Debunked the Theory of Controlled Demolition?”
 John Gross, one of the 13 scientists listed at the
beginning of NIST’s Final Report, has been recorded making
this denial during a public presentation. See “NIST
Engineer, John Gross, Denies the Existance [sic] of Molten
 See New York Times, May 4, 2002, CBS News, May 10,
2002. The fact that Hanjour was known as a “terrible pilot”
was even acknowledged by The 9/11 Commission Report (New
York: W. W. Norton, 2004), 225-26, 242, but it failed to
explain how, then, he could have performed the alleged
 Greg Szymanski, “Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial
Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job,” Lewis
News, Sunday, January 8, 2006.
 Ralph Omholt, e-mail letter, October 27, 2006.
 Won-Young Kim and Gerald R. Baum, “Seismic
Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack”
 Karen Kwiatkowski, “Assessing the Official 9/11
Conspiracy Theory,” in Griffin and Scott, eds., 9/11 and
American Empire. See also “The Missing Wings”, in which
A. K. Dewdney and G. W. Longspaugh argue that the absence
of wing debris alone is sufficient to disprove the claim
that the aircraft was a huge airliner.
 Click here for text and video.
 “Interview with April Gallop,” George Washington’s
Blog, July 13, 2006. Also, Ed Plaugher, the county fire
chief, and Lee Evey, the head of the renovation project,
reported seeing no big pieces from an airplane (DoD news
briefings, September 12 and 15, 2001).
 For photographic evidence, see Eric Hufschmid, Painful
Questions, chap. 9, and Dave McGowan, “September 11, 2001
Revisited: The Series: Act II,” Center for an Informed
 Ralph Omholt, “9-11 and the Impossible: The Pentagon”.
 Nikki Lowe, “Pentagon Survivor Donates $500 in Lieu of
a Retirement Party: Isabelle Slifer Shares Her Story,”
Pentagon Memorial Fund Site.
 The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,
159-64. See my further discussion in Debunking 9/11
Debunking, chap. 4, “Debunking 9/11 Myths: A Failed Attempt
by Popular Mechanics.”
 Thierry Meyssan, who has referred to these anti-
missile batteries (Pentagate [London: Carnot, 2002], 112,
116), has written: “The presence of these anti-missile
batteries was testified to me by French officers to whom
they were shown during an official visit to the Pentagon.
This was later confirmed to me by a Saudi officer” (e-mail
communication). See also John Judge, “Pentagon and P-56
Preparations and Defenses and the Stand-Down on 9/11,“
Ratville Times, Jan. 11, 2006.
 Photographic evidence of this removal can be seen in
Eric Hufschmid’s video, “Painful Deceptions” (available at
 A photograph showing this literal cover-up can be
seen in Omholt, “9-11 and the Impossible: The Pentagon.”
 See Bill McKelway “Three Months On, Tension Lingers
Near the Pentagon,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, Dec. 11, 2001,
and Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, “Inside the Ring,”
Washington Times, Sept. 21, 2001.
 See Ted Twietmeyer, “Judicial Watch Caught Pulling a
180 on Pentagon Footage,” Rense.com, May 21, 2006, and
“Pentagon Videos a Fiasco, Scholars Conclude,” Scholars
for 9/11 Truth, May 22, 2006.
 President George W. Bush, Address to the General
Assembly of the United Nations, November 10, 2001
Check out Political Videos on the Net at evtv1.com
All VIEWPOINT subscribers, we have a special. You can now
SAVE $10.00 on the book:
PALESTINE & THE MIDDLE EAST
A Chronicle of Passion and Politics
Written by the editor of Viewpoint it's ONLY $4.98.
Visit: A Chronicle of Passion and Politics
For Viewpoint archives, visit: Viewpoint Archives
Questions...Comments...? Contact: Contact Viewpoint
Here's the link to the Viewpoint Forum: Viewpoint Forum
End of VIEWPOINT
Copyright 2007 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved.
E-Mail this issue
Subscribe FREE to ViewPoint by clicking here.