Church publishers criticize own book

Thanks to FHB for the submission: 

Church publishers criticize own book
Author says Bush planned 9/11 terror

By Peter Smith
The Courier-Journal

In an unusual criticism of its own product, the board of the Louisville-based Presbyterian Publishing Corp. says a book fell short of its editing standards with its "spurious" claim that the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 terror attacks.

But the publisher will continue selling the controversial book, "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11," by California theologian David Ray Griffin.

The book stirred controversy this summer when published by the corporation, which is the official publishing house of the Louisville-based Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Critics said the corporation was undercutting the denomination's credibility by publishing conspiracy theories under its name and that of its long-respected imprint, Westminster John Knox.

Griffin is "a distinguished theologian" who has published a number of books with the corporation, said a statement by Kenneth Godshall, chairman of its board of directors. "This particular volume is not up to (Westminster John Knox) editorial standards and not representative of the publishing program."

The statement said "the conspiracy theory is spurious and based on questionable research."

Griffin said yesterday he was disappointed by the response. "I wish they would have contacted me and said let's have a discussion about this," he said. "… No, they just meet behind closed doors and make a statement."

In an interview, Godshall said no one would be disciplined for approving the book.

"We are not recalling the book or renouncing it," he added. "We're just expressing the point of view of whether it meets our publishing standards. I think we'll just let the book find its own way."

The book has sold 8,500 copies and has had two print runs, said corporation president Davis Perkins. He declined to comment on the board statement but said it would continue to be offered along with about 1,500 other books in its backlist.

Griffin's book is divided into two sections. The first outlines claims that the Bush administration secretly engineered the slaughter of thousands of Americans on Sept. 11, 2001 -- and that numerous government agencies helped in the cover-up -- as a pretext to boost its "demonic" imperial power. The second half urges Christians to resist such power, just as early Christians resisted the Roman Empire.

Among Griffin's contentions are that the World Trade Center towers collapsed because of secretly planted explosives, not because they were weakened by fires caused by crashing airliners.

He also claims the U.S. military could have intercepted the four jets if they were really hijacked and that the hijacker accused of slamming a jet into the Pentagon lacked the skills to do so.

Griffin noted the corporation's statement didn't specify what was wrong with his research.

"This is something I've worked on almost daily for years," Griffin said. "I doubt any of the … members of the board have spent nearly the time on it I have. They were really not in the position to make such a statement."

But Godshall said in an interview that Griffin failed to take into account rebuttals of his theories, such as one published by Popular Mechanics.

"We gave Dr. Griffin a platform that he did not have before for his views," Godshall said. "He had previously published two other books about 9/11 from a smaller publisher … that did not get the same level of media attention. While the book is his responsibility, the fact that we published it connected it to a church-owned publisher, so we felt the need to explain to our own constituency the decision to publish."

Godshall said the board would continue to defend the editorial independence of the corporation, which receives no funding from the denomination. He said it would be "unfair" to judge its total publishing program based on one book.

The publisher has long been known for publishing specialized books on theology and church life as well as books on religion for the general public.

Godshall said he wasn't aware of the corporation board ever issuing such a statement about one of its products before.

Gary Mulder, director of Protestant Church-Owned Publishers Association, a trade group, said he doesn't "recall it happening among denominational publishers before. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened."

One of the book's critics, Alan Wisdom of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, welcomed the corporation board's statement.

"Let us hope that the (corporation) editors will learn a lesson and refrain from future dalliances with the loony left," he said in a statement.

Reporter Peter Smith can be reached at (502) 582-4469.



The guys name is GODSHALL? A Christian publisher. Interesting.

The Fiction Section?

The guy's name should be Godshill.

Funny article. Yeah, the church better be careful they don't wind up endorsing a book they feel is based on fanciful fabrications and mythical beliefs.

Like last time they did a printing run of the Bible.

the loony left huh? what a

the loony left huh? what a comment. i guess Griffin is no longer conservative in his beliefs. cause we all know only "loony liberals" think 9/11 was an inside job right? hahaha.

I''m not sure you can

I''m not sure you can classify Griffin as a "conservative". He calls Chomsky a "great man", for instance, and advocates forms of direct democracy at variance with republican "elite rule" a la James Madison. Conservatives tend to be frightened of real democracy and long for a "rule of law" which has never existed (for elites anyway - they do as they please; money is power and power trumps law any day; hence the need for a real "balance of power" in the form of direct democracy).

hes a man of god, so im

hes a man of god, so im willing to bet hes at least conservative on social issues. also,didnt he admit to voting for Bush in 2000? maybe im mixing him up with Steven Jones.

Men of God needn't be

Men of God needn't be conservatives. Strong arguments can be made, in fact, that "conservatives" as they are traditionally defined -- and that includes with respect social issues -- are eminently ungodly.

There's a wonderful quote in "Friendly Fascism" that goes:

"A sudden submission to Christian ethics by businessmen would bring about the greaaatest economic upheaval in history”.

Capitalism entails theft. Even in the most primitive form, wage-slavery siphons off the fruits of other people's labor.

The State entails submission to man-made laws -- this contradicts the message of the Bible that there is only one law -- God's.

Therefore both capitalism and communism are satanic.

Attacking "ilegal aliens" is at variance with Jesus' message that "whosoever mocketh the poor reproacheth his maker".

And so on and so forth.

In fact, the most "Godly" Christians have always been progressives; from the first Christians to the dissidents of the English Civil War to the Catholic worker's movements to the Protestant anarchism of Jacjues Ellul.

The central message of the Bible is to help the poor and love thy nieghbor and love God; therefore, a case can be made that "conservatives" are distinctly anti-Christian. The anti-progressive spirit is understandable, however, since many progressives have traditionally embraced a strict (and I might add, simplsitic) scientific materialism, thereby belittling people's spiritual beliefs.

Bombarded on all fronts, many Christiians and Muslims and Jews have embraced a reactionary philosophy: authoritarian, anti-democratic, literal, fundamentalist. This is perfectly understandable. Attacking Islamic fundamentalism, for instance, only seems to increase islamic fundamentalism. It's a seige mentality.

But one hopes that religious people will evolve beyond childish, literalist thinking and not read religuos texts as though they were math equations. If there is a God, surely he put us here to evolve, not to hate one another.

Mercantilism and Conservatism

Anonymous, captalism does not involve theft. Capitalism is the voluntary exhange of goods and services, i.e., in the absence of aggression. Because of this, capitalism is the only moral political system possible.

Although nowadays what commonly goes by the misnomer of capitalism is *mercantilism*. And the problem with mercantilism is precisely because it is socialistic, as government-connected insiders obtain grants of privilege and monopoly from the government on the proviso that they go along with the ruling elite's interests. Mercantilism is a softer form of fascism, and fascism is a subset of socialism, for in fascism businessmen are owners of their capital in only a marginal de jure sense (i.e., on a mostly worthless piece of paper), whereas the government de facto owns and commands the capital.

Concerning conservatism, the terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 in France. When the French Estates-General (États-Généraux) met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was under King Louis XIII from October 27, 1614 to February 23, 1615.)

Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, all drugs to be legal, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.

The term "liberal" as it is commonly used today is purely and simply a misnomer meaning the opposite of what it originally meant, as those commonly called "liberals" today are about giving government more power, not in stripping government of power. Those commonly called "liberals" today are in fact *right-wing conservatives* in the original sense of that political term. So also, socialism and communism are exceedingly *right-wing* and *conservative* political philosophies, as they put all power into the hands of government, rather than strip government of power.

Of course, this change in the meaning of liberalism (such that today it means the opposite of what it originally meant) was by no accident. Authentic liberalism represents the only genuine threat to statism (i.e., right-wing conservatism, in the original sense of the term), and due to liberalism's triumphs in gaining the intellectual high-ground during the 19th century, it was necessary for the ruling elite to subvert the liberal agenda if they were to survive. The ruling elite did this by sabotaging the very meaning of the terms "liberalism" and "left-wing"--such that these terms now popularly mean the opposite of what they once did--via bankrolling and promoting self-termed "liberal" court intellectuals who in fact promote the right-wing, conservative agenda, i.e., statism, i.e., collectivism. Thus, in doing this, the ruling elite succeeded in changing the meaning of their oppositional philosophy to a philosophy that supports their empowerment! That is, the ruling elite created another branch of right-wing conservatism, nowadays called by the misnomer "liberalism," so also by the names of socialism and communism.

"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006

"Anonymous, captalism does

"Anonymous, captalism does not involve theft. Capitalism is the voluntary exhange of goods and services"

Hi James. I was the above anon. You're an anarcho-capitalist and therefore I agree with you on most issues--except capitlism. The term capitalism was coined by Karl Marx, not Adam Smith. Marx described it as 'the commodification of human labor". While Marx was obviously wrong about the way to solve the problem, he was right about capitalism. It's beyond absurd to suggest that renting oneself to an employer entails a "free contract" or a "voluntary exchange". Wage slavery arose, in the first place, through out-right theft of the commons, forcing people into cities where they had no choice but to submit to "transitory serfdom", aka capitalism. Freedom does not entail the equation "work for me or die". Unless people are permitted to keep the entire fruits of their labor, they are indeed being robbed. This applies equally to the capitalist and the state. Taxes and wage-slavery at the barrel of a gun are equally vilianous.

There is no need to engage in semantical argumnents about capialism. You need only ask yourself: given the choice, would you keep the entire fruits of your labor or allow an employer to siphon off some or nearly all of it? The answer is obvious.

As for the feasability of anarhco-capitalism -- capital accrues. It does not remain stagnent. Large disparaties in capital entail state intervention in order to protect said capital. This is why most anarchists advocate forms of public as well as private ownership. A system of pure private ownership and pure competition would quickly result in micro, and eventually macro, states.

I highly recommend you read the book "The Mountain People" by anthropologist Collin Turnbull and Alfkie Kohn's book on competition.

I believe your thinking of Steven Jones. I think DRG recognizes

Christ's teachings of peace & love being most important by far, and thus DRG rejects that fake right-wing Christian, fire & brimstone junk.

"But Godshall said in an

"But Godshall said in an interview that Griffin failed to take into account rebuttals of his theories, such as one published by Popular Mechanics."


Yes, apparently they failed

Yes, apparently they failed to take into account rebuttals of Popular Mechanics.

Yes, P.M. merely misrepresents the arguments & evidence

of the truth movement into their own “straw men”, which they then knockdown & disprove. This is one of the oldest tricks of propagandists. (Agent Meigs strikes me as some sort of Rayheon “wunderkind.”)

Why in the world would the directors of a religious publisher

side with that Popular Mechanics junk rather than the pious & venerable DRG? I don't get it! There is something very wrong with this!

Did board have its cake and eat it too?

Clearly, this statement, by the Presbyterian Publishing Corp's board of directors, regarding David Ray Griffin's book "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11", is mainly the result of pressure from critics rather than any introspection on the board's part.

Presbyterian Publishing Corp "has long been known for publishing specialized books on theology and church life as well as books on religion for the general public" -- but lets face it, these topics are things to be taken on faith -- and are not fact based on research. It wouldn't be in their interest to attack books that they publish, based on fact and legitimate research alone.

Therefore, the Presbyterian Publishing Corp board's statement which said "the conspiracy theory is spurious and based on questionable research" and they making comment on "whether it meets our publishing standards." The irony is that David Ray Griffin's book "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11" might actually be one of the more fact-based books that Presbyterian Publishing Corp publishes!

Further, as Griffin noted, Presbyterian Publishing Corp did not specify what they found to be lacking. Griffin said. "This is something I've worked on almost daily for years. I doubt any of the … members of the board have spent nearly the time on it I have. They were really not in the position to make such a statement." The only clear indication of shortcomings was given by Kenneth Godshall, chairman of its board of directors who said in an interview that "Griffin failed to take into account rebuttals of his theories, such as one published by Popular Mechanics." However, Griffin has more than adequately rebutted Popular Mechanics theories elsewhere which is something Godshall has either ignored or is unaware of (as Griffin points out may be the case). So, this reinforces the idea that the board made their statement based on pressure from critics rather than their own convictions based on facts.

So, who are the critics and what are they saying that has pressured the board to make single out Griffin's book for such unusual criticism?

From the article above, we learn "One of the book's critics, Alan Wisdom of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, welcomed the corporation board's statement saying "Let us hope that the (corporation) editors will learn a lesson and refrain from future dalliances with the loony left." This is clearly vehement, intense and very partisan pressure, with its references to the "loony left". If this is what Wisdom expresses in public, one can imagine the private comments made to Godshall. It is not hard to imagine organized and sustained pressure from this group. So, the fact that the board addressed this pressure is not that unusual especially as it may have been annoying or hard to avoid and making the statement is a way to make the noise stop!

There is also another line of criticism from Presbyterian church members who say "the corporation was undercutting the denomination's credibility by publishing conspiracy theories under its name and that of its long-respected imprint, Westminster John Knox." This is a more legitimate line of criticism, if it was made by earnest church members concerned with the Church's reputation and is something the board had to address. Fair enough, earnest people deserve a response - and they got one.

In the end though, the Presbyterian Publishing Corp "will continue selling the controversial book, "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11." In fact, the Presbyterian Publishing Corp board goes out of its way to note that Griffin is "a distinguished theologian" who has published a number of books with the corporation," and that they "are not recalling the book or renouncing it," but are "just expressing the point of view of whether it meets our publishing standards. I think we'll just let the book find its own way."

I don't know about you, but that tells me that the board may actually have found a way to have their cake and eat it too. They have acted to get the critics off their collective backs but to also allow an important book to have its day in the court of public opinion.

NIce analysis

You may be right.

One thing that is really ironic about this is that DRG's book is essentially arguing that the insider perps are demonic. If they are demonic, then it would not be surprising they would do such a thing.

The Bushies would boldfaced lie about WMDs in Iraq, kill our

soldiers & a million innocent people over it, but they should be trusted about all the inexplicable evidence regarding 9/11???

This is yet another example of organized religion leading its followers astray.

This is an ad hominem

This is an ad hominem attack:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument

This is another hollow attack.
Griffin's book is attacked but there is not one logical argument stated against it.
Did they even read it ?
And then they accuse Griffin of being from the "looney left".
The 911 issue has nothing to do with the left or right, its about the truth.

So, hopefully more Americans are not taking the "ad hominem" "argument" anymore.

Everyone do your own research.

Show "What about the Al Qaeda cells and the indepth history that..." by ChoosyBeggar (not verified)

have you read it all? i can

have you read it all? i can honestly say that i havent, but its what ISNT in it that makes it total garbage.

Pocket University's audio of the 9/11 Commission Report

If you can find a copy (say, in a local library) of this audio version of the 9/11 Commission Report, it would be worth your while.

A variety of readers are used in the recording.

The report DOES go on and on and on and on in INTRICATE detail about the lives and paths taken of many of the alleged hijackers leading up to 9/11.

I can't seem to find any sources, like David Ray Griffin or others, who can explain that Al Qaeda was NOT involved. And, if someone can explain that, does their explanation contradict the histories and details provided in the 9/11 Commission Report?

al-Qaeda, a CIA creation, was involved in 9/11--as patsies.

Obviously, some realistic-like patsies had to take the blame to take the heat off it being an inside job.

Check out the work of Daniel Hosicker,

former NBC producer. His website is and provides extensive background information on the whereabouts, actions and relationships of Mohammed Atta in the year(s) before 9.11. Atta was affiliated with unsavory characters like Wally Hilliard, Rudy Dekkers, and Makram Chams.

According to Atta's former girlfriend (an interview that you can watch at, he was always flushed with cash, cocaine and booze. She described how he would routinely cross the street from their apartment to his "flight school" where he "trained" and return with large amounts of cocaine. Hilliard's fight school, "Huffman Aviation", was no more than a sham business fronting for some sort of international narco trafficking outfit that has since gone out of business. Huffman Aviation, in its hey-day, was even given superlative acknowledgment by reputable people like Jeb Bush and Katty Harris. One unresolved story that highlights these lowlight human beings occurred when Hilliard's personal jet was seized by Florida police and found to contain 43 pounds of heroin, ranking as the biggest heroin bust in central Florida history. But Hilliard was never indicted; he is free to this day. He has some type of everlasting immunity from legal protection. The heroin bust happened while Atta was his registered flight student. Amazing.

Also be sure to check out the back-stories of Makram Chams and Rudi Dekkers. These guys are real creeps and have not been fingered by the law.

that is, Daniel Hopsicker


Another unsavory friend of Atta's

Terror Alert suspect fingered by Mohamed Atta's American girlfriend
Daniel Hopsicker
Nov 16, 2006

An FBI terror alert has been released in the South Pacific for Wolfgang Bohringer, a German pilot first identified as a "close associate" of Mohamed Atta three years ago in the MadCowMorningNews and the opening chapter to "Welcome to TERRORLAND" in interviews with Atta's former American girlfriend, Amanda Keller.

"U.S. authorities have uncovered a plot to set up a flight training school in Kiribati and suspect the man behind it may have had links to September 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta," reported the Associated Press.

Bohringer recently fled tiny Fanning Island in the South Pacific aboard his yacht after a story in the MadCowMorningNews headlined "Close Associate of Mohamed Atta Surfaces in South Pacific" revealed his presence and drew attention to his suspicious intention to open, on an island with no electricity and barely a hundred inhabitants more than a thousand miles from a city of any size, a flight school to train pilots to fly only DC3's.

Why the negative rating this comment?

This is a valid question.

It's also useful to know this audio version is being published.

It gives me the creeps -- the report already reads like a novel rather than an investigative report, and they will have professional narrators dramatizing it. This information should be read critically, without emotion, and in conjunction with the footnotes that allow the reader to assess the foundation of the evidence, or lack thereof.

You're saying Griffin's book

You're saying Griffin's book is garbage!???

no,hahaha, i didnt say that

no,hahaha, i didnt say that at all. the 9/11 Commission Report is garbage.

911 commision report

the 911 report is fantasy,accepting this report at face value is the sign of a weak mind.turn to page 313 and check out the interior of the pentagon ,oh yeah the 757 disappeared but the stool survived ,look closely,no smoke damage.Only a facsist is willfully blind.

Try to not to criticize but discuss...

I am listening to the audio version of the report but do intend to buy a hardcopy of the report for reference against other sources. (So I have not looked at any illustrations to which you refer.)

Please be more civil in your debate. It would go a long way in giving people the willingness to hear your perspective.

As I stated to Chris, the report goes into immense detail about the evolution and planning and coming of Al Qaeda to the U.S. to carry out 9/11. Have you read this in the report?

It appears that much of the debate on 9/11 never touches on the immense detail provided regarding this area of inquiry. Why?

i can tell you exactly why.

i can tell you exactly why. because it isnt important. the "hijackers" were for cosmetic purposes for people like yourself. they needed to play on racist/xenophobic fears and the "scary muslims" were the perfect patsies to pull off 9/11. it doesnt hurt that "al qaeda" is a CIA creation of course. they needed an enemy, they created one, trail and all. they were patsies, we all know this based on the evidence you and your coveted report provide. and more so based on the evidence it curiously doesnt include. i wonder why?

Don't confuse quantity with veracity


You need to purchase a hard copy of the report. Then I recommend you turn to page 146 and the boxed area titled "Detainee Interrogation Reports." The Commission writes,

"Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members.... Assessing the truth of statements by these challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators.... We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report."

Translation: Here are two chapters of information we could not verify. Enjoy!

An audio version of the report is useless. Once you read the report, then purchase David Ray Griffin's The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.

Good find!

That pretty much says it all as to foundation.

I wonder if waterboarding was used on any of these people?

Again the negative rating?

Is this guy considered a troll? He is asking a valid question. Chris, I agree with the substance of your answer, but I would explain with less rancor. Choosy Beggar may be genuinely open to considering our position. One never knows, so I think it better to assume sincerity.

Choosy Beggar, I think the answer is simple. If the 9/11 Commission would explain how those buildings were blown up, I would be more interested in reading the account of the planning of the operation. Foreign terrorists could not reduce WTC towers to dust using airplanes. If an explanation was offered as to how they did that, I would certainly consider the information about the planning of this operation more seriously. Absent such an explanation, I consider it far more likely, approaching certainty, that the operation described in the 9/11 Report is either a complete fiction or is a fake operation actually carried out, perhaps to the point of actual hijackings, very loudly to leave a trail. For example, Atta supposedly checking baggage with flight manuals and a will, etc., strongly suggests evidence planted to be found? Why would an actual suicide hijacker check a flight manual for his last flight, given that he couldn't use it during the flight? Why would he check his will, if it is going to be destroyed with him? Arabs taking flight lessons - same thing, a trail is left. Going to strip club the night before, paying with credit card, talking about Americans dying, and leaving a Quran in the bar. Absurd, except as a means of being remembered.

Of course, we don't know if any of these things actually happened -- they have just been reported.

A hundred MIT structural engineers could not convince me those buildings collapsed with gravity alone. Based on what I have seen from NIST and certain professors, I have no doubt that when it comes to 9/11, the Pope beats Galilleo.

WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse -- they were blown up from top to bottom, how I do not know nor do I have to explain. They were blown up. Watch the videos. You might watch this 14 minute lecture as well:

Unless I am told how the buildings were blown up, I will continue to believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is mostly fiction, describing a story used to both cover the crime and provoke bloodlust in the American people.

Did you know that 9/11 Commission Executive Director Zelikow's academic specialty is reportedly the creation of "public myths" or "public presumptions."? The truth does not matter, it's that people believe. Here in the reality-based community, that is unacceptable.

"Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all” ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7)."

How we know the 9/11 Commission Narrative is Phony

Glad you brought that up, coosy. Take a look at the section dealing with all that so-called history, and tell me how much of it is sourced to KSM. KSM was never interviewed by the commission, they received his answers to their questions from the CIA. Now, even if these were his actual statements, why should we trust a terrorist? All that in depth history is, to put it mildly, a load of bull. Sure some of it may be based on one or two real people and events, but it is a fictional narrative. Like the star wars trilogy. I mean, that's an in depth narrative. Or how about the Lord of the Ring? There are freakin entire history books written about that non-existent world. If it wasnt about hobbits and elves, a lot of people would assume it was real history. Kind of like Fox News viewers do withe the 9/11 report. DOn't be so gullible!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I am not trying to be gullible...

I'm trying to sort through all of this. Like I mentioned earlier, I am in the process of listening to the audio version of the 9/11 Commission Report. I haven't had a chance to look at the hardcopy yet to see how much of this history is sourced to KSM or any of the other people.

I appreciate your and Chris's response. Try to be a little more patient. At least I am trying to understand. The majority of people couldn't care less about all of this.

It just kind of boggled me though how much time and effort and detail went into compiling this extremly long narrative about the evolution of Al Qaeda, its members, and how they allegedly came to the U.S. and carried out the 9/11 events.

Sort away beggar friend.

And just so you know, the Twin Towers did have a massive internal core structure of 47 interlocking steel beams designed to bear a majority of the Tower's weight. You'll learn otherwise from the 9.11 'report".

The report had to look "substantial", so they filled it

with detailed (but highly inaccurate) stories about the "hijackers" even though they didn't even prove any of them were on the planes.

They didn't print William Rodriguez's or Sibel Edmond's testimony.

They didn't credibly examine the "crash" of Flight 93 (wreckage spread over 5 sq. miles) or credibly explain how WTC 1,2 "collapsed". They didn't even mention the complete destruction of WTC 7 in less than 7 seconds on 9/11.

They didn't adequately examine or explain the total failure of NORAD to intercept even one of the four planes in the 1:40 the planes were flying around after being "hijacked".

They didn't examine or report on the 15 military/government exercises going on the morning of 9/11/01.

They didn't didn't investigate or report on David Frasca's role in blocking information flow and FISA warrants in the FBI.

They didn't explain the total failure of the Secret Service to follow SOP and protect the President in the Florida school on 9/11/01.

They didn't examine or explain the fact that several generals in the Pentagon cancelled travel plans they had made for the morning of 9/11/01.

I could go on for hours, David Ray Griffin found over 100 distortions, omissions or contradictions in the official report, get his book critiquing the official report.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Be well.

Nice summary . . .

but I'm not sure that Sibel Edmonds is relevant to this scenario, as her experience would be more relevant to an incompetence scenario. If there were no hijackers on the planes, there were no warnings that were not translated.

Come on, you know that Edmonds has far more info than just

the rote translation of words.

My theory about the Military Commissions Act

is that it will allow a show trial of KSM that will supposedly establish his story. His confessions, even if produced under torture, might be admitted as "evidence." KSM has reportedly been moved to Gitmo, I wonder if in preparation for his show trial.


The first answer is that there is no way of knowing whether this is a true account.

Second, even if true, it does not prove they were the perps or the only perps.

Under the inside job theory, these individuals would either be willing assets serving as props in the fictional account of 9/11, or would be unwilling patsies. This might explain why FBI agents that were not in on the fraud would be hindered in their efforts to arrest these people.

I have read Chapter 9 carefully, about events in the tower, because it is the most important and most disturbing.

One very odd thing is that John O'Neil does not appear in that chapter at all, even though he was head of security and his body was said ti have been recovered from the site. Did he take no actions on that door. Was he killed in that precision fireball that found its way 70 floors down an elevator shaft to the 22nd floor of the North Tower and took out the security command center, and also apparently took out the software that would have unlocked the doors to the roof? And took out all the elevators but one, apparently, though all the elevators but one went out in the South Tower as well,. without any precision fireballs.

It is also odd that all but one tape of fireman's communications in the towers have been disappeared.

I am working on reading the whole report. It would help to have an index.

Indexed 9/11 Commission Report

Thanks everyone for the insight and comments regarding The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

I am also reading David Ray Griffin's book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions as I study the U.S. government's account.

It looks like the government's account has an indexed version also available at Amazon:

This is probably the version I will buy to help with my study begun with the audio version.

Thanks again for the help.

Thank you!....Here is what appears to be an indexed version...

Thank you!....Here is what appears to be an indexed version to The 9/11 Commissions Report:

I will be ordering this one as I am currently reading David Ray Griffin's omission and distortions book.

Thanks again to all for the great comments.

Religion vs. Spirituality

Organized religion is a total con derived by the so-called elite in order to control and steal from it's members. On the other hand true spirituality is following what the Master called the "Law of Love". (Love one another). I was raised Catholic. By the time I reached the age of 16 I could see right through the scam. If you want to find God, (Love) one must take the inward journey. You will find the answers within, not in some lavish church built with stolen money. Lets never forget the 9/11 peace prayer.................. "Deep in the soul, below pain, below all the distractions of life, is a silence vast and grand - an infinite ocean of calm, which nothing can disrupt; Nature's own exceeding peace, which "passes understanding". That which we seek with passionate longing, here and there, upward and outward, we find at last within ourselves. The kingdom within! The indwelling God! are words whose sublime meaning we will never fathom.".........................Maddog

Publicity is Publicity

No matter how you cut it or what you say, the Publisher has us all talking about the book again which is good for the 9/11 truth movement.

The truth movement has nothing to lose and everything to gain by the verbal controversy that is helping to keep the movement alive.

Griffin's Books

Thank you for the link

I will buy Dr. Griffin's book just to show him my support for his courage.



In honor of the 43rd anniversary of the JFK asassination, I would
like to invite anyone who can attend to come to Dealey Plaza on
November 22nd. Anyone who comes is encouraged to bring signs,
wear shirts, hand out DVD's and videos, bullhorn,etc and join
us to try to spread the truth to the masses on this historic
day.We will be passing out Terrorstorm, Jfk2 the bush
connection, 9-11 mysteries, and more. We are attempting to
reach a critical mass of awakening in the Dallas area for 9-11
truth. Please spread the word this is a great chance to bring 9-
11 truth to people already interested in government wrongs
against it's people.

Today, in 'communion'

I would not call Dr. Griffin "brave." He is merely acutely aware of the moral responsibilities that he must bear, over a lifetime of being deeply devoted to the difficult task of extracting objective 'truth' from the vast plethora of eccumentical 'hog-wash.'

Conversely, it is the remaining 99.998% of the US "Religous" community who must bear the weight of their outright *cowardice* before God, on their long-anticipated Judgement day!

My Presbyterian minister personifies the words: "Arrogant Hypocrate."

So, let me ask you (sic) "Christian believers" one question, (and please forgive the SDA-slant here.)

Are we not to be "greatly surprised," by just Who is, and Who is not judged richteous before God, on the Judgement day? And, what of your faithful ones? Are they 'supposed' to perish in their Churches and Synagogues, at the hands of men, as so many prayerful ones did in Hidatha, and Baghdad?

Was 9/11 just about Americans, "getting what they deserve?"

I rather enjoyed hearing David Rockefeller made this ominous comment to Hillary at the 2006 Bilderberg meet-up in Canada: "The Americans are going to get what they deserve!" -That's enough for me to say, -bye y'all!

Personally, I plan to follow the teachings of John Hammaker, and spend the remainder of my life replinishing the soil, so that another, more enlightened generation may become rich in spirit and truly devoted to 'God's Law.'

{The alternative is rather unpleasant, as you've been told.}

Neocons Turn On Bush

This new article is about well known neocons/war supporters turning on Bush and the white house on Iraq:

It's very surreal to hear Perle and other PNAC cabal members now talking smack about Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Someone recently told me, "If 9/11 was an inside job...or if there was any fishy criminal shenanigans,
wouldnt disgruntled neocons, democrats, etc be trying to expose that?"

To that I'd say no way, as it would spread through both the right and the left, clinton and bush era.
Also, 9/11 shenanigans would be so veiled and deep, it would not be like the flagrant Iraq intel faking.