The Canadian National Newspaper Exopolitics Headlines

Headline News on Democracy, Ecology and Extraterrestrial research

Posts Tagged ‘9/11

9/11 Contradictions: When Did Cheney Enter the Underground Bunker?

leave a comment »

by David Ray Griffin

9/11 Contradictions
  9/11 Contradictions book by Dr. David Ray Griffin.
  Acquire Now

With regard to the morning of 9/11, everyone agrees that at some time after 9:03 (when the South Tower of the World Trade Center was struck) and before 10:00, Vice President Dick Cheney went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), sometimes simply called the “bunker,” under the east wing of the White House. Everyone also agrees that, once there, Cheney was in charge—that he was either making decisions or relaying decisions from President Bush. But there is enormous disagreement as to exactly when Cheney entered the PEOC.

According to The 9/11 Commission Report, Cheney arrived “shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58” (The 9/11 Commission Report [henceforth 9/11CR], 40). This official time, however, contradicts almost all previous reports, some of which had him there before 9:20. This difference is important because, if the 9/11 Commission’s time is correct, Cheney was not in charge in the PEOC when the Pentagon was struck, or for most of the period during which United Flight 93 was approaching Washington. But if the reports that have him there by 9:20 are correct, he was in charge in the PEOC all that time.

Mineta’s Report of Cheney’s Early Arrival

The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he “arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 AM,” Mineta reported that he then overheard part of an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived, between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming that “the orders still stand.” When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: “Probably about five or six minutes.” This would mean, Roemer pointed out, “about 9:25 or 9:26.”

This is a remarkable contradiction. Given the fact that Cheney, according to Mineta, had been engaged in an ongoing exchange, he must have been in the PEOC for several minutes before Mineta’s 9:20 arrival. If Cheney had been there since 9:15, there would be a 43-minute contradiction between Mineta’s testimony and The 9/11 Commission Report. Why would such an enormous contradiction exist?

One possible explanation would be that Mineta was wrong. His story, however, is in line with that of many other witnesses.

Other Reports Supporting Cheney’s Early Arrival

Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went with Clarke to the White House’s Video Teleconferencing Center, where Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10. After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke: “You’re going to need some decisions quickly. I’m going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.” At about 9:15, Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke “suggested he join the Vice President” (Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15.

In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney’s White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00, some Secret Service agents came into Cheney’s office and said, “Sir, you have to come with us.” During this same program, Rice said: “As I was trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and said, ‘You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President’s already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House.’” ABC’s Charles Gibson then said: “In the bunker, the Vice President is joined by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta” (“9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings,” ABC News, September 11, 2002).

The 9/11 Commission’s Late-Arrival Claim

The 9/11 Commission agreed that the Vice President was hustled down to the PEOC after word was received that a plane was headed towards the White House. It claimed, however, that this word was not received until 9:33. But even then, according to the Commission, the Secret Service agents immediately received another message, telling them that the aircraft had turned away, so “[n]o move was made to evacuate the Vice President at this time.” It was not until “just before 9:36” that the Secret Service ordered Cheney to go below (9/11CR 39). But even after he entered the underground corridor at 9:37, Cheney did not immediately go to the PEOC. Rather:


Once inside, Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television. The Vice President asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call to be connected. He learned in the tunnel that the Pentagon had been hit, and he saw television coverage of the smoke coming from the building. (9/11CR 40)

Next, after Lynne Cheney “joined her husband in the tunnel,” the Commission claimed, “Mrs. Cheney and the Vice President moved from the tunnel to the shelter conference room” after the call ended, which was not until after 9:55. As for Rice, the Commission added, she “entered the conference room shortly after the Vice President” (9/11CR 40).

The contradiction could not be clearer. According to the Commission, Cheney, far from entering the PEOC before 9:20, as Mineta and others said, did not arrive there until about 9:58, 20 minutes after the 9:38 strike on the Pentagon, about which he had learned in the corridor.

Cheney’s Account on Meet the Press

The 9/11 Commission’s account even contradicted that given by Cheney himself in a well-known interview. Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: “[A]fter I talked to the president… I went down into… the Presidential Emergency Operations Center… [W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon’s been hit.” Cheney himself, therefore, indicated that he had entered the PEOC prior to the (9:38) strike on the Pentagon, not 20 minutes after it, as the Commission would later claim.

Dealing with the Contradictions

How did the 9/11 Commission deal with the fact that its claim about the time of Cheney’s arrival in the PEOC had been contradicted by Bohrer, Clarke, Mineta, Rice, several news reports, and even Cheney himself? It simply omitted any mention of these contradictory reports.

Of these omissions, the most important was the Commission’s failure to mention Norman Mineta’s testimony, even though it was given to the Commission in an open hearing—as can be seen by reading the transcript of that session (May 23, 2003). This portion of Mineta’s testimony was also deleted from the official version of the video record of the 9/11 Commission hearings in the 9/11 Commission archives. (It can, however, be viewed on the Internet.)

During an interview for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2006, Hamilton was asked what “Mineta told the Commission about where Dick Cheney was prior to 10 AM.” Hamilton replied: “I do not recall” (“9/11: Truth, Lies and Conspiracy: Interview: Lee Hamilton,” CBC News, 21 August 2006). It was surprising that Hamilton could not recall, because he had been the one doing the questioning when Mineta told the story of the young man’s conversation with Cheney. Hamilton, moreover, had begun his questioning by saying to Mineta: “You were there [in the PEOC] for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the Vice President.” And Mineta’s exchange with Timothy Roemer, during which it was established that Mineta had arrived at about 9:20, came immediately after Hamilton’s interrogation. And yet Hamilton, not being able to recall any of this, simply said, “we think that Vice President Cheney entered the bunker shortly before 10 o’clock.”

Obliterating Mineta’s Problematic Testimony

To see possible motives for the 9/11 Commission’s efforts to obliterate Mineta’s story from the public record, we need to look at the conversation he reported to the Commission. He said:


During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

Mineta’s story had dangerous implications with regard to the strike on the Pentagon, which occurred at 9:38. According to the 9/11 Commission, the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until 9:36, so that it “had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington” (9/11CR 34). That claim was essential for explaining, among other things, why the Pentagon had not been evacuated before it was struck — a fact that resulted in 125 deaths. A spokesperson for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, when asked why this evacuation had not occurred, said: “The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way” (Newsday, Sept. 23, 2001). Mineta’s testimony implied, by contrast, that Cheney and others knew that an aircraft was approaching Washington about 12 minutes before that strike.

Even more problematic was the question of the nature of “the orders.” Mineta assumed, he said, that they were orders to have the plane shot down. But the aircraft was not shot down. Also, the expected orders, especially on a day when two hijacked airliners had already crashed into buildings in New York, would have been to shoot down any nonmilitary aircraft entering the “prohibited” airspace over Washington, in which “civilian flying is prohibited at all times” (“Pilots Notified of Restricted Airspace; Violators Face Military Action,” FAA Press Release, September 28, 2001). If those orders had been given, there would have been no reason to ask if they still stood. The question made sense only if the orders were to do something unusual — not to shoot the aircraft down. It appeared, accordingly, that Mineta had inadvertently reported Cheney’s confirmation of stand-down orders.

That Mineta’s report was regarded as dangerous is suggested by the fact that the 9/11 Commission, besides deleting Mineta’s testimony and delaying Cheney’s entrance to the bunker by approximately 45 minutes, also replaced Mineta’s story with a new story about an incoming aircraft. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, here is what really happened:


At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft… At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft… The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane… The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage. The Vice President again said yes. (9/11CR 41)

The 9/11 Commission thereby presented the incoming aircraft story as one that ended with an order for a shoot down, not a stand down. And by having it occur after 10:10, the Commission not only disassociated it from the Pentagon strike but also ruled out the possibility that Cheney’s shootdown authorization might have led to the downing of United Flight 93 (which crashed, according to the Commission, at 10:03).

Given the fact that the 9/11 Commission’s account of Cheney’s descent to the bunker contradicted the testimony of not only Norman Mineta but also many other witnesses, including Cheney himself, Congress and the press need to launch investigations to determine what really happened.

Make comments about this article in The Canadian Blog.

About the writer:

David Ray Griffin
David Griffin

This essay is the second in a series of articles written by Dr. David Ray Griffin for The Canadian. This particular one is an abbreviated version of Chapters 2 and 3 of Dr. Griffin’s 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, March, 2008).


Written by thecanadianheadlines

December 25, 2009 at 12:44 pm

Scepticism, 9/11 and the War on Terrorism

leave a comment »

by Kevin Ryan

  Thom Hartmann
Thom Hartmann.

In early November 2007, I had a chance to debate the issue of 9/11 Truth on the Thom Hartmann radio show, with an avowed supporter of the official story, Skeptic magazine’s Michael Shermer. It was an interesting experience, and some good information was communicated, although the format did not allow for a detailed discussion.[1] One thing this debate did reveal was the need for true scepticism in our society.

I was aware that it took months for Hartmann’s producer to find a legitimate defender of the official version of 9/11. Apparently those who knew something of the official story would not publicly support it, and those who would publicly support that official story didn’t know anything about it. That fact in itself is a testament to the progress made by the 9/11 Truth Movement over the last few years.

But in September, after receiving an unsolicited email from Shermer, I invited him to join me for the Hartmann debate. From Skeptic magazine’s “9/11 Conspiracies” issue last year, it was clear that Shermer was not aware of many of the facts about 9/11 either. But he was well known for his stance on the issue, and I felt this was a chance to follow-up on Hartmann’s offer. With that in mind, I approached the debate carefully, with respect for my opponent, the audience and the host.

It didn’t take long during to understand Shermer’s position on 9/11. He did not bother with facts about the events themselves, and appeared to be motivated only through a “monster under the bed” perception of “conspiracy theories”. Even after admitting that the official version of events is itself a conspiracy theory, he maintained that conspiracy among oil company executives and politicians is somehow unbelievable, while conspiracy solely among people who just happen to live on the last remaining oil-rich land is to be expected.

Additionally, Shermer’s performance showed that he is not what most people would call a sceptic, at least not in matters that are important to people. I had suspected this myself, and had to check the definition of scepticism to be sure. What I found was that scepticism is about questioning claims that are generally accepted, or are given by supposedly authoritative sources. Skeptics are not people who simply take contradictory positions without regard for evidence, however, and after rational discussion sceptics usually agree with the case that best fits the evidence.

On several issues, Shermer has taken a decidedly non-sceptical approach. The events of 9/11 are one example, and global warming is another. It took him years to come around on the issue of global warming, even after the IPCC had satisfied nearly all scientists with their assessment of the situation in 2001. Shermer continued as a leading sceptic of global warming, telling us not to worry about it, until his well-publicized “flipping point” in 2006.[2] It seems his scepticism might have more to do with business interests than it has to do with reason.

At the start of our debate, Shermer responded to my scepticism about the history of al Qaeda by suggesting that our government gets in bed with bad people all the time. At that point, I wasn’t sure whose side of the debate he was on. But it soon became clear that Shermer was only ready to talk about the demolition hypothesis, and then only in the sense that he wanted me to prove that hypothesis. Although I could have given more detailed evidence, it was gratifying to know that this last remaining, relatively legitimate defender of the official story had only a few points of unsubstantiated speculation to support his supposedly reasoned scepticism.

Shermer was clearly not sceptical of any of the claims made by the only authoritative source on the topic, the current U.S. government. He had no response when I asked how each and every member of the U.S. chain of command could have been indisposed for just those two hours on September 11th, or how al Qaeda could have been behind the effective stand-down of the nation’s air defences during that time. He could not say why the 9/11 Commission left so many of the most important facts out of their report, or what it meant for U.S. government scientists to finally admit that they could not explain the “collapse” of the Twin Towers. His final plea was that we just accept that al Qaeda did it because they said they did it, and we should take them at their word.

This strange approach to scepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms and, paradoxically, anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theorist”.

Within that kind of framework, some people might really believe that Michael Shermer is a sceptic. But what we find is that Sceptic magazine is not skeptical of things that matter to people today, like electronic voting machines or media consolidation. Instead, this publication aims to protect us from “bad ideas” like the possibility of UFOs, or the belief in God. Shermer must know that if people are really going to be skeptical, they will be so about authoritative claims that affect their lives in serious ways, like the rationale behind the “War on Terror”. And as I said during the debate, the absurd attempts to keep people from questioning 9/11 have so far amounted to just so much speculative distraction.

The truth is that there is no aspect of the official story that cannot be severely criticized, or shown to be completely false. Two reports, one from the 9/11 Commission and one from a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce, known as NIST, constitute the official version of events for 9/11. And both of these reports are riddled with inconsistencies and outright falsehoods.[3, 4] Additionally, we know that many involved in producing those reports had serious conflicts of interest.[5, 6, 7]

In the end Shermer and I did agree on one thing, and that is that the truth is likely to be simple. His version of simple, however, is that terrorism is about astoundingly lucky acts of random vengeance, with the Gods of Science turning a few blind eyes here and there. On the other hand, to me the simple truth is more likely to be that terrorism is a co-opted tool, used by a powerful few to help secure their strategic interests. In any case, when such truth becomes not only simple, but also obvious, we need to start being truly sceptical.


[1] Air America/Thom Hartman 9/11 Truth Debate: Kevin Ryan vs. Michael Shermer, MP3 found at Portland Independent Media Center, LINK

[2] Michael Shermer, The Flipping Point, Scientific American, June 2006, LINK

[3] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2005). Griffin summarizes the omissions and distortions in “The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie,” 911 Visibility Project, May 22, 2005 LINK.

[4] Kevin Ryan, What is 9/11 Truth? – The First Steps, Journal of 911 Studies, August 2006, PDF LINK.

[5], The Kean Commission: The Official Commission Avoids the Core Issues, LINK

[6], 9/11 Commission: The official coverup guide, LINK

[7] Kevin Ryan, Looking for Truth in Credentials,, March 13, 2007, LINK

About the writer:

Kevin Ryan is co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, LINK and the former Site Manager for Underwriters Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana. can help you publish your book.  Check out Our Services to You.  We invite you to submit your manuscript

Do you have an idea for a book?  Contact us for more information.  You can make money self-publishing your own book.  Skip the hassle of corporate trade publishers that prefer to publish well established authors.  Help spread further social awareness.

Written by thecanadianheadlines

December 17, 2009 at 7:31 am

9/11 book sheds light on post 9/11 democracy in America

leave a comment »

A Real 9/11 Commission Will Help Free America Now!

by Paul J. Landis
ISBN: 0976040824

Book description:

The book entitled A Real 9/11 Commissions Will Help Free America Now! was written to provide evidence before it was filtered by Bush and Cheney, or removed by our controlled mainstream media.

The reader is invited to see pictures from documentaries of footage that was shown on live TV the morning of 9/11 and provided the opportunity to participate, to ‘Render a decision’ on the evidence seen, both manually and on-line.

In May 2006, a Zogby International national poll found that 42 percent of adults polled believe the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission “concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence” that contradicts the official explanation of the attacks. And, 9/11 Commission chairs Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton, say in their new book Without Precedent: The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception.

In addition to the 42% above, the same May 2006 national Zogby respondents say “More than 40 percent of Americans believe that the 9/11 Commission Report that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is a cover-up”.

Wow! And now, hold on to you hats: based upon a review of their book Without Precedent, we have significant doubts being expressed by these two 9/11 commissioners: Join us Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton in “A Real 9/11 Investigation”.

A key question for a “A Real 9/11 Commission” or if you like, a new, trustworthy 9/11 commission is What would it do differently?

How would or could, Don Rumsfeld prove to the American people that the 757 he says hit the Pentagon really did? If asked, participants in “A Real 9/1 Commission” would say, “he can’t!” Not only are there NO pictures showing a 60 to 80 ton 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon, we would play for Don the 9/11 AM CNN Live report on Loose Change 2nd edition “there is no evidence that a 757 has hit anywhere near the Pentagon!”

We would also remind Don that the famous collapsed Pentagon wall section, if that is where he tells us the plane is? That section collapsed twenty minutes after the explosion. Did the 757 just wait around for a hole to climb into?

So Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton, any comments?

The New York City Twin Towers, where 3,000 people lost their lives, we were told ‘collapsed’ because of the planes that hit them. If we asked Don or Dick Cheney to prove this, what could they use? There is a NTST report that supports this claim. But does the evidence support this report?

A Real 9/11 Commissions Will Help Free America Now!

Briefly: No. We now know that molten steel, 3,000 degrees, was found in the sub-basements of both Towers (and WTC 7) four and five weeks after their collapse. We can only suggest in the space available here, that the reader look at the Special Report in A Real 9/11 Commission Will Help Free America Now on pages 32 to 52 and on the books web site.

You will see photographs of the building ‘collapse’ and can compare these pictures with live TV statements by TV news reporters. We have pictures of multi-ton steel columns projected horizontally into near-by buildings and multi-ton steel structures thrown 600 feet or two football fields away from the ‘collapse’. Is this how you would envision the ‘collapse’ of the massive structures?

And live video recordings of the Towers ‘collapse’ with the sounds of the ‘demolition charges’, would that help Don and Dick? Obviously not: see “911 Eyewitness”, by Mr. Ricard A. Siegel.

We might ask the commissioners: How is it that the collapse of these structures produced only pulverized debris and steel beams conveniently cut into sections that fit on the backs of the trucks used to haul them away? And if the Towers ‘collapsed’, where did the 2,600 pollutants come from that have thus far claimed the lives of twelve “First Responders” and caused 70,000 illnesses?

For the assertion that Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, we will just suggest you see statements by coroners on the scene in Pennsylvania saying “there was no blood or evidence of human remains at the site”, Loose Change Second Edition,

So Don and Dick appear to have no EVIDENCE to justify the statements they made. How about Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton, perhaps they want to explain their lapse of finding the above EVIDENCE or any EVIDENCE that the 42% of poll respondents say was ignored?

On a Book TV interview about their book “Without Precedent”, Mr. Hamilton states, “we were there to tell the story.” Unfortunately, the moderator, Mr. Marvin Kalb was too busy being polite and never asked: “What story? The one Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney told us or the one substantiated by facts?”

“Very recommended: “Be sure to check out the great work done by Lynn Pentz and the L.A. Citizens’ Grand Jury. Their results, note this Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton, match the above information page 158.

“We the People” were lied to about the events of 9/11. We were lied to by the same people who recently made us ‘Torturers’, who are using their own Weapon of Mass Destruction, a radioactive weapon called Depleted Uranium that is killing OUR soldiers and causing their wives to give birth to deformed babies. We were lied to by the same people who have their own Non-U.S. Constitution – the “Project for the New American Century”. These people are not Osama bin Laden or Al-Qaida. They are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their friends who support the Non-U.S. Constitution the Project for the New American Century — the apparent motivation for the attacks of 9/11/2001.

Get this at Bookstore Consortium

Featured LINK: Alternative Lifestyles Personals – Free and anonymous membership

Written by thecanadianheadlines

December 14, 2009 at 10:19 pm

U.S. pilots complain about U.S. official data contridictions on Osama bin Laden mythology

leave a comment »

by Rob Balsamo et al.

  American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon
American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, “Flight Path Study – American Airlines Flight 77,” consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and the flight path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77’s Flight Data Recorder (FDR).

In August, 2006, Pilots for 9/11 Truth received the cited documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has now concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001. However, the reported impact time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45. According to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path to the west wall. The data provided by the NTSB Report, however, contradicts the Commission Report in several significant ways:

— The record of data shows no impact and is truncated one second prior to impact time.

— Both barometric and radar altitude shows the aircraft a minimum of 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

— The flight path plotted by the animation is several degrees north of where the light poles stood and is corroborated by eyewitness testimony including Pentagon Police Officers filmed on location.

— All system indicators at the end of data show normal operation. In other words, there is no indication of impact with any objects.

— The vertical rate of descent is far too great for the plane to have levelled off prior to impact as seen in the Dept of Defense “5 Frames” video of an object level across the Pentagon west lawn.

— In fact, if data trends are continued through the last second beyond where recording stops, the altitude of the plane would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon. – The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim is the data extracted from the FDR of AA Flight 77 and the official story alleging its crash into the Pentagon.

As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Why have they falsely represented their own data to the American people? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to informing them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter.

For more information, please visit

Featured LINK.  Online dating. Alternative Lifestyles Personals. Free and Anonymous Membership – The Canadian’s not-for-profit Bookstore and Book Distribution Consortium.  Please note: You can also get your book self-published with

Become a member of The Canadian, with your donation-pledge. Help support independent, progressive, and not-for-profit journalism.  Get a book or other thank you gifts. Drop us a line.

Written by thecanadianheadlines

December 10, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Where was Osama on September 11, 2001?

leave a comment »

by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research Columnist

Osama bin Laden.

“Going after bin Laden” has served, over the last five years, to sustain the legend of the “world’s most wanted terrorist”, who “haunts Americans and millions of others around the world.”

Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly claimed that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden remain unknown: “It is like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.

In November 2001, U.S. B-52 bombers carpet bombed a network of caves in the Tora Bora mountains of eastern Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden and his followers were allegedly hiding. These caves were described as “Osama’s last stronghold”.

CIA “intelligence analysts” subsequently concluded that Osama had escaped from his Tora Bora cave in the first week of December 2001. And in January 2002, the Pentagon launched a Worldwide search for Osama and his top lieutenants, beyond the borders of Afghanistan. This operation, referred to by Secretary of State Colin Powell as a “hot pursuit”, was carried out with the support of the “international community” and America’s European allies. U.S. intelligence authorities confirmed, in this regard, that

“while al Qaeda has been significantly shattered, … the most wanted man – bin Laden himself remains one step ahead of the United States, with the core of his worldwide terror network still in place. (Global News Wire – Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, InfoProd, January 20, 2002)

For the last five years, the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus (at considerable expense to U.S. taxpayers) has been “searching for Osama”.

A CIA unit with a multimillion dollar budget was set up, with a mandate to find Osama. This unit was apparently disbanded in 2005. “Intelligence experts agree”, he is hiding in a remote area of Pakistan, but “we cannot find him”:

“Most intelligence analysts are convinced that Osama bin Laden is somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Lately, it has been said that he’s probably in the vicinity of the a 7700m Hindu Kush peak Tirich Mir in the tribal Chitral area of northwest Pakistan.” Hobart Mercury (Australia), September 9, 2006)

U.S. President Bush has repeatedly promised to “smoke him out” of his cave, capture him dead or alive, if necessary through ground assaults or missile strikes. According to a recent statement by president Bush, Osama is hiding in a remote area of Pakistan which “is extremely mountainous and very inaccessible, … with high mountains between 9,000 to 15,000 feet high….”. We cannot get him, because, according to the president, there is no communications infrastructure, which would enable us to effectively go after him. (quoted in Balochistan Times, 23 April 2006)

Osama Political Cartoon

The pursuit of Osama has become a highly ritualized process which feeds the news chain on a daily basis. It is not only part of the media disinformation campaign, it also provides a justification for the arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of numerous “suspects”, “enemy combatants” and “accomplices”, who allegedly might be aware of Osama’s whereabouts. And that information is of course vital to “the security of Americans”.

The search for Osama serves both military and political objectives. The Democrats and Republicans in the United States compete in their resolve to weed out “islamic terrorism”.

The Path to 9/11, a five-hour ABC series on “the search for Osama” — which made its debut on the 10th and 11th of September to marks the fifth anniversary of the attacks — casually accuses Bill Clinton of having been “too busy with the Monica Lewinsky scandal to fight terrorism.” The message of the movie is that the Democrats neglected the “war on terrorism”.

The fact of the matter is that every single administration, since Jimmy Carter have supported and financed the “Islamic terror” network, created during the Carter administration at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, 12 September 2001). al Qaeda is a instrument of US intelligence: a US sponsored intelligence asset.

Where was Osama on Septembers 11?

There is evidence that the whereabouts of Osama are known to the Bush Administration.

On September 10. 2001, “Enemy Number One” was in a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan, as confirmed by a report of Dan Rather, CBS News.

He could have been arrested at short notice which would have “saved us a lot of trouble”, but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as George W’s speeches in the course of the last five years.

According to Dan Rather, CBS, Bin Laden was hospitalized in Rawalpindi. one day before the 9/11 attacks, on September 10, 2001.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good.

“The military had him surrounded,” says this hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, “and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time,” he says, “I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after.” Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military was often there to help before 9/11.


BARRY PETERSEN (CBS Correspondent): (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night.

(voice-over): But it was Pakistan’s President Musharraf who said in public what many suspected, that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death. His evidence, watching this most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don`t know if bin Laden is sick or even dead.

DONALD RUMSFELD, (U.S. Defense Secretary): With respect to the issue of Osama bin Laden`s health, I just am — don`t have any knowledge.

PETERSEN: The United States has no way of knowing who in Pakistan`s military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Laden maybe up to the night before 9/11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the United States may not know if those same people might help him again perhaps to freedom.

Barry Petersen, CBS News, Islamabad.


It should be noted, that the hospital is directly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. U.S. military advisers based in Rawalpindi. work closely with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another “better purpose”. Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no knowledge regarding Osama’s health. (CBS News, 28 January 2002)

The CBS report is a crucial piece of information in our understanding of 9/11.

Dan Rather and Barry Petersen fail to draw the implications of their January 2002 report. They suggest that the U.S. had been deliberately misled by Pakistani intelligence officials. They fail to ask the question:

Why does the U.S. administration state that they cannot find Osama?

If they are to stand by their report, the conclusion is apparent.

If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, courtesy of America’s ally, he was either still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred or had been released from the hospital within the last hours before the attacks.

Known and documented Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda is a construct of an apparent strategy of mass deception. His essential function is to give a face to the “war on terrorism”. The image must be vivid.

The U.S. led “War on Terrorism” doctrine rests on the fiction of Islamic terrorists, led by Osama who are portrayed as a “threat to the civilized World”.

The continued arrest of alleged 911 accomplices and suspects has nothing to do with “national security”. It creates the illusion that Arabs and Muslims are behind the terror plots, while shunting the conduct of a real investigation into the 911 attacks in association with an apparent crypto-fascistic executed Crimes Against Humanity.

About the writer:

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America’s “War on Terrorism”. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured LINK.  Online dating. Alternative Lifestyles Personals. Free and Anonymous Membership – The Canadian’s not-for-profit Bookstore and Book Distribution Consortium.  Please note: You can also get your book self-published with

Become a member of The Canadian, with your donation-pledge. Help support independent, progressive, and not-for-profit journalism.  Get a book or other thank you gifts. Drop us a line.

Written by thecanadianheadlines

December 10, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Manipulative Extraterrestrials, 9/11 and the architects of World War II

leave a comment »

by Dr. John Singh

  Richard Dolan
Richard Dolan.

Years after the 9/11 World Trade Center tragedy, investigative researchers continue to claim that appreciating the so-called “War on Terror” requires a fresh perspective. Richard M. Dolan’s insights, suggest that 9/11 may be appreciated by understanding it as a continuation of World War II. Dr. John Lash further inspires humanity to consider 9/11 as consistent with the alien intrusions documented by the ancient Pagan Gnostics. You might quickly respond, with a question like. Say what? World War II ended in 1945. And besides that, I don’t “believe” in all this “alien talk”. The numerous evidence of established credible eyewitnesses to either seeing or having been abducted by aliens, might counterpoise, to the effect that it is not a question of “belief”, but a question of acknowledging documented evidence.

Dr. Lash documents the pre-Christian Bible era Pagan Gnostics, as firstly, seeking to identity a group of Manipulative Extraterrestrials; and secondly, seeking to document how the Pagan Gnostics detected the alien intrusion of these Manipulative Extraterrestrials; and thirdly, how humanity can defend its free will and destiny from being deviated by these aliens. Dr. John Lash’s research suggests that Pagan Gnostic might have regarded 9/11 as an act of aliens that the Gnostics identified by using the Greek word “Archons”, which means rulers. In this opinion article, we shall also refer to that group as “the Deceivers”, in the use of perhaps a more modern word. Pagan Gnostic insights refer to “the Deceivers” as an alien artificial-based intelligence from a lower dimensional consciousness that seeks to operate in the elite-driven pyramidic functioning of corrupted human institutions.

Adolf Hilter has been documented as a contactee of an Extraterrestrial group which is consistent with the Pagan Gnostic description of “the Deceivers”. Dolan in turn, links 9/11 to a similar criminal consciousness that had inspired the Reichstag Fire, that was used to correspondingly launch a parallel context of oppression, genocide, and aggressive war.

Dolan’s research inspires readers to further critically think. Now, for most of the world, World War II ended in 1945. But, for others, World War II may have only been viewed as a set-back, that provided an “opportunity” to re-group.

Indeed, Dolan’s insights inspires open minded readers to consider whether ideologues seeking world domination would simply give up all of their ambitions, as humanity is being led to believe. Dolan refers to “9/11 as America’s version of the Reichstag Fire”. LINK

Indeed, scholars of the 9/11 Truth movement have provided voluminous documentation that the accused terrorists were simply incapable of evading America’s military defence infrastructure. Furthermore, engineers testify that the World Trade Centre was specifically designed to withstand such a terrorist impact from the air using aeroplanes. Other scholars who have analyzed the video of the destruction of the World Trade Center suggest that the building “disintegrated” like by the “controlled demolition” techniques used get rid of old buildings. Other eyewitnesses testify that they heard explosives go off in the building while they were seeking to escape. Such accounts are a part of numerous discrepancies documented by the 9/11 Truth movement. Essentially, 9/11 Truth activists suggests that, in the style of the Nazis after the Reichstag Fire, Muslim scapegoats were used to justify a pre-planned war of aggression.

9/11 Truth activists suggest that there has further been a concerted effort to thwart any impartial investigation of the alleged link between 9/11 and Islamic terrorist cells. The new U.S. President Barack Obama administration, has further sought to intensify a war in the Afghanistan and Pakistan, that may have been launched through fabrications.

Official accounts on 9/11 requires individuals to disregard every single piece of documentation unearthed by 9/11 scholars, independent investigative researchers and eyewitness accounts. Official accounts requires in individuals who are presented with such voluminous evidence, to totally disregard it, and to have “blind faith” in the architects of an aggressive war, now responsible in the deaths of over one million Iraqis alone, in addition to other innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Dr. Lash documents the Pagan Gnostics as refering to “the Deceivers” as regressive aliens that indeed sought to use “blind faith” to inspire humanity to disregard critical human faculties of reason and analysis in favour of accepting established erroneous orthodoxies as “truth”.

Dolan’s insights inspires America and the world to appreciate 9/11 in light of the following kind of representation presented by a CBS website:

  [A]gencies ignored the murky pasts of alleged Nazi collaborators living in the United States because the government saw them as useful during the Cold War, according to newly released records…. The government saw Nazi sympathizers as useful in countering any pro- communist leanings in immigrant communities in the United States LINK



The CBS article suggests a Neo-Nazi inspired alliance against the former Soviet Union. It is a well documented historically that many American industrials sympathized with the Nazis, and sought to fund and otherwise back the Nazis against America’s own soldiers fighting for freedoms. Leo Strauss was a well documented intellectual sympathizer, or numerous other documented sympathizers to “the Deceivers”, that would apparently seek to infiltrate and socially re-engineer American society at all levels, toward the re-launching of a Globalist “Eugenics War”. Dolan suggests that 9/11 might be “the Deceivers” way of presenting themselves to humanity similar to an ego-driven serial criminal who intentionally seeks an audience.

Recommended reference:   Manipulative Extraterrestrials influenced Adolf Hitler, scholars suggest, LINK


   Help Support Research on UFOs and Extraterrestrials