John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, interviewed by Brad Friedman - 9/11/09

Guest Hosting the 'Malloy Show' (Friday)
TONIGHT: Sr. Counsel to the 9/11 Commission and commemorating the 8th anniversary of 9/11

HOUR 1: John Farmer on how what the 9/11 Commission, public and media was told by military and government officials, 'was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue. Also, he answered the unspeakable questions that Glenn Beck felt merited the resignation of Van Jones from the Obama administration. He was offended by none of those questions.

*listen to the show here:


is primarily an apologist for the NORAD tapes (and the official story). He also calls Richard Clarke a liar.

Sounds like

another smoke screen to me...

Contact Information for the POS

Farmers got a LIE for every question.

Contact Information

John Farmer

Publicity and Media Inquiries
Katie Grinch
Riverhead Books
375 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014
Phone: 212-366-2574

General Information and Comments

Simuvac, how did Farmer call Clarke a liar?

I just listened to the interview again and transcribed it (will be posted soon), and the only mention i caught of Clarke was Brad's.

Certainly, Farmer's 'theory' of 9/11 being bureaucracy's fault is in contradiction to Clarke's ltd. hang out of 'we failed you, America'

These are a couple questions i wanted to ask Farmer- i'm compiling a list to email him...

1) According to a June 30, 2000 Naples Daily News interview with Gen. Larry Arnold, “…[his] nationwide Air National Guard command scrambles jets about 200 times a year at seven alert sites from Portland, Ore., to South Florida. Most often they intercept drug smugglers and others who fail to file flight plans before entering U.S. airspace.”
However, on 9/11, according to the Commission Report, fighters from District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) were “airborne at 10:38.” (44) Why were DCANG fighters not scrambled to defend the nation’s capital after a ‘summer of threat’, and 2 WTC towers having been hit at 8:46 and 9:03 am, by planes that were known to have been hijacked?

2) According to the Commission Report, the NMCC was notified of UA 93’s hijacking at 10:03 am (42), which was well after 2 WTC towers and the Pentagon had been hit. At this time UA 93 was known to be heading towards DC; what did the NMCC do with this information?

In his book...

According to simuvac.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Near the end of the

Near the end of the interview Mr. Farmer insinuated that he had seen FBI confiscated videos of the Pentagon crash. When pressed, he admitted that he has has not seen those videos, though he is aware that they exist.

He's covering up

Stole my tunder there a bit runner, I just listened to the interview and caught on to the same thing. I also picked up on his statement that they were able to reconstruct large components of the plane. Really? Since when? They haven't released one part that had AA77's serial number on it. If this is true, we should be able demand the evidence via FOIA.

He also mentioned he felt empathy for NORAD personnel in that they had to deal with a situation they were never trained to do? 67 times prior to 9/11 the FAA had to contact NORAD to respond to errant planes. How could make such a gross fabrication. Of course, he may not know that, because he didnt know about the ISI chief being in D.C. and the $100,000 transfer to Atta which my understanding is the FBI confirmed it. And if he did not know that the FAA routinely contacts NORAD, what does that say about his investigation? You start by establishing what was supposed to happen by reviewing written operating procedures. (which changed just months prior which he probably doesn't know.) Then start by seeing where it broke down. The truth isn't hard to find if you are really looking for it.

Lastly, his answer to the question about why the president sat there reading a book while the country was under attack is laughable. He says the president wanted to appear calm and in control, but how would ANYONE even know this. When he was told, "the country is under attack" he didn't acknowledge the information to Andrew Card (and why was Andrew Card there anyway?). He doesn't nod his head, motion a finger, say "ok, wait just a moment and we'll get right on that" nothing. How do they know he doesn't want to leave, did he tell them via the vulcan mind meld? Furthermore, should it matter if he wants to or not, there are protocols to follow. The secret service (as Cheney puts it) doesn't ask if you want to go, they take you. That's their job. He covers it all up by attributing anomalies to individuals, not the protocols that were broken. That's what I want to know. Why were so many protocols not followed that day.

peace all

Above all, I would teach him to tell the truth Truth-telling, I have found, is the key to responsible citizenship. The thousands of criminals I have seen in 40 years of law enforcement have had one thing in common: Every single one was a liar.
J. Edgar Hoover

Brad Friedman.

Brad Friedman is a good co-host. Journalist. And asset to the Truth.
I thought his questions were good especially the follow-ups etc.

Friedman is newly opened up to...

...the 9/11 TM.

before his work with Sibel Edmonds, he was a STAUNCH gatekeeper.

However, any information that we pry out of naybody will contain some more evidence that will lead us to the truth

Lynn Spencer is another gatekeeper telling an inside story that the HI PERPS want told..."this" John Farmer is most likely doing the exact same thing. Same probably goes for Richard Clarke...

Again, in all of these communications we will find small bits of information that are part of the big picture that the HI PERPS don't want told.

Another way to look at this process is along the lines of thinking where some silent whistleblowers may use such communications as a way to slip ot some stuff "out" without the authors or HI PERPS really knowing this.

I see it in Bronner's work in Vanity some radar analysis and reports from ZID, and from some FOIA radar data that the "other" John Farmer asked me to analyze.

Just keep'um talking!

Love, Peace and Progress...

Must be...

His last name.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?


I don't get that John. Are you implying racism or something since he has a jewish last name?

before his work with Sibel Edmonds, he was a STAUNCH gatekeeper

Robin, what's your evidence for this claim?

"before his work with Sibel Edmonds, he was a STAUNCH gatekeeper."

Brad = gatekeeper? And Sibel blowing the whistle on corruption changed his mind?

AFAIK, Brad has never promoted lies or BS re 9/11, or disparaged those raising questions- and he makes clear in the interview, he supports investigation of 9/11.

I first discovered his blog due to my interest in election integrity, which is his main focus and area of expertise. He has consistently advocated for transparency and accountability, and has honestly and critically examined and reported on each new twist and turn and development in the Establishment's efforts to appear honest and in service to the public, while maintaining secret and unaccountable control over the electoral process.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, i'd like to see it.

Osama bin Laden vs. Bureaucracy

John Farmer states that the greatest villain, besides Osama bin Laden, in the 9/11 attacks is bureaucracy. This is always a cop out answer for those who don't wish to assign individual responsibility for one of the worst crimes in American history.

"Never attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by malice."


it's basically a paraphrase of the 9/11 Commission Report.

I have a problem with this statement...

"The authorization to intercept, and potentially shoot down planes came from the national command structure, from the President and Vice President..."

From everything I have heard, intercepts can take place without the President and Vice President's authorization.

I see Farmer as "damage control."

Edit: When I hear someone highlight the criminality of Sandy Berger (like Glenn Beck did recently), I think of a Bush apologist trying to place the blame for 9/11 on Clinton (like that's NEVER happened before).

Simuvac says Farmer calls Clarke a liar. ANOTHER indication that he is a Bush apologist, etc... etc...

9/11 Truth is a non-partisan issue. PERIOD.

Edit: He never heard of the $100k wire transfer? HA!

As I pointed out to someone recently, John Farmer recently appeared before Sen. Patrick Leahy's panel to discuss the Truth Commission, and he was an advocate for making it like the 9/11 Commission.

"The commission should be independent and nonpartisan in composition. Bipartisan commissions can reach nonpartisan results; the 9/11 Commission, under the leadership of Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton, succeeded in that respect."

Edit: Another indication is that some idiot somewhere "cannot recommend this interview highly enough."

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Mr. John Farmer...

Mr. John Farmer, won't you please...plug away!

Damage control: yes
Official Myna Bird: yes
Got a book to plug: yes

Why else would he agree to step into the hornet's nest?

Bush remaining calm in classroom??? Farmer is just showing us he's a good student, learned his lessons well and is just reciting them as ordered.

It was so easy to round up the culprits because they were already looking for them in the weeks leading up to 9/11? Suuure. Everyone knows what it's like to suffer a surprise attack out of the blue that you've been fiercely tracking right up until it sneaks up and attacks you head on!

Mr. John Farmer, won't you please...go away!

Clever Use of Glen Beck's Questions

Damage control, yep...

Looks like everyone is having the same reaction to the interview that I did. I posted it because I am seeing more than a few pro-truth articles lately using Farmer's words that what we were told about 9/11 is 'almost entirely untrue', which, as a caller in the 2nd hour points out, seems to be more of a jacket-blurb to sell books than anything else. In the interview with Friedman, Farmer describes the Commission Report as 'extremely accurate' and 'sets forth the facts of 9/11'. I don't think it is wise to be quoting Farmer in order to further our cause or to use him as an example of an ally in the search for answers and accountability. He is so clearly NOT. The only whistle Farmer is blowin' is the kazoo in the OCT parade.

Brad did a good job though.

Good analyisis


>>I don't think it is wise

>>I don't think it is wise to be quoting Farmer in order to further our cause or to use him as an example of an ally in the search for answers and accountability. He is so clearly NOT.

Yes, good point. It's not clear what his agenda is.

Someone should write an assessment of his true positions and then that could be easily reposted every time stories come up on him. What the ultimate benefit or loss would be of having a high-profile person such as him (re the Commission) cutting down whatever aspects of the report is an unknown. People may just end up recalling that "even Commissioners and people involved in the report didn't agree with it," and not necessarily then follow his every word. But you never know with these things.

Farmer's agenda

from Friedman's interview:

"I think the [Commission] report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found. "

The Commission report is 'accurate' only in certain respects- as a whole it's incredibly incomplete and distorted. And Farmer's statement that the "discrepancies between the accounts" were pointed out is misleading at best; in Chapter 1 on pg 34 they note that "incorrect" statements were given by NORAD officials in hearings, list some of them and draw conclusions such as:
"More than the actual events, inaccurate government accounts of those events made it appear that the military was notified in time to respond to two of the hijackings, raising questions about the adequacy of the response.Those accounts had the effect of deflecting questions about the military’s capacity to obtain timely and accurate information from its own sources. In addition, they overstated the FAA’s ability to provide the military with timely and useful information that morning."

Farmer obviously has Republican sympathies- he tries to deflect blame and responsibility from the Bush Administration while putting it on the Clinton Administration, but mostly he blames 'bureaucracy':

"if you read the book as a whole, I think if there’s a villain in the book, other than Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who are- we can never forget are the principal villains, but it’s- it’s bureaucracy itself. And I don’t think enough has been done to sort of ‘reinvent’ government, that was the term used in the 90’s, and it was a recognition that, you know, in the post cold-war period, the threats were likely to arise asymmetrically and there was a need to reconfigure government, and there were efforts being made but they didn’t go far enough and they were not effective, so, uh- the answer to your question, in my view, is I think a lot more needs to be done, and it has to be at a very, very fundamental level because bureaucracy is the enemy of preparedness- and if I were gonna state one conclusion from the book, that’s what it is."

Still, there will likely be some new information that comes out of the book, and Farmer's spinful account can be used to further document the Commission and OCT's lack of credibility.

EDIT- as many people are unaware that NORAD made false statements under oath, it's somewhat helpful that Farmer's book is bringing this back into mainstream consciousness, but it's of limited value; he's selective and biased in what he's pointing out was false, and there are still legit questions about what really happened- the Commission report claims they based their account on "taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records." (34)

Seems like it would be tough to alter all these records from 2 different agencies and make them match (assuming they're telling the truth that they do match)- but- according to this MFR of an interview w/ Bob Marr:
"Marr noted that one of the chat logs presented to him by Commission staff
"doesn't look right" [Commission staff noted this beforehand, but did not present to Marr
as such.]" (5)

I just received a copy of The Ground Truth: Laughable.

pp. 4-5 in the Introduction.

"Of all the misleading accounts told by a government to it's people, our government's account to its people about what happened on 9/11 is certainly not the most egregious. It didn't escalate a war, as did the Johnson administration fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1965. It didn't provide a pretext for aggression, as did the government's manipulation of intelligence regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Nor did it precipitate a constitutional crisis, as did the Nixon administrations's lies about Watergate or President Clinton's, lies about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

In the grand scheme of things, then, the government's deception about how we were defended on 9/11 may seem minor. This book in no way seeks to overstate it's significance. In it's own way, however, the government's failure to tell the truth about what happened on 9/11 has had far-reaching effects.

Because the government's story didn't make sense, it raised as many questions as it answered, thus fueling conspiracy theories that persist regarding 9/11. One purpose of The Ground Truth is to lay at least some of these theories to rest by identifying and establishing the deception that did occur."

Contact Information

Contact Information

John Farmer

Publicity and Media Inquiries
Katie Grinch
Riverhead Books
375 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014
Phone: 212-366-2574

General Information and Comments

Laughable is right

That is some quote that you excerpted. Laughable is right. So fall-on-your-face laughable that a reader may wind up needing a respirator.

The very essence of the term 'limited hang-out'.