Michael Chertoff: 9/11 Revisionist


Michael Chertoff, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, admitted in a Washington Post article that 9/11 truth has gone mainstream. Chertoff tries to write off 9/11 truth and the secret history of false flag operations as "historical revisionism", which is the polite way of saying a false conspiracy theory.

However, when Mr. Chertoff was a top justice department terrorism prosecutor, he said something very different:

"As of Sept. 10th, each of us knew everything we needed to know to tell us there was a possibility of what happened on Sept. 11th . . . We knew the World Trade Center was a target . . . We knew an airplane could be used as a weapon."

So, Mr. Chertoff, those in government knew "everything [they] needed to know", knew the Twin Towers were targets, and knew an airplane could be used as a weapon? And yet:

• Bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11?

• Security for the Trade Centers (run by a Bush-linked company) let a power down occur in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, with security cameras being shut down, and many workers running around the building largely unobserved?

• Someone with very high-level clearance moved up war games previously scheduled later in the year so that multiple large, complex war games all "happened" to overlap on 9/11 -- including live-fly exercises, plane-into-buildings drills, and the injection of false radar blips onto flight data screens?

• The 4 hijacked planes magically disappeared from the military's radar screens, which can track planes even with the transponders turned off (also, listen to this interview)?

• 3 modern steel-frame buildings all mysteriously collapsed on the same day, at nearly free-fall speeds, after explosive sounds and flashes (many below the impact zone) were seen and heard by numerous credible witnesses, somehow partially evaporating huge steel beams, creating chemical signatures found only when certain explosives are used, and producing molten metal which flowed for many months under ground zero?

The "revisionist" is you, Mr. Chertoff, not those who say that 9/11 was an inside job or that false flag operations have been used by Western governments for millenia.

damage control

He must of read the NIST report on Building 7 before it comes out (its damage control time)
Has anyone heard of any up dates for the release of the building 7 report. (I still dont have faith in NIST)

I read something from NIST

I read something from NIST on Bldg 7. I guess it was a preliminary report? It was a PDF found on Google. It was a joke. Drew a loose hypothesis, then no conclusions. Lots of nifty diagrams with arrows pointing to stuff. Kinda like my 6th grade science project.


I don't agree with yours and Chertoff's use of the term "revisionism". You are essentially agreeing with Chertoff's pejorative use and you try to tag it on each other.

For me Revisionism is a very positive term. All true historians are by the very nature of their activities (to uncover the truth) Revisionists. Revisionism in this sense = critical reexamination of historical facts.

The word "Revisionism" is derived from the Latin word "revidere," which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal.

The pejorative use of the word "Revisionism" is pure newspeek.
Straight from the "ministry of truth"/Homeland security.

Good observation pagen

Good observation pagen, we need critical reexamination of historical facts.but not by Chertoff and his Ilk .So what do we do if we cant get the people who did it to investigate it ????

You're right, but

I think for 9/11 Truth a better response to the accusation of "revisionism" is to point out the FACT that there has never been a proper investigation of 9/11. Tell the individual using "revisionism" all of the amazing facts about the 9/11 Commission (Bush didn't want it; he waited 441 days to form it, actually fighting the families of 9/11 victims; the Commission was stacked with insiders, especially Kean, Hamilton, Zelikow; Kean and Hamilton themselves admitted the commission was "set up to fail"; they also admitted NORAD lied in its testimony; etc.).

This approach precludes any distracting discussion about what "revisionism" really means, a discussion that only detracts from our goal.

Dubya quote

Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them.
George W. Bush

Truth in there!

Your response was a great summary; I'm going to keep it handy. Hope he pays attention. But I went and read his article and found it seemed almost entirely terrifyingly truthful. At least, all he had to do was change the name of the culprit... and then it's a factual and informative warning indeed.

Consider this:
Brzezinski stated the obvious in describing terrorism as a tactic, not an enemy ... But this misses the point. We are at war with a global movement and ideology whose members seek to advance totalitarian aims through terrorism. Brzezinski is deeply mistaken to mock the notion that we are at war and to suggest that we should adopt "more muted reactions" to acts of terrorism.

or this:
A sensible strategy against [culprit] and others in [culprit's] ideological terror network begins with recognizing the scope of the threat they pose. [culprit] and its ilk have a world vision that is comparable to that of historical totalitarian ideologues but adapted to the 21st-century global network.

and so on, right through the whole way. A lot of Bush's speeches are like this too. So this is either lack of information about culprit's identity... unlikely indeed, I think, for both our president and our head of Homeland Security... or a twisted combination of secret gloating and conscience-salve ("well, I mostly told them the truth, they should have figured it out!"). I do think this is one way they manage to sound so credible and sell their message and look earnest on the podium, without extensive actor's training.
Thank you for sending this!