The UK Telegraph reacts to the Richard Falk case: "UN Human Rights Official Claims 9-11 Was US Plot"

[NOTE: The headline the Telegraph chose to use, "UN Human Rights Official Claims 9-11 Was US Plot." is inaccurate and misleading, and is reproduced and preserved here at 911Blogger because of the significance of it being employed by a mainstream media institution like the Telegraph.

In his blog post Richard Falk did not "claim" or "suggest" that "9/11 was US plot" or that the "US government may have orchestrated the September 11 terrorist attacks." What Falk said was, there are "awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations," there was "an apparent cover up", and there are "well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials." - loose nuke]

This article was placed today on World For 9/11 Truth, and appeared first in The Telegraph, also today.  Pretty good exposure to have this in The Telegraph.  URL: will be interesting to watch how the US press, and world press, handles this developing story, particularly if he does, indeed, get fired.

UN Human Rights Official Claims 9-11 Was US Plot

The Telegraph | January 25, 2011

NEW YORK — Richard Falk, a retired professor from Princeton University, wrote on his blog that there had been an “apparent cover up” by American authorities.

Also Read:

World911Truth News – INTERVIEW – UN expert urges full U.S. torture investigation

INTERVIEW – UN expert urges full U.S. torture investigation

 Is the War in Afghanistan Justified by 9-11?

David Ray Griffin: Is the War in Afghanistan Justified by 9-11?

He added that most media were “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events” on 9-11, despite it containing “gaps and contradictions”.

And he described David Ray Griffin, a conspiracy theorist highly regarded in the so-called “9-11 truth” movement, as a “scholar of high integrity” whose book on the subject was “authoritative”.

Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, described the comments as “preposterous” and “an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack.” But Mr Ban said that it was not for him to decide whether Prof Falk, who serves the organization as a special investigator into human rights abuses in the Palestinian territories, should be fired by the UN.

Vijay Nambiar, Mr Ban’s chief of staff, said this was up to the human rights council, a 47-nation body based in Geneva, Switzerland, that was created by the UN in 2006.

UN Watch, a pressure group that monitors the organisation, has called for Prof Falk to be sacked. Hilel Neuer, the group’s chief executive, described him as “a serial offender with zero credibility”.

The row came as the new Republican-led US Congress opened an inquiry into “urgent problems” with America’s contribution to the UN, including its membership of the human rights council.

Excerpt from Richard Falk’s blog post:

“What fuels suspicions of [the 9-11] conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin (and other devoted scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since his authoritative The New Pearl Harbor in 2004 (updated in 2008).

“What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials. Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally disturbing filter of self-censorship?

“Whatever it is, the result is the withering away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. The forms persist, but the content is missing.”

Full post available at

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which held its first hearing on the subject yesterday [TUESDAY], wants Barack Obama to pull the US out of the council.

She has pledged to try to “kill all US funding for that beast,” which she described as a “rogues’ gallery” for “pariah states”.

Original article:


Will US media cover it?

I am doubtful that the US media will hardly touch this story.. Yet likely US officials will work behind the scenes to attack this truth-teller. It is such a bizarre world. I am thankful for this post and all efforts to expose the big lie.

That is the saddest part of all........................

Corporate controlled media? Well, when you consider who owns the media.............the whole system...............basically the same people who brought us 9/ is not surprising they will not bring us this story.

But the alternative media....................that is the big crying shame.
If this story is not covered in Counterpunch, CommonDreams, the Nationmag, Zmag, DemocracyNow, Alternet,Truthout, and the rest..............................then we simply know that these sites are criminally censoring this information, and that they are corrupted.

Some are offended to hear this. They say it is beyond propriety to admit this. But I never really hear why this is so.

Simply put, any media outlet that has not presented the evidence for controlled demolition at the WTC, along with stories like this one about the UN, are unquestionably criminally corrupted, and purposely misleading the American people.....................treason.

Video of Ban Ki Moon

addressing Falks blog entry

Thanks Sitting-Bull

I added the video to the above post. Here's some contact information as well:

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
United Nations
New York, NY 10017 USA
212-963-5012 fax: 212-963-7055

This was an email for the Secretary General at one time too:

General Inquiries:
Human Rights Council
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Telephone: +41 22 917 9220

Human Rights Council and Treaties Division
Complaint Procedure
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax: (41 22) 917 90 11

This would make for an

This would make for an interesting article. Something that talked about how questioning the 9/11 attacks is not allowed. Something that talked about how the campaign to get the UN to have its own investigation into 9/11 in 2004 was ignored. Something that talked about how a rally outside of the UN on 9/11/2005 was ignored. Then somehow (maybe show that he isn't the only one) tie it into the latest attacks against Richard Falk. Have it on my desk by 8am sharp. ;)


Methinks thou dost protest too much

Jon Gold

According to Wikipedia, the phrase "third rail" is defined as "a metaphor in politics to denote an idea or topic that is so "charged" and "untouchable" that any politician or public official who dares to broach the subject would invariably suffer politically."

This most certainly applies to 9/11.

Recently, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, Richard Falk, wrote in a blog that he thought there was an "apparent cover-up" being perpetrated by the U.S. Government with regards to the 9/11 attacks.

He said that the mainstream media has been "unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials." This is 100% accurate as I show in Fact #25 of my article, "The Facts Speak For Themselves."

Over the years, anyone that had any kind of "name" that questioned what happened on 9/11 has been viciously attacked.

Former special advisor to the White House on green jobs, Van Jones, had to leave his position because he signed a statement in 2004 in support of a new investigation into 9/11.

Kevin Bracken, the president of the Victorian Trades Hall and secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, said on a radio show that "I believe the official story is a conspiracy theory that doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny." The Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard responded by saying Kevin's comments were "stupid and wrong."

Because of Richard Falk's statements, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned his remarks in a statement, and now the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice is calling for him to be removed.

It's important to note that a campaign took place in 2004 to get the United Nations to have its own investigation into 9/11. That campaign was ignored. It's also important to note that a rally was held in front of the United Nations on September 11th, 2005 that was also ignored.

Richard Falk is not the only one that questions the official account of 9/11. Many polls over the years show this. A poll from Germany recently stated that 89% of Germans do not believe the official account of 9/11.

So why is 9/11 a "third rail?" Could it be because you are not allowed to question the myth that the United States Government created about that day that enables them, or "justifies" every criminal thing they have done since that day?


In any case, Methinks thou dost protest too much, and there needs to be real justice and accountability for what happened. There most certainly is a cover-up of 9/11, and Richard Falk should not be condemned for saying so.



Like minds.

I just made my comment, then noticed that you were way ahead of me on the "the lady dost protest too much, me thinks," analogy.

I am gratified to see that you and I are parallel on this even though I am slower to get there this time.

I will try to read all the comments before placing my own from now on to avoid being relegated to the Department Of Redundancy Department.

Thanks for all you do Jon.

I found the flyer that was

I found the flyer that was addressed to "All UN Missions in New York" from 2004 with regards to 9/11.


"Jon: Thanks for this information and support. The 'third rail' metaphor seems to fit my situation rather perfectly, I am afraid" - Richard Falk

UN Human Rights Official Under Fire For Describing 9/11 As A Cov

UN Human Rights Official Under Fire For Describing 9/11 As A Cover Up


Truth is America's worst enemy... And 911 was an inside job... period

No luck for me

I called this number just now -

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
United Nations
New York, NY 10017 USA

They wouldn't even let me put in a request for an interview with Ban Ki-moon.

you have no lobby

opposite to the "UN Watch", who can make it happen that the UN Secretary General dance and speak like a puppet...


I find most amusing the comments by Ban Ki Moon, Susan Rice and UN Watch. How bizarre that they would try to fire somone for having an opinion. It is of great interest that UN Watch, with its Israeli connections, comes out of the woodwork and immediately goes into a tirade. It does reaffirm the Israeli link to 9-11. There's really no need to even notice Falk's blog entry, but all of these people are in a tizzy, offering the same very stale and ridiculous objections, such as the perrennial "sensitivity of victims' relatives," the one mantra that has been used again and again to withhold information and further cover up 9-11 crimes. Here's AFP's version, which I found to be more complete.

Should one not demand Susan Rice's resignation for attempting to stifle discussion on important matters of state, and for "bullying"? It's all excellent publicity for the movement, because only true believers in the OCT will think Rice makes sense, while the growing majority of Americans see how off the wall Rice, Ban Ki Moon, and UN Watch are.

bravo, Falk

Falk is a brave and honest man who has spoken out many times in his long career. In his current job as Special Rapporteur the Israeli government has done everything it can to disempower him -- holding him at the airport, not allowing him into the Territories to do his job, attempting to humiliate him. He's stood firm, as a Jew who stands for justice and has no intention of white-washing the Occupation. As far as 9/11 is concerned, are these morons just discovering his position now? He's made it clear for years. His endorsement of DRG's book is right there on the cover (or maybe it's inside the cover; can't remember). We need to send letters of support. The Secretary-General is a disgrace and The Human Rights Council would probably be a more fruitful place to send letters of support. Thanks, Orangutan, for providing the contact info.

Cover up?

There was no cover up... just inside jobs....

in the houses of shadow.

listening to moon makes me sick. Condemning Falk for stating the bloody obvious.
Good on him. More power to the truth getting through.
Can just see the puppet masters frothing at the mouth. Maybe they choke one day.

UN of America

The United Nations of America is in deep trouble with their High Standards of BS....


Adjective: Contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous.

(above definition from

I find it interesting that he used this term to describe the notion.

I see it is akin to the Shakespearian quote "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks."

It seems to me that they would have been better served by saying something like "even though it appears to have been a cover up..."

The idea that 911 was a false flag operation is, in fact, not contrary to reason or common sense. It is certainly not utterly absurd or ridiculous.

I think they leave themselves more vulnerable by taking this extreme position.

Good for us.

"Affront to the memory..."

The remains of approximately 1100 of the 9/11 victims are buried at the Fresh Kills garbage dump.(ref) As long as this condition exists, Ki-Moon's description of calling for investigation as “an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack” is disingenuous. The victims could hardly have been given a more disrespectful resting place; and the treatment that the families have received has been similarly insensitive.


It"s still the response after almost a decade, " How could we disrespect the victims and their families."
My answer has and still is, when the President of the United States, on national television can be advised that America is under attack and continues to read The Pet Goat to children and give a photo op afterward, that is DISRESPECT! The actions of our President and the Secret Service is beyond disrespect, it's criminal!

Planes are unaccounted for and the president endangers hundreds of school children every second he was there and to compound the crime the Secret Service violates their sworn oath to protect the president from any threat and fail to remove him from the school immediately.

Imagine me sitting in a bar, kicking it with the guys. The bar door flies open and my next door neighbor screams, "Your house is on fire and your family is trapped!" I turn from my bar stool and reply, "I'll be there
in 20 minutes, have to finish this joke I'm telling plus I have a buy back on the bar." My family dies in the fire do you think the jury says, "He did have the key to the house and might have made a difference, but the joke was great and he did have a few free beers coming, plus his friends in the bar didn't really encourage him to hurry and try to save his family. No, the jury knows, this response was criminal, the bastard had something to do with starting the fire and it's clear even his friends in the bar knew. GUILTY, this is way beyond DISRESPECT! The sad part is everyone in our government is still reading the Pet Goat and most of this nation and world is still listening as the house burns!

i tend to think that

the whole pet goat on camera thing is to do with showing that bush jr couldnt possibly have been coordinating the attacks

it's possible that the neocon plotters did that out of respect of papa bush - ie to not have his dumb son in trouble

after all bush jr did go missing once.... for three days....


Because those right of center dislike the UN anyway, and because a significant percentage of truth activists are right of center, ( I'm left) a coalition rally at the UN with 911Truth speakers from the stage would have potential of being particularly larger than just a truth rally.

I guess it IS inflammatory.. tell the truth to anyone that has been lied to so succesfully!

sometimes the most you can get away with is just planting a seed

of doubt by saying that 60% of the commissioners on the 9/11 commission say the investigation was a sham and a whitewash


"60% of the commissioners on the 9/11 commission say the investigation was a sham and a whitewash"

The above claim has been circulated a lot, apparently beginning with Charlie Sheen's '20 Minutes with the President', but it isn't true.

It is true that 6 out of 11 Commissioners have made statements which indicate the Commission's investigation was compromised, but some of them are satisfied with and proud of the Commission's work, and, afaik, none of them have publicly called for a new investigation.

The most outspoken Commissioner was Cleland, who called it a scam and resigned in protest, but he's been pretty silent since; Bush appointed him to a cushy position on the board of the Export-Import Bank.


Thanks for clarifying this. This gets thrown around A LOT and if the media or anyone else wanted to hold our feet to the fire on this, we could end up looking foolish. But you gotta admit, some of the comments from the commissioners, especially about NORAD, are pretty damning concerning the Commission's conclusions. The point taken is that we shouldn't make sweeping generalizations, but rather, restrict our comments to specific issues concerning specific comments from specific commissioners. In that way we will make the MSM look foolish for not recognizing this instead of making ourselves look misinformed.

Useful link BTW. Thanks.


"you gotta admit, some of the comments from the commissioners, especially about NORAD, are pretty damning concerning the Commission's conclusions."

Absolutely. And the make up of the 9/11 Commission and its staff is pretty damning as well, in addition to other facts about the way it conducted its investigation.

Short, crudely written summary at my blog, with a lot of useful links

ok i'll go with

6 out of 11 Commissioners have made statements which indicate the Commission's investigation was compromised
that's pretty damning

good call

i agree it's damning.

Douglas, your attitude is a great example for all of us; you've accepted critique/correction w/o getting defensive, and adjusted your views to bring them in line with what can be established according to facts and evidence.

However, my wording "6 out of 11 Commissioners have made statements which indicate the Commission's investigation was compromised" could stand improvement; it doesn't have enuf soundbite quality.

How about; 6 out of 11 Commissioners, including Kean and Hamilton, have made statements which demonstrate the Commission's investigation was bogus. Probably someone can come up w/ something better...

Looking at the make up of the Commission and the way it conducted its investigation, i think it's fair to say the investigation and the final report are a fraud. The fact that Zelikow was in charge is hard evidence of that all by itself, but there's a lot of other stuff at the link in my comment above.

the promised mission

was a com promised com mission

plus, talking about 9/11 with people new to it, the thing that gets their attention seems sometimes to be that the commission was full of lawyers, no engineers, architects, other specialist professionals and was overseen by a bush cheney insider

some people who might find remote controlled planes, bombs in buildings and a military stand-down difficult to contemplate all in one go seem to find that angle credible

"an apparent cover up"

"plus, talking about 9/11 with people new to it, the thing that gets their attention seems sometimes to be that the commission was full of lawyers, no engineers, architects, other specialist professionals and was overseen by a bush cheney insider"

I agree, this is damning; it's evident to most people that investigations shouldn't be conducted by people who even have an appearance of a conflict of interest, let alone actual conflicts of interest - like personal, professional, political and/or financial connections with the people/institutions being investigated.

Given that all the Commission members and most of the key staff had at least one, and some many of these conflicts, even if there was no other evidence of cover up/failure to properly investigate (and there's plenty), Falk would be justified in saying there was "an apparent cover up."

how about simplifying it to

The majority of people on the 9/11 Commission have stated that they felt the investigation was compromised.


that would be inaccurate; with the exception of Cleland, who resigned, none of them have said that, and none of them, including Cleland, are calling for a new investigation.

Take Lehman, who said, “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest" and "All of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest."

Lehman was a PNAC member. I really doubt he's 'confessing' the investigation was compromised, or that these were careless slips. Perhaps he was subtly bragging that it was intentionally compromised, but, from the context, what I assume he would say he meant was they chose staff who knew the people and agencies they were dealing with so they would have a rapport/experience w/ the people and agencies that would be an aid in getting the investigation done. I don't think his intention was to give people the impression the Commission was a fraud and a whitewash.

From the get go, 9/11 was being spun as "an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials," who took advantage of our freedoms and bureaucracy, and got lucky, and this is all many Americans were expecting the Commission to find - and lo and behold, that's the conclusion they delivered.

i think this is an important story

... but i also think details count.

Falk did NOT make the claim that 9/11 was a US plot.

He has made a VERY important claim that there is a coverup. but we undercut his efforts if we make claims like "UN Human Rights Official Claims 9-11 Was US Plot" when there is no evidence that he has.

Little things like this do matter. we're the TRUTH people - remember?

good point, but it's Telegraph's spin, which is another issue

UN human rights official claims 9/11 was US plot
A UN human rights official has been roundly condemned for suggesting that the US government may have orchestrated the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The title of the blog entry here is an exact quote of the Telegraph's title, so it's appropriate to use it here.

However, John A's raised some important issues:

First, we're the "TRUTH people", so we need to make sure we're accurate with our facts and not going beyond the evidence when we're raising questions and making claims. This should be self-evident, but it has become even clearer as we've all seen how the corporate media has used certain widely circulated but misinformed claims to discredit and smear the 9/11 truth movement.

Second, why has the Telegraph put words in Falk's mouth; why are they being careless with the facts? In his blog post, Falk didn't "claim" or "suggest" that "9/11 was US plot" or that the "US government may have orchestrated the September 11 terrorist attacks." What he said was, there are "awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations," there was "an apparent cover up", and that there are "well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials." He also recommended books by DRG.

While Falk may have stronger opinions than he's voiced here, there's no basis for the Telegraph to leap to the conclusions in their headline and subtitle. This is either gross journalistic negligence, or it's demonstrative of a Telegraph editor's desire to sensationalize and capitalize on the moment, and/or inflame public sentiment around the issue, thus distracting from the reasonable and careful perspective Falk expressed in his blog post.


i disagree that it is appropriate to use. It is a major headline on 911Blogger's homepage that is clearly not substantiated by the known facts. The fact that the Telegraph used it is irrelevant. Falk did not claim that 9/11 was a US plot - so we ought not to use it.

The headline is accurate and appropriate

The headline to this blog post is 100% accurate and appropriate (sans the [intentional?] typo). This post is directly about the Telegraph's reaction, not simply about Falk's true position. The use of a colon and quotation marks is both journalistically and grammatically accurate and could not be misinterpreted. To present the story from Falk's perspective would be (our) spin and/or editorializing, which would be egregious to our credibility

yes - the headline was edited

yes - the headline was edited per my suggestion


Is the misspelling of "Telegraph" intentional?

David Ray Griffin's Response to UN Watch's Article..

Thanks for all comments, insights.. I am posting the recent blogger article here, too, with David Ray Griffin's statement.:

[Bad link]

Yes, Richard Falk’s comments are “preposterous” – except for the enormous amount of evidence supporting those comments. It is unfortunate that the Secretary-General chose simply to “condemn” Falk’s comments instead of using the UN’s resources to investigate the relevant evidence. Surely such an investigation is justified by the fact that the official account of 9/11 has been rejected by more than a dozen professional organizations, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (with over 1,400 professional members), Scientists for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth. Given the fact that the official account of 9/11 is now rejected by virtually all professionals who are independent (of the US government) and have studied the evidence, it is this official account that is “preposterous,” not Mr. Falk’s comments.

David Ray Griffin
January 26, 2011

His blog . . .

Falk's actual blog post is very good. I liked this at the end:

What must we learn from all of this? Don’t connect dots without evidence. Don’t turn away as soon as the words ‘conspiracy theory’ are uttered, especially if the evidence does point away from what the power-wielders want us to believe. Don’t link individual wrongdoing, however horrific, to wider religious and ethnic identities. We will perish as a species if we don’t learn soon to live together better on our beautiful, globalizing, and imperiled planet.

He is a fine and courageous

He is a fine and courageous man, Falk is, and despite the bally-hooing of the powers that be, he will/has stirred more interest, thus, more researching by the previously dormant curiosities of many, and on an international scale, it will have more oomph! Even those defenders of the official conspiracy theory, they have got to be hesitantly raising their eyebrows now. Look at all those people that keep getting slammed by the powers that be, those that spoke up, it continues, many speaking out, despite it. MORE speak up. The very endurance of our movement, it's continuation and its growth, has certainly, I'm sure made many take note as well. Gee, maybe it's not so "kooky" after all. Let's keep it rolling in high gear!

(=O) Let's keep blasting it out there.

Hey, let's encourage our friends that are with us on FB to speak out with us on FB, because the fear of being the odd man out is so daunting to so many, and that fear is working against us. We need to appreciate what Laurie Manning has taught us. So, if others join us in conversations, more will come along.

LOL, as in the Kevin Costner phrase..."If you build it they will come." Build conversations.

Applause to all the fearless!!!

Laurie Manwell

I think she's whom you meant.

UN rights expert denies suggesting US role in 9/11

A UN expert on human rights in the Palestinian territories on Friday denied that he endorsed claims of US government involvement in the September 11 attacks.

"I wish to be absolutely clear; I do not endorse the theory that the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks," Richard Falk said in a statement released by the UN human rights office.

The United States on Tuesday demanded his dismissal for "noxious" comments over an alleged US cover-up.
Falk accused UN Watch of "deliberately" distorting his comments and using that as a basis to get him sacked as a UN Special Rapporteur.

"What I did do, in my personal blog, in which I was discussing the differing perceptions that develop after political assassinations and deeply tragic events... was argue that investigations must be, and must be seen to be, transparent, exhaustive and honest," he said.

visit the link above for the rest