Mark Rabinowitz on recent Griffin article

Anyone care to reply to this?

To the editor:

Tikkun's publication of David Ray Griffin's article about 9/11 -- -- is both
courageous and detrimental. It is courageous because there is a lot
of good evidence for Cheney/Bush complicity. Close US allies,
including France, Germany, Israel, Jordan, Russia and others provided
specific warnings that 9/11 was imminent. At least five FBI
investigations were undermined just before the attacks. During 9/11,
numerous war game exercises seem to have confused the air defenses or
moved fighter planes too far away to intercept the hijacked planes.
And the National Reconnaissance Office (which operates spy
satellites) was conducting a "plane into building" exercise at the
same time as actual events. In short, 9/11 was allowed to happen
and probably was provided technical assistance to make sure that it
happened -- since the "new Pearl Harbor" was needed to provide the
excuse to seize the Middle East oil fields as we pass the global peak
of petroleum production. That is what the "Cheney energy plan" is
really about.

However, David Griffin's article is in desperate need of a fact
checker, since not all claims of complicity are true. The most
important disinformation is the false claim that Flight 77 did not
hit the Pentagon, a piece of outrageous nonsense first concocted by
Donald Rumsfeld in a October 12, 2001 interview in Parade magazine.
Every claim for this hoax has been debunked for years, even by many
9/11 truth activists.
has a list of some of them, and it is intellectually dishonest for
Griffin to pretend that this fact checking has not happened.
Hundreds of people saw the plane crash and the plane parts
afterwards. No one saw a missile. The width of the damage to the
Pentagon was the width of the plane. Perhaps he could travel on
Interstate 395 and Washington Boulevard (which pass near the
Pentagon) the next time he is in Washington, D.C. and he might
understand how lots of commuters saw Flight 77 crash into the nearly
empty, recently reinforced and strengthened sector of the
Pentagon. Why it was not intercepted (even after the second tower
was hit) and how it was steered into the nearly empty part of the
Pentagon are the real issues.

Griffin's article even promotes offensive attacks on the 9/11 family
members by claiming that the phone calls from the doomed passengers
were somehow all faked. While it's true that voice morphing software
does exist, the complexity that would be required to stage this for
dozens of randomly selected passengers shows the value of Occam's
Razor. The source for this alleged claim is a Canadian who
supposedly couldn't get a good cell phone signal from a plane
somewhere in Canada -- as if that had any relevance to the final
moments of the planes as they neared their targets. Additionally,
many if not most of the calls were made on Airphones, which even the
most extreme disinformation promoters on 9/11 don't deny actually
function quite well in planes.

Worse, Griffin's article relied on several neo-Nazi Holocaust denial
propagandists as alleged reliable sources -- which is especially
outrageous to insert into a publication like Tikkun. The American
Free Press, which Griffin considers credible, is a white supremacist
publication that also publishes "The Barnes Review," the largest
Holocaust denial publication in the country. (Barnes Review sells
lots of titles claiming the Holocaust did not happen and praised
Hitler as worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize!). Eric Hufschmid, also
cited as a credible source, proudly boasts on his website that he
doesn't believe the Holocaust happened, either., also
given publicity in Griffin's footnotes, promotes the cause of
Holocaust denial along with kooky stories of the paranormal that are
entertaining to some but not appropriate for a serious examination of
government malfeasance. and http:// provide details.

However, the most damning problem of relying on neo-Nazis for "facts"
is not the fact that they are racists lying about the Holocaust --
but they are also lying about the topic of 9/11 complicity. Yes,
there's solid evidence for foreknowledge and paralysis of the air
defenses via the wargames -- but the no plane claims are as fake as
the racist canards about Auschwitz supposedly not being a death camp
(a claim found at the websites of Hufschmid, American Free Press and

Nearly three years ago, I co-sponsored the second public presentation
that David Griffin made on 9/11 complicity issues. It is very
disappointing to see him embrace Holocaust deniers and other liars
promoting "no planes." Meanwhile, the media attack on the 9/11 truth
movement focuses only on the "no plane" hoaxes and demolition
theories -- not the well documented evidence of suppressed warnings
and military wargames on 9/11 simulating actual events. It would be
nice to see Mr. Griffin learn from these mistakes, since promoting a
mix of real and false claims makes it difficult for most people to
differentiate the good from the bad.

Skeptical Tikkun readers who want to read about the best evidence for
9/11 complicity while steering clear of the disinformation should
start with the Complete 9/11 Timeline published by the Center for
Cooperative Research at It doesn't have
the most fanciful claims, but it does have solid evidence documented
by mainstream media sources and official testimony.


Mark Robinowitz

from David Ray Griffin's article at

[24] A photograph taken by Terry Schmidt can be seen on page 63 of
Eric Hufschmid’s Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th
Attack (Goleta, Calif.: Endpoint Software, 2002). According to
Schmidt, this photo was taken between 3:09 and 3:16 PM, hence only a
little over 2 hours before Building 7 collapsed. It shows that on the
north side of the building, fires were visible only on floors 7 and
12. Therefore, if there were more fires on the south side, as some
witnesses have claimed, they were not big enough to be seen from the
north side.

[25] Quoted in Christopher Bollyn, “New Seismic Data Refutes Official
Explanation,” American Free Press, Updated April 12, 2004. For
several more examples, see the subsection labeled “Molten Steel” in
my chapter, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the
Official Account Cannot Be True,” in Christian Faith and the Truth
Behind 9/11, or the discussion of molten metal in Chap. 3 of
Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

[56] See Ted Twietmeyer, “Judicial Watch Caught Pulling a 180 on
Pentagon Footage,”, May 21, 2006, ,

[69] See Michel Chossudovsky, “More Holes in the Official Story: The
9/11 Cell Phone Calls,” Aug. 10, 2004) and A. K. Dewdney, “The
Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93,” Physics 911. However,
the technology of “voice morphing,” through which the calls could
have been faked, was sufficiently developed at the time, as explained
in a 1999 article by William Arkin (“When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t
Believing,” Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1999). I discuss this issue at
considerable length in Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

- - a political map to understand Peak Oil
Connect the Dots: Peak Oil is the real link between Iraq & 9/11
Limited Hang Outs, Best Evidence, Discrediting Disinformation - a graceful end to cheap oil
local, bioregional, global solutions - permaculture for nine billion
people - Peak Traffic and freeway fights
Planning NAFTA Superhighways at the End of the Age of Oil

Looks to me like Mark is cherry-picking...

While Griffin has made some claims about voicemorphing/etc in the past, his article is not endorsing Holocaust Deniers, he is simply citing it as the source for the information included. The Bollyn article cites the quote about the molten metal, the hufschmid cite is for a photo, not for anything eric said.

This seems like a weak attempt to smear Griffin and 9/11 skeptics as anti-semitic holocaust deniers.

Nice try.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

I think you're missing the point

There's no need for Griffin to cite these sources when the same information can be cited elsewhere. References to molten metal are numerous, for example.

Rabinowitz isn't smearing 9/11 Truth. He agrees with 9/11 Truth; he doesn't see the need to patronize neo-nazi publications and neo-nazis. What could be more reasonable?

Or has the mention of "peak oil" driven everyone here off the rails?

Mark Robinowitz's letter appears to be a dishonest hit piece

Mark Robinowitz's letter appears to be a dishonest hit piece. i question what he is trying to accompish.

Which part was dishonest?

Which part was dishonest?

Why reply to this tired damage control blather?

It's a waste of time, and moreso energy that would be better invested doing approximately 6.340.232 worthier things.

Looks like someone wants Tikkun readers to be in the dark!

This is just pathetic. Instead of working to inform Tikkun readers and bring them up to speed on the real issues surrounding 9/11, this guy wants to give his readers completely wrong ideas like that the administration "let the attacks happen". Because, you see, the al Qaeda threat is real. Muslims are evil.

This guy seems to think (and may well be proven right) that progressive Jews can't handle the truth. That 9/11 was hatched by the Neocon mafia and yes, Israel was involved. No, dear Tikkun readers, do not fear--such claims (like no plane at the pentagon) are the mad ravings of holocaust deniers.

We can only hope that Tikkun's readers will be able to sort things out for themselves and come to the truth despite Lerner and Rabinowitz's discouraging and skeptical tone. Otherwise a whole lot of people are going to be wondering why on earth even the most progressive Jews can't even begin to conceive of wrongdoing by the state of Israel. Kind of like those Americans who can't imagine George Bush would ever do anything illegal.

Jewish people should be full partners in 9/11 truth--they should not be brought in insincerely by way of limited hangout that will make them look like, well, deniers...


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


proof please?

"This guy seems to think (and may well be proven right) that progressive Jews can't handle the truth. That 9/11 was hatched by the Neocon mafia and yes, Israel was involved." - RT

Care to back this up with some proof other than your speculation and aggressive assertion?

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

You want proof? How about

You want proof? How about Betty Ong's call from AAL11. She named four seats from which the hijackers came. Two of them, 2A and 2B, were assigned to two "Arabs" who later turned up alive and well in the Middle East. The other two, 9B and 9A were assigned to an officer in Isreal's elite commando unit, and another individual with close ties to Israel, respectively.

"Ong said the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B. She said the wounded passenger was in seat 10B".

Oh, in case you're wondering, the seat 10B was assigned to Satam al Suqami, one of the alleged al-Qaeda hijackers. Gosh, you don't think an Israeli commando would shoot an Arab, do you?

Want more proof? How about means, motive, and a past history of similar false flag terror attacks against the US, like the USS Liberty attack of 1967?

Betty Ong, but Amy Sweeney says otherwise

I've often wondered about Lewin (9B), a veteran of the Israeli elite anti-terror commando unit, and officially the first casualty of 9/11. But your case is not slam-dunk.

First, please clarify and substantiate your claims about Edmund Glazer (9A).

Second, consider: Even a stewardess can get the seats wrong. As she makes the call, are the alleged hijackers still in the seats? Is she telling us the assigned seats or the ones they actually sat in? She's reporting after the scuffle, and someone can be sitting in a seat he didn't occupy prior to the scuffle.

To top it off, Sweeney gave different seat numbers. See here:

(Between 8:27-8:30 a.m.): Ong Gives Flight 11 Details; Seating Accounts Differ

Craig Marquis, listening to information coming from flight attendant Betty Ong on Flight 11, calls American Airlines’ system operations control center in Fort Worth. He says, “She said two flight attendants had been stabbed, one was on oxygen. A passenger had his throat slashed and looked dead and they had gotten into the cockpit.” He relays that Ong said the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B. She said the wounded passenger was in seat 10B. [Boston Globe, 11/23/2001] Note that this conflicts with the seats flight attendant Amy Sweeney gives for the hijackers at about the same time (see (Before 8:26 a.m.) September 11, 2001): 9D, 9G, and 10B. By 8:27 a.m., this information is passed to Gerard Arpey, the effective head of American Airlines that morning. By 9:59 a.m., counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke and other top officials receive the information. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 13-14]

Here's a graphic from the Boston Globe of the presumed initial seating arrangement.

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."

The major difference between

The major difference between the reports from the two flight attendants is that Sweeney specifically states that not all the seats she gave matched up with the seats assigned to the hijackers on their tickets. You can see that in the link you provided. Ong says no such thing.

Another difference is that Ong's call was recorded, although most of the recording has mysteriously disappeared. Sweeney's call was reconstructed with the help of FBI agents. I know which report I believe.

Regarding Edmund Glazer, he was the chief financial officer of MRV Communications:

Noam Lotan has been CEO of MRV since May 1990, and Shlomo Margalit has been the Chairman of MRV's Board of Directors since July 1988. Thus, Lotan and Margalit controlled MRV at the time of the 9/11/2001 attacks.

Also, Lotan and Margalit have Israeli backgrounds. Prior to becoming CEO of MRV, Lotan earned a Bachelor's Degree from the Technion, the Israel Institute of Technology. Prior to becoming Chairman of MRV, Margalit was a professor at the Technion.

Source: Lotan's and Margalit's biographies on the MRV website


Okay, so you've proven Glazer was CEO

of a networking software company (not a very exceptional one far as I can see) owned by Israelis (or Israeli-Americans).

From which follows...?

More importantly, you have hardly proven what you declared to be "proven" (i.e. that an Israeli cabel did 9/11).

Nor have you proven your insinuation that Lewin and Glazer were in fact the bad guys on the plane.

If Sweeney mentions that the actual seating does not match up to assigned seats, without being more specific... it means there might have been musical chairs.

If Ong doesn't even *mention* this point, I see no reason to therefore assume she is giving *either,* the actual seating or the assigned seating.

In either case, we don't know shit for sure. They can easily get the seats wrong (again, neither is making the call from the compartment with the bad guys itself, true?).

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."

I guess technically, we

I guess technically, we don't know "for sure" if O.J. Simpson killed his wife, do we?

But there comes a point where the cirumstantial evidence, the means and the motive, the past history of a suspect just piles up to the point where you have to make your decision-- if not as a prosecutor in a court of law, but as a patriot trying to understand the crime of the century, and trying to figure out how to stop an even greater offense in the future.

Resort to faith... I'm unconvinced.

That time is not here with regard to the hypothesis that Israelis were the masterminds of the attacks. Surely you can do better... or
show an ability to revise or declare as unproven ideas you can't substantiate?

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."

Circumstantial evidence can

Circumstantial evidence can be enough to get a conviction. The question here is do you have enough circumstantial evidence to make the case. Maybe you should post an whole entry on this, lay it out step by step?

oh just an educated guess

It won't help I realize to point out to you that Larry Silverstein is a hardcore Zionist and friends with some right wing Israelis like Netanyahu, that Mossad agents were arrested on 9/11 videotaping and celebrating, and when arrested blaming Palestinians for the attacks, and that a subsidiary of an Israeli company was in charge of security at Logan and Dulles.

Nor will it help to point out that the Neocons who have lied about everything else including the fake threat from Iraq are die-hard Israel firsters like Doug Feith, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, and that Israel has a long history of false flag attacks pinned on Arabs.

This is all I'm sure just a lot of coincidence, right? No, it's pretty clear what 9/11 was all about. The Big Wedding it was called. America and Israel together forever in a struggle against Islamofascism. Whose wet dream does that sound like?

Give me a break, DHS. Just because you have your preferred version of events doesn't mean other people can't come to different conclusions when putting together all the facts and details. That hard core Israeli partisans joined up with some American traitors to pull off 9/11 and the subsequent attempt to rechart history on anti-Arab and Muslim lines is freakin' obvious.

Just look at AIPAC, look at Michael Chertoff and his cousin Ben, Israeli spies and the absurd denials that invariably follow.

The only way anti-semitism comes into the picture is when apologists for these criminals do whatever they have to to help shield them from scrutiny and invoke the blanket defense of accusing their accusers of bigotry. And, unfortunately, the anti-semitism that might be generated when people see that despite serious evidence of wrongdoing some people can't bring themselves to accept Israeli guilt. Jewish people are free to believe whatever they want, but they should not be blinded by proppaganda and emotional attachments to Israel when it comes to crimes committed by Israel against the united states.

It doesn't surprise me that the American corporate media make a conscious effort to protect Israel by reporting on it with extreme favor. It would disappoint me, however, if Americans including Jews, especially progressive Jews, could not see past that censorship to judge Israel's actions objectively.


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


It's not about my "preferred

It's not about my "preferred version of events" which I don't even have. I am not one to speculate about who did what and why because frankly I don't know, no one here does, and no one here should say otherwise.

The point is there are things that have not been accounted for and questions that need to be answered but have not been. It is not my job to even speculate. It is my DUTY to demand accountability from our elected leaders.

Anyone who makes speculative claims and assertions and promotes them as fact on this site is doing no one a favor, regardless of what you choose to believe to be your "preferred version of events".


///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Al Qaeda is real

But that doesn't mean he's saying that Muslims are evil. Talk about smearing someone dishonestly. Al Qaeda operatives carried out numerous terrorist attacks against Americans throughout the 90s. They were trained and protected by the CIA while they did this, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Complete 911 Timeline has an excellent page on Ali Mohammed for anyone unfamiliar with this.

Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs) is available now for pre-order on Amazon.

AQ is real? And the evidence for that would be...?

According to Adam Curtis, who made the BBC's "Power of Nightmares" series, which has been pulled btw., AQ was first mentioned as such in March of 2001 to obtain some kind of legal handle on OBL - organized crime.

Apart from AQ referring to a CIA database of Mujahedeen, there's absolutely nothing to prove the existence of any global coordinated terror network to which the myth of AQ refers. I repeat: NOTHING.

But do enlighten me to the opposite, if you can.

You wrote: "This guy seems

You wrote: "This guy seems to think (and may well be proven right) that progressive Jews can't handle the truth."

Of course what he actually wrote was that Griffin shouldn't promote discredited theories and cite Holocaust deniers/neonazis as his source.

You wrote: "We can only hope that Tikkun's readers will be able to sort things out for themselves and come to the truth despite Lerner and Rabinowitz's discouraging and skeptical tone."

Of course many more of Tikkun's readers are likely to find it difficult to sort out Griffin's flawed essay due to the inclusion of discredited theories and the inclusion of Holocaust deniers as sources than will find it difficult to sort out the validity of Robinowitz's critique of Griffin.

This clown has also attacked

This clown has also attacked 911blogger in the past so this type of shit isn’t new.

I don't agree with Mark 100%, but...

I think he brings up some very valid points. I know that he is not trying to smear 9/11 Truth; anyone who's ever taken a glance at his extensive websites knows that he's done a lot of good work for the movement. Get your facts straight, folks, bottom line.

Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs) is available now for pre-order on Amazon.


Rabinowitz is certainly not the only one who thinks doubts about the official story of what hit the Pentagon are disinfo. I am not one of them, but they think it is purposeful disinfo planted to discredit the whole "truth" movement someday when the "real" videos are published. The question of the hole size and debris has been hacked to death, so much so that I would hate to even step into that mess again. Cell phone calls not so much, but still unclear as far as I can determine.

Jim Hoffman of is one of those that agree with Rabinowitz, by the way. So is John Judge, last time I heard, and I believe Kyle Hence as well.

It would be great if some progress could be made on these "scientific" questions, but I have not seen any.

this is fake

this is fake 0911truth----they want to try to manipulate the 911hoax revelation as blaming bush/cheney

the mossad national parliament bombing attempt in oct /01 is the key to israel involvement in the cfr 911hoax


that sucks that david ray griffin is a puppet...

Well, Just wasted ten minutes...

reading this garbage & I'm convinced... Most people are really lacking intellectually.

What convinced you, the

What convinced you, the comments thread or the article?

You're good.

Not on my level... but now I know.

I love reading, I also have great reading comprehension. I bet you get paid well?

Someone Who Defines Himself...

...through the uncritical subscription to the massive Peak Oil honey pot should be careful when pointing out other people's sticky fingers.

I've had previous run-ins with Mark R. / oilempire

I was very cordial and accomodating when I initiated a discussion with Sander Hicks a while back. Hicks forwarded our exchange to Mark Rabinowitz for his opinion, and then I got a response from Mark that I was a "No planer" regarding the Pentagon.

Calmly, I said that I had never said that 'no plane hit the pentagon' in my life.

Again he called me a "no planer."

In more detail I elaborated that we cannot tell what happened at the Pentagon, and that is where I stand. The hole in the facade does not appear to accomodate the geometry of a 757, and I invited him to prove otherwise. So perhaps, I said, a smaller plane struck the Pentagon, and the witnesses who saw a streak fly by at 500 mph may not be that reliable at identifiying models of aircraft.

Again he called me a "No planer," which was quite annoying, incorrect, and starting to get embarassing while I was trying to have a grown up conversation with Sander Hicks.

Anyway, that's been my experience with Mark R.

I still have yet to see the entry hole where the two engines would have punctured the facade of the Pentagon. I do not believe such photographs exist. Anyone is welcome to prove me wrong.

The pilotsfor911truth recently came up with a whopper of a theory about this. I don't endorse it, but it is quite interesting. They say that the flight data recorder puts the plane at 400 ft altitude at the moment of "impact", leaving open the possibility that the plane overflew the building and that prepositioned explosives are what damaged the Pentagon. Their corroboration is that the flight path of the plane on the data recorder does not match the "official" flight path "south of hte Citgo station", but it seems to be north of the Citgo station where at least 4 eyewitnesses in the gas station claim it ACTUALLY was.

This would mean that the downed lightpoles were planted, and/or rigged to fall (in the wrong path). And that they fell in the wrong place.

It's a whopper, as I said. But, it is not impossible at this time. I'd like to see a discussion that explores this theory, with all the relevant data.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

John, I don't think that's a

John, I don't think that's a whopper at all, but quite plausible. It would explain the eyewitnesses, especially since none of them saw the actual crash. Assuming that "white blob" video the Pentagon released is authentic, that seems to confirm the missile theory. My guess is a missible fired from a stationary truck nearby, with accompanying fly-over.

I'm going to look into the flight data recorder evidence you mentioned, because that would seem to be pretty solid.

P.S. Just did so, and see they're selling it as a DVD. Has anyone seen it? I prefer text. Can you summarize? Whenever people start asking for money, I get suspicious.

All you have to do is look.

Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two

We sell the DVD to raise funds for further research. It takes capital to fight multi-billion dollar propoganda machines such as corporate media.

You dont have to buy it if you dont support our research. You can watch it for free at the above link.

Those who think we offer theory on our site should review our mission statement and read our site thoroughly please. Thank you.


Just watched it. Thanks.

Just watched it. Thanks. The website at has this:

"We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles."

That's all I need. Great work, gentlemen. This is another smoking gun. I did not know about it before.

could the force of the plane

moving nearly 500MPH right above them cause them to tear out?

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

I've wondered the same thing aloud

but I haven't seen anyone try to verify this possibility.

The problem with this theory would appear to be that the Pilots don't accept the flight trajectory given by the government, if I'm not mistaken. Don't they argue that the plane approached the Pentagon west wing at a perpindicular angle, not at an acute angle as suggested by the downed light poles and the 9/11 Commission.

So, even if the turbulence could knock down light poles, it wouldn't knock down those particular light poles (on the acute angle trajectory into the Pentagon).


And how could the turbulence have been effective if the plane was at 400 feet?

Also, wouldn't there have been other evidence of turbulence, if that's what it was?

I suppose this would be a dangerous experiment, but it could be done, I would think: Can "turbulence" bend steel and pull steel light posts out of their concrete bases in the ground? (I doubt it.)

Offical explanation?

What, by the way, is the official explanation of the downed poles? I can't find any mention of it in Commission Report.

Problem: Flight Data Tampering

Several problems spring to mind about this alleged flight data.

1) If the plane didn't crash there, how did the flight data recorder physically arrive at the scene?

2) There would have been data AFTER the flyover that they needed to erase, so this means that the data HAD to be tampered with to produce the alleged results claimed by pilotsfor911truth.

3) IF they tampered with data, why not just make the whole thing fit better?

4) What is the official link to the government source of this data?

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Good questions

Good questions deserve good answers. Pilots please speak up.