9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify The 9/11 Commission Report?

Dr. Griffin's radio interview concerning this article was posted in August. Here are links to the actual article.

Part 1 of Dr. Griffin's article is here, and Part 2 is here.

This article is too long to post here, but well worth the read. Check it out and then post your comments.

Thanks to 911Truth.org for hosting the article.

Those tapes proved Hijack drills on 9/11

WATSON: What was that?
ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.




Vanity Fair Article Is a Cover-Up

Note that this excerpt is from the Vanity Fair article, which is a cover-up because it implies there was only one exercise. In fact there were at least six.

That's ok, because still shows a smoking gun!

Whether one war game or 30 war games, simulated hijackings were scheduled!

New link

Scrap that old one...


And notice at about 8:38, the NORAD Major says the hijacking is supposed to start in "another hour". In exactly another hour, the Pentagon would be hit!

prove to be very important

this will definately become a very important issue when the truth does get out to msm more freely. people will refer back to these tapes. we seriously have to know just what the deal is with these tapes. i mean, the people whose voices that are probably morphed---are the going to speak up and say what really happend--if the tapes are in fact are legit????????

The simple fact that bush

The simple fact that bush exterminated all the people in those two buildings and demolisted it with people living around the area shows how evil he really is. Why hasnt he been impeached and tried already?

Because Bush is the Devil.

How in hell do you try the devil?

"Seven minutes later, as Mr

"Seven minutes later, as Mr Bush, his entourage and the accompanying press corps were boarding Air Force One, American Flight 77 swooped low over the suburbs of northern Virginia and slammed into the Pentagon.
Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, was in his office on the eastern side of the building, in a meeting with Christopher Cox, the defence policy committee chairman of the House of Representatives. Mr Rumsfeld, recalls Mr Cox, watched the TV coverage from New York and said: "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us."
Moments later, the plane hit." - Telegraph UK (12/16/01)

Office of the Forty-Eighth

Office of the Forty-Eighth Congressional District of California
Formerly the Office of Representative Christopher Cox

The Washington, D.C. office and the district offices of the Honorable Christopher Cox will continue to serve the people of the Forty-Eighth Congressional District of California under the supervision of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The vacancy became effective August 2, 2005.

A personal message to residents of the 48th Congressional District from former U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox:

Thank you, Orange County!

My time in the House of Representatives has come to an end. Since the President announced my appointment to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission, our family has received many nice letters and phone calls from our neighbors and constituents, and I'm eager to say thank you to all of you. I’m deeply grateful for the opportunity to serve you and our country in Congress since 1988.

they are very clever the

they are very clever the knew that when they knocked the towers down the tallest building would be the "empire state" building.. or empire state NWO

Just like David Ray, I don't

Just like David Ray, I don't buy the veracity of those tapes, and see the release as basically an ass-covering measure designed to obscure something much, much worse. Anyway, as George Galloway concluded his Sky News speech a few weeks ago, "..the discerning of your listeners already know it".

Griffin's conclusion

Both the Vanity Fair article and Griffin's analysis are very complex and (I find) wearisome) to comprehend in detail. We should be thankful to David Griffin for having done it! Here is his conclusion:

"The new story is hence best seen as the military’s replacement of its old story, which did not fully get it off the hook, with its new story, which does.

"Seen in this light, the now established fact that the military has lied about 9/11 has a perhaps unforeseen implication--that there is no good reason to take the military’s new story on faith. For if the military was lying to us between 2001 and 2004, we have no basis for trusting what it says now. To appreciate this point, it is important to get the logic of the situation right. The truth of the new story would imply the falsity of the old story. But the falsity of the old story would not imply the truth of the new story: they could both be false. And if the previous story, which only partly absolved the military from suspicion, was a lie, should we not suspect that the new story, which fully absolves it, is also a lie?

"This implication will not be seen, to be sure, as long as one accepts the narrative promulgated by the 9/11 Commission and repeated by the Times--that the military had to be “forced” to tell this story, to its great embarrassment, by the 9/11 Commission. But once we see that this is the military’s new story, which it used the 9/11 Commission to tell (albeit perhaps with some coaching from this Zelikow-led body), then we have reason not to accept this new tale without examining its inherent plausibility, its conflict with prior reports, and the possibility of fraudulently produced tapes.

"And when this tale is examined with those questions in mind, I have suggested, there are many reasons to consider it a lie."

As Griffin says, the "received truth" is that the tapes are authentic, and (as VF also says) the military lied in their previous stories. Griffin's argument (a good one) is that they are also lying now.

However, we can simplify. The bottom line here, as always, is the Stupidity Theory. Why didn't the govt foresee the attacks, prevent them, etc.? Stupidity ("didn't connect the dots"). Why did we fight in Vietnam for 10 years? Stupidity. ("A well-intentioned error.") It goes on and on. In the last resort, the explanation, if there has to be one, is always "Gee, we were just too stupid." Same thing here. "Oh, the FAA was just too stupid, NEADS was just too stupid, or they were all just too stupid" to prevent 19 Arabs with boxcutters from penetrating the national air defense system and striking at the heart of the defense establishment and of the financial center of the country."

Why do we even consider such a lame excuse? If it really was stupidity, which we know it wasn't, heads should roll by the hundreds, starting with Rumsfeld, at least, and also Bush, being the commander-in-chief. On the basis of this argument alone--that the govt FAILED TO DO ITS MOST IMPORTANT JOB (of protecting us), there should be immediate impeachment.