Speaker 1: The following presentation Isadel marve citia is production.
Speaker 2: He well, thank you both for coming. I am James
Huppard and the founder of Nine to eleven Truths of
Central Iowa, which is a branch of the Nine to
eleven Truth Organization, the only such in Iowa. We are
hoping that some of you will feel inclined to sign
up for our call lists for our monthly meetings. We
meet the sometime in the third week of every month
in the public library in.
Speaker 1: Adell and we would.
Speaker 2: I have over one hundred names on my call list
now and our meetings are normally attended by around thirty people,
different thirty each month.
Speaker 1: You never know who's going to show up. But I'd
really love to.
Speaker 2: Have some of you or I guess all of you
would have to find a new place to meet, but
love to have you join up. And all you need
to do is is give me your name and your
phone number. If you're not from Des Moines, maybe put
your talent that would be interesting. You can give me
your email address if you prefer, and then before each
of our meetings in the week before, I'll give you
a call or an email and inform you when the
meeting will be and very privileged to be able to
introduce two time Nobel Prize nominee in nineteen and I'm
still in the last century two thousand and eight and
two thousand and nine Nobel Peace Prize nominee that should win.
He should win one of these years, and if he does,
it'll be a victory for the whole world when that happened,
and we'll all me to celebrate. But he's the author
of over thirty five books. He's an eminent theologian, and
I think I'm safe in saying that he probably knows
more about nine to eleven than any other individual on
the base of the Earth, with the exception of the planners.
Further Ado, Oh, I'm supposed to tell you that afterwards
the course will be a question and answer session, and
you will be asked, if you ask a question, to
come down and sign a release form so that you
can appear in the DVD which we hope will be
released not too long from now. UH of this UH,
of this event, and UH if you're interested in getting
one of those DVD's, where you're gonna have to pick
up our invitation sheet which tells about our group, and
get my phone number and and call.
Speaker 1: Me and and then we can arrange uh for you
to acquire a DVD.
Speaker 2: So uh well, without further ado, then I uh I
give you David Ray Griffin.
Speaker 1: Doctor Griffin.
Speaker 2: I I want to uh formally invite you, induct you
as a member of our informal group, and to do
so I present you with our official shirt of our
of our group.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much, James.
And many people have asked me this is my first
time to des moine. The answer is yes. And the
next question is how do you like it? I'm going
to withhold judgment until I get out of town, but
so far I like it very very much. I'm very
pleased to be here and very impressed that so many
people have turned out for this non controversial topic. Now,
so is that okay? Where the microphone is? No, it
needs to be up a little bit too. Okay, does
that do it? Okay? Thank you? So the topic of
my lecture is is the war in Afghanistan justified by
the nine to eleven attacks? There are many questions to
ask about the war in Afghanistan. One being widely asked
is whether it will turn out to be Obama's Vietnam.
This question implies another whether this war is winnable or
is destined to be a quagmire like Vietnam, a question
motivated by many things, including the widespread agreement that the
Afghan government Underhammad Karzai is at least as corrupt and
incompetent as the government that the United States tried to
prop up in South Vietnam for twenty years. There are
many other similarities, but there's also one big difference. This time.
There is no draft. If there were a draft, so
that college students and their friends back home were being
sent to Afghanistan, there would be huge demonstrations against this
war on campuses all across United States and Canada. If
the sons and daughters of wealthy and middle class parents
were coming home in boxes, or with permanent energy in injuries,
or with post traumatic stress syndrome, this war would have
probably been stopped long ago. This room would be packed
with college students. If there were a draft. People have
often asked, did we learn any of the lessons of Vietnam?
The US government learned one. If you're going to fight
an unpopular war, don't have a draft. There are many
many other questions but in this lecture I will focus
on only one Is the war in Afghanistan justified? This
question has two parts. First, is the war legally justified? Second?
Is it morally justified? As I deal with these questions,
try to imagine that there is a draft so that
you or your spouse, or your friends, or your children
or grandchildren might be sent to fight in this war.
I begin with the question of legal justification. Since the
founding of the United Nations in nineteen forty five, international
law with regard to war have been defined by the
UN Charter. Measured by this standard, the USRD war in
Afghanistan is illegal. Marjorie Kohane, a well known professor of
international law, wrote in November two thousand and one, the
bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United
Kingdom are illegal. In two thousand and eight, Khne repeated
this argument in an article entitled Afghanistan the Other Illegal War.
The point of this title was that although it was
by then widely accepted that the war in Iraq was illegal,
the war in Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that
many Americans did not realize it, was equally illegal. Her
argument was based on the following facts. First, according to
international law as codified in the UN Charter, disputes are
to be brought before the UN's Security Council, which alone
may authorize the use of force. Without this authorization, any
military activity against another country is illegal. Second, there are
two exceptions. One is that if your nation has has
been subjected to an armed attacked by another nation, you
may respond militarily in self defense. This condition was not
fulfilled by the nine to eleven attacks because they were
not carried out by another nation. Afghanistan did not attack
the United States. Indeed, the nineteen men charged with the
attacks were not from Afghanistan. The other exception occurs when
one nation has certain knowledge that an armed attack by
another nation is imminent, too eminent to bring the matter
to the Security Council. The need for self defense must
be in the generally accepted phrase instant overwhelming, leaving no
choice of means and no moment for deliberation. Although the
US government claimed that its military operations in Afghanistan were
justified by the need to prevent a second attack, this need,
even if was not urgent, as shown by the fact
that the Pentagon did not launch its invasion until almost
a month later, US political leaders have claimed to be
sure that the UN did authorize the US to attack Afghanistan.
This claim, originally made by the Bush Cheney administration, was
repeated by President Obama in his West Point speech of
November one, two thousand and nine, in which he said
the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all
necessary steps to respond to the nine to eleven attacks,
so US troops went to Afghanistan under the banner of
international legitimacy. However, the language of all necessary steps is
from UN's Security Council Resolution thirteen sixty eight, in which
the Council, taking note of its own responsibilities under the Charter,
expressed its own readiness to take all necessary steps and
to respond to the terrorist attacks of eleventh September two
thousand and one. Of course, the Security Council might have
determined that one of those necessary steps was to authorize
the United States to attack Afghanistan, but it did not.
Resolution thirteen seventy three, the only other Security Council resolution
about this issue, laid out various responses, but these included
matters such as freezing assets, criminalizing the support of terrorists,
exchanging police information, about terraces and prosecuting terrasts. The use
of military force was never mentioned. The U S war
in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council
in two thousand and one or at any time since.
So this war began as an illegal war, and it
is an illegal war today. Our government's claim to the
contrary is false. This war is illegal moreover, not only
under international law, but also under US law. The UN
Charter is a treaty which was ratified by the United States,
and according to Article six of the US Constitution, any
treaty ratified by the United States is part of the
supreme law of the land. The war in Afghanistan is
therefore in violation of US as well as international law.
It could not be more illegal. Merrigan public, for the
most part, is probably unaware of the illegality of this
war because this is not something that our political leaders
or our corporate media have been anxious to point out,
so most people simply don't know. If they were informed, however,
many Americans would be inclined to argue that, even if
technically illegal, the US military effort in Afghanistan has been
morally justified by the attacks of nine to eleven. For
a summary statement of this argument, we can turn again
to the west point speech of President Obama, who has
taken over the Bush Cheney rationale for nine to eleven.
Answering the question of why America and our allies were
compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place,
Obama said, we did not ask for this fight. On
September eleventh, two thousand and one, nineteen men hijacked four
airplanes and used them to murder nearly three thousand people.
They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They
took the lives of innocent men, women, and children, without
regard to their faith, or race or station. As we know,
these men belonged to al Qaeda, a group of extremists
who have distorted and defiled Islam. After the Taliban refused
to turn over Osama bin Laden, we sent our troops
into Afghanistan. This standard account can be summarized in terms
of three points. First, the attacks were carried out by
nineteen Muslim members of al Qaeda. Second, the attacks had
been authorized by the founder of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden,
who was in Afghanistan. Third, the US invasion of Afghanistan
was necessary because the Taliban, which was in control of Afghanistan,
refused to turn bin Laden over to US authorities. On
the basis of these three points, our political leaders have
claimed that the United States has the moral right, arising
from the universal right of self defense, to attempt to
capture or kill Ben Laden and his al Kaeda network
to them from launching another attack on our country. The
only problem with this argument is that all three points
are false. I will show this by looking at these
points in reverse order. The claim that the Taliban refused
to turn over ben Laden has been repeatedly made by
political leaders and our mainstream media. Reports from the time, however,
show that the truth is very different. Ten days after
the nine to eleven attacks, CNN reported the Taliban refused
to hand over ben Laden without proof or evidence that
he was involved in last week's attacks on the United States.
The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan said Friday that deporting him
without proof would amount to an insult to Islam. CNN
also made clear that the Taliban's demand for proof was
not made without reason, saying Ben Lauden himself has already
denied he had anything to do with the attacks, and
Taliban officials repeatedly said he could not have been involved
in the attacks. Bush, however, said the demands were not
open to negotiation or discussion. With this refusal to provide
any evidence of ben Lauden's responsibility, the Bush administration made
it impossible for the Taliban to turn ben Laden over.
As Afghan experts quoted by the Washington Pools pointed out,
the Taliban, in order to turn over a fellow Muslim
to an infidel Western nation, needed a faith saving formula.
Milton bon Bearden, who had been the CIA station chief
in Afghanistan in the nineteen eighties, put it this way.
While the United States was demanding give up ben Lauden,
the Taliban was saying, do something to help us give
him up, but the Bush administration refused. As the bombing
began in October, the Taliban tried again, offering to turn
ben Laden over to a third country if the United
States would stop the bombing and provide evidence of ben
Laden's responsibility, but Bush replied, there's no need to discuss
innocence or guilt. He know he's guilty. An article in
London's Guardian, which reported this development, was entitled Bush rejects
Taliban offered to hand ben Laden over, So it was
the Bush administration, not the Taliban, that was responsible for
the fact that ben Laden was not turned over. In
August of two thousand and nine, President Obama, who had
criticized the US invasion of a Rock as a war
of choice, said of the US involvement in Afghanistan, this
is not a war of choice. This is a war
of necessity. But the evidence shows, as we have seen,
that it, like a Rock, is a war of choice.
This conclusion is reinforced by reports indicating that the United
States had made the decision to invade Afghanistan two months
before the nine A. Leaven attacks. The background for this
decision was the United States longtime support for a pipeline
project proposed by UNICOL, which would transport oil and gas
from the Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean through
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and therefore not through Russian territory. This
project had been stymied through the nineteen nineties because of
the civil war that had been going on in Afghanistan
since the Soviet withdrawal in nineteen eighty nine. In the
mid nineteen nineties, the US government had supported the Taliban
with the hope that its military strength would enable it
to unify the country and therefore protect the pipeline. By
the late nineteen nineties, however, the Clinton administration had given
up on the Taliban. When the Bush administration came to power,
it decided to give the Taliban one last chance. During
a four day meeting in Berlin in July two thousand
and one, representatives of the Bush administration insisted that the
Taliban must create a government of national unity by sharing
power with factions friendly to the United States. The US
representatives reportedly said, either you accept our offer of a
carpet of gold, or we will bury you under a
carpet of bombs. After the Taliban refused this offer, the
Americans reportedly said military action against Afghanistan would go ahead
before the snows started falling in Afghanistan by the middle
of October at the latest, and indeed, given the fact
that the nine to eleven attacks occurred on nine to
eleven September eleventh, the Pentagon was a able to mobilize
to begin its attack on Afghanistan by October seven. It appears, therefore,
the United States invaded Afghanistan for reasons far different from
the official rationale according to which we were there to
capture or kill Osama bin Ladden. It turned now to
the second point, the claim that Osama bin Laden had
authorized the attacks. Even if it refused to give the
Taliban evidence for this claim, the Bush administration surely most
Americans probably assumed had such evidence and had provided it
to those who needed it. Again, however, the reports from
the time indicate otherwise. Two weeks after nine to eleven,
Secretary of State Colin Powell said that he expected in
the near future to put out a document that will
describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking bi
Laden to this attack. But at a joint press conference
the very next day with President Bush, Palell had to
withdraw this pledge, saying that most of the evidence is classified.
Seymour Hirsch, citing officials from both the CIA and the
Department of Justice, said the real reason why Powell withdrew
the pledge was a lack of solid information. Following week,
British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a document to show
that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the terrorist network
which he had planned and carried out the atrocities. On
eleventh September two thousand and one. Blair's report, however, began
by saying this document does not purport to provide a
prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law,
So it was good enough to go to war, not
good enough to go to court. The next day, the
BBC emphasized this weakness, saying, there is no direct evidence
in the public domain linking Osama bin Laden to the
eleventh September attacks. What about our own FBI? Its most
wanted terrorist web page on Usama bin Laden does not
list nine to eleven as one of the terrorist acts
for which he is wanted. Most Americans still do not
know this. When asked why not, the FBI's chief of
Investigative Publicity replied, because the FBI has no hard evidence
connecting ben Laden to nine to eleven. What about the
nine to eleven Commission? Its entire report is based on
the assumption that ben Laden was behind the attacks. However,
the report's evidence to support this premise has been disowned
by the commission's own co chairs, Thomas Kane and Lee Hamilton.
This evidence consisted of testimony that had reportedly been elicited
by the CIA from al Qaeda operatives. The most important
of these operatives were Colleague Sheik Mohammad, generally known simply
as KSM, who has been called the mastermind of the
nine to eleven attacks. If you read the nine to
eleven Commission's account of how ben Laden planned the attacks
and then check the notes in the back, you will
find that almost every note says the information came from KSM.
In two thousand and six, Cain and Hamilton wrote a
book giving the inside story of the nine to eleven Commission,
in which they called this information untrustworthy. They had no success,
they reported, in obtaining access to star witnesses in custody,
most notably Colleague Sheik Muhammad. Besides not being allowed by
the CIA to interview KSM, they were not permitted to
observe his interrogation through one glass. They were not even
allowed to talk to the interrogators. Therefore, Kane and Hamilton complained,
we had no way of evaluating the credibility of detaining information.
How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheik
Muhammad was telling the truth. They could not. Accordingly, neither
the Bush administration, the British government, the FBI, nor the
nine to eleven Commission ever provided reliable evidence of Ben
Luden's responsibility for the attacks. Some people argue to be
sure that such evidence is no longer needed because Ben
Lauden admitted his responsibility in a videotape that was discovered
in November two thousand and one. But Ben Lauden had
previously denied his involvement many times, and some Ben Lauden
experts call this later video a fake, and for good reasons.
Many of the physical features of the man on this
video are different from the those of Osama bin Ladden,
and he said many things that Osama bin Laden himself
would not have said. I've thus felled this out in
a little book called Osama bin Laden Dead or Love.
The FBI, in any case, evidently does not believe that
this video provides hard evidence of bin Laden's responsibility for
nine to eleven, or it would have revised it. Most
wanted terrorist page on him to add this fact. So
to review the first two points. The Taliban said it
would turn over bin Laden if the government had given
it good evidence of his responsibility for nine to eleven,
but our government refused, and good evidence of this responsibility
has never been given to the public. I turn now
to the third claim that even if there is no
proof that Osama bin Laden authorized the attacks, we have
abundant evidence that the attacks were carried out by Muslims
belonging to his Al Qaeda organization. This is still widely assumed.
The truth, however, is that the evidence in favor of
al Qaeda hijackers falls apart upon examination, and this suggests
that nine to eleven was instead a false flag attack,
an attack that people within our own government orchestrated while
planning evidence to implicate Muslims. Let us begin with the
nine to eleven Commissions claimed that the men who took
over the Plaines were devout Muslims ready to sacrifice their
lives for the cause. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that
Atta and other hijackers had made at least six trips
to Las Vegas, where they had engaged in some undecided,
some decidedly un Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures. The Chronicle
then quoted the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada
as saying, true Muslims don't drink, don't gamble, don't go
to strip clubs. The contradiction was especially strong with regard
to Mohammad Atta, said to be the ringleader. On the
one hand, according to the nine to eleven Commission, he
was very religious, even fanatically so. This characterization was supported
by Professor Ditmark mccooley, who with autist thesis supervisor at
a technical university in Hamburg, Germany in the nineteen nineties.
Professor mccooley says he knew this student only as Mohammed
el almir although his full name was the same as
his father's Mohammad al Amir Atta. In any case, Micoula
said that he was this student was very religious, prayed regularly,
and never touched alcohol. According to the American press, on
the other hand, Muhammad Aada drank heavily and one night,
after downing five glasses of vodka, shouted an Arabic word
that Newsweek said roughly translates as and now I need
what John Stewart has. Whenever he says the F word,
it gets blooped bleaped. But this is what the Newsweek wrote.
They put f dish dish k god. Investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker,
who wrote a book about Atta, stated that auDA regularly
went to strip clubs, hired prostitutes, drank heavily and even
took cocaine. auDA even lived with a stripper for several months,
and after she kicked him out, he came back and
disimboweled her cat and her kittens and strewed them on
her kitchen table. Could this be the same individual as
Professor Makuli's student, Mohammed al Almir, who would not even
shake hands with a woman upon being introduced, and who
never touched alcohol. I would put my hand in the fire,
said the professor that this Mohammed al Amir, I know,
will never taste or touch alcohol. Could the Otta described
by Hopsicker and the American press be the young man
whom this professor described as not a bodyguard type but
more a girl looking type. Could the man who disemboweled
kittens be the young man known to his father as
a gentle and tender boy who was nicknamed Nightingale. We
are clearly talking about two different men. This is confirmed
by the difference in their appearance. The American Otta was
often described as having a hard, cruel face, and the
standard FBI photo of him bears this out. The face
of the Hamburg student was quite different, as photos available
on the Internet show. Also, his professor described him as
very small, being one meter sixty two in height, which
means slightly under five foot four, whereas the American auDA
has been described as five eight and even five ten.
One final reason to believe that these different descriptions apply
to different men. The father of Mohammed al emir Ada
reported that on September twelfth, before either of them had
learned about the attacks, his son called him and they
spoke for two minutes about this and that. And in
case anybody doesn't know, Mohammadada was allegedly the pilot of
flight eleven, which to the North Tower. His father says
he called him the next day. There are also problems
in relation to many of the other alleged hijackers. For example,
the BBC reported that Walid al al Shiri, who supposedly
died along with Atta on American flight eleven, spoke to
journalists and American authorities in Casablanca the following week. Moreover,
there were clearly two men going by the name Ziad Jirrar,
the name of the hijacker pilot of United flight ninety three,
and those are just a few illustrations. Accordingly, besides the
fact that the men labeled the hijackers were not devout Muslims.
They might not have been Muslims of any type. And
if that were not bad enough for the official story,
there is no good evidence that these men were even
on the planes. All the evidence for this claim falls
apart upon examination. I will illustrate this point with a
couple of examples. Now, maybe two examples won't be enough
for you, but when you see about ten of them,
you start to become a believer. And you can get these.
In my two thousand and eight book, The New Pearl
Harbor revisited. One of the purported proofs that the nineteen
men identified as the hijackers were on the plains was
the reported discovery of some of their passports at christ sites.
But the reports of these discoveries are simply not believable.
For example, the FBI claimed that while searching the streets
after the destruction of the World Trade Center, they discovered
the passport of Sirtam Al Sukami, one of the hijackers
on American Flight eleven, which he chrished into the North Tower.
But for this to be true, the passport would have
had to survive the collapse of the North Tower, which
pulverized almost everything in the building into fine particles except
the dust into fine particles of dust except the steel,
and al Sukami's passport. But this claim was too absurd
to pass the Giggle test, and it was modified by
two thousand and four. The claim was that a passerby
picked it up and gave it to a New York
police detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed,
So rather than needing to survive the collapse of the
North Tower, the passport merely needed to escape from Alsukami's
pocket or his suitcase, then from the plane's cabin, and
then from the North Tower without being burned up or
even sins by that giant fireball that erupted immediately. This
version was no less ridiculous than the first one, and
the other stories about passports that crash sites are equally absurd. Actually,
the funniest one is about flight ninety three, So if
in the Q and A you want a funny story,
ask about that is widely believed. Of course, that we
know that there were hijackers on the airlines, thanks to
the numerous phone calls from the passengers and crew members
in which they reported the hijackings, but we have good
reasons to believe that these calls never occurred. More stuff
you've not been told by your corporate media. About fifteen
of the reported calls from the airliners were said to
have been made on cell phones, with about ten of
those being from United Flight ninety three alone, the one
that allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania. Three or four of those
calls were by Dina Burnett from her husband Tom Burnett,
and Dina says she knows he was using his cell
phone because she looked at her caller ID and there's
Tom's cell phone number. Proof right. However, given the technology
cell phone technology available in two thousand and one, high
altitude cell phone calls from airliners were not possible. They
were generally not possible over one thousand feet, and certainly
not above thirty five or even forty thousand feet, where
most of the calls were allegedly made. Articles describing the
impossibility of the calls were published in two thousand and two,
thousand and three, and four by two well known Canadians.
Ak Doudney, formerly a columnist for The Scientific American, and
well known economist Michelle Schoffedowski. Perhaps in response to these articles,
the FBI changed the story. In two thousand and six,
it had to present a report on the phone calls
from the airliners for the trial of Zakarias Mussawi, the
so called twentieth hijacker. In its report on United Flight
seventy ninety three, it said that the cell phones were
used for only two calls, both of which were made
after the plane had descended down to five thousand feet,
or at least one might argue that cell phone calls
were possible, these two calls were. Moreover, according to this
FBI report, the only two cell phone calls from all
four planes put together, So the FBI thereby avoided claiming
in official report for a court of law that any
high altitudes cell phone calls were made. But if the
FBI's new account is true, how do we explain that
so many people received reported receiving cell phone calls from
loved ones. Most of these people said that they had
been told by the caller that he or she was
using a cell phone, so we might suppose well they
misheard or they misremembered. Although it be a little hard
to believe that over a dozen people had the same
made the same era. But if you want to believe it,
you could maybe do that. But if so, still, what
do you do with Dina Burnett? She saw his cell
phone call his note number on her ID. Now, the
FBI says he called using a seatback phone. How in
the world would his cell phone number have gotten on
her caller ID. The only answer seems to be these
calls were faked. There was the technology at the time
to do that. You can morph the voice. This was
demonstrated in a nineteen ninety nine article in The Washington
Post using the voice of Colin Powell. Everybody in the
room swore it was Colin Powell. And also there are
devices to fake the caller ID. So maybe that was it,
or maybe somebody just had Tom's had taken Tom's cell
phone and made these calls to Dina from the ground
using voicemorphing. But whatever the case is, either of those,
Tom Burnett did not call his wife from flight ninety three.
We have lots of these problems, but let me go
right to the other one. The most famous of all
the reported calls from the plane were those reported by
Ted Olson, who was the Solicitor General at the time
you know him. He's the one that argued before the
Supreme Court successfully that the election in Florida, the election
recount should be stopped. The recount that would have made
al Gore the president. That's Ted Olsen. So we have
him to thank for four and then eight years of bushantiny. Well, anyway,
that morning, we also have him to thank for the
most famous of the phone calls from the planes. He
reported that his wife, Barbara Olson, many of you remember her,
well known commentator on CNN, that she had been on
flight seventy seven, that she had called him twice. The
first phone call lasted about a minute, and the second
one two three four minutes, and that she reported that
the hijackers had taken over the crew with knives and
box cutters. The only report of all the alleged phone
calls that mentioned box cutters. So this call is the
one that put that in the public imagination. But when
the FBI gave its report to the Mussaui trial, it
did mention Barbara Olson, but it said she attempted one call,
not to but she only attempted the call, that it
was unconnected and therefore it lasted zero seconds. Now this
is pretty amazing. The FBI is part of the Department
of Justice, and so in two thousand and six, the
FBI put on the website, on a website publicly available,
that those calls from Barbara Olson to Ted Olsen never happened.
There were no calls from Barbara Olson. Wouldn't you think
this would be front page news with screaming headlines. How
many of you before tonight had heard this story. I
think the mainstream press is not keeping us informed of
some very important developments. So anyway, these calls, these are
the main evidence that there were hijackers on the planes,
and now we learned these calls didn't happen. Furthermore, besides
not having evidence that these guys were on the planes,
we have pretty strong evidence they weren't. First of all,
psychiatrists got from a FOIL request the autopsy report from
the Pentagon crash. No hijacker names on the autopsy list,
not a single Arab name. The airlines released the flight manifest,
the passenger manifest from the four flights, no hijacker names
on the manifest, no Arab names whatsoever. And then here's
the clincher. In all these planes, there's a little transponder,
and pilots are trained that if there's any sign that
there's a hijacking, you punch in the universal hijacking Code
seventy five hundred takes about two seconds. Four flights, two
pilots in each cabin, eight pilots altogether. No one did
that that day. You say, well, maybe they didn't have time.
According to the official story about flight ninety three, it
took the hijackers thirty seconds to break into the cabin.
Can you really believe that these highly trained pilots would
not have thought to punch in the hijack code. Okay,
it looks like what we have here is a fall
flag attack, and these are very common by imperialist nations.
They use these when there's some other nation they want
to attack. They attack their own people, then plant evidence
to show that the other nation did it. So Japan
did this when it was ready to attack Nanchuria that
started the Asian part of World War two. Hitler did
it when he was ready to start to attack Poland
that started the European part of World War two. Our
own Pentagon chiefs of a document called Operation Northwoods. They
brought to President Kennedy shortly after Fidel Castro had taken
Cuba back for the Cubans after we had controlled it
for a half century, and this was labeled pretexts for
an invasion of Cuba. And in these pretexts were events
that would kill American citizens and then blame the Cubans
and use that for the basis of the attack. Now,
this proposal was turned down by President Kennedy. But in
two thousand and one the White House was occupied by
an administration that wanted to attack Afghanistan and Iraq and
other predominantly Muslim countries. They had seven Muslim countries on
their hit list, and so it appears evidence was planeted
to implicate Muslims. I turned now to the strongest evidence
that the nine to eleven attacks were orchestrated by insiders
rather than foreign terrace. The collapse of Building seven of
the World Trade Center, which is the subject of my
most recent book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center seven,
by the final official report about nine to eleven is
unscientific and false. I speak of the mysterious collapse because
from the very beginning, the collapse of this building was
seen as the biggest mystery of nine to eleven given
the fact that the twin towers had been hit by planes,
which then started big fires because of the jet fuel,
most people evidently thought it understandably understandable, if wrongly, that
these two buildings came down. But Billing seven was not
hit by a plane, and yet it came down at
five that afternoon. This would have meant, assuming that it
was not deliberately demolished, the Building seven, had been brought
down by fire alone, and this would have been an
unprecedented occurrence. New York Times writer James Glands wrote, experts
said no building like it, a modern steel reinforced high rife,
had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. Glanstone quoted
a structural engineer as saying, within the structural engineering community,
building seven is considered to be much more important to
understand than the twin towers, because engineers had no answer
to the question why did seven come down? Moreover, although
Glance spoke of uncontrolled fire, there were significant fires on
only six of this building's forty seven floors, and these
fires were visible for at most three or four hours,
And yet fires have burnt earn in other steel frame buildings.
For seventeen and eighteen hours turning these buildings into towering
infernals without causing collapse. So why did Building seven come down? FEMA,
which in two thousand and two put out the first
official report on this building, admitted that its best hypothesis
had only a low probability of occurrence, which is scientific
speech for we don't have a clue By its best hypothesis.
FEMA meant that meant the best hypothesis it could come
up with, in light of the fact that it, as
a government agency, could not posit the use of explosives. Now,
why might anyone think that explosives had brought this building down?
One even is simply that prior to nine to eleven,
every collapse of a steel frame rise building in our
universe was brought about by explosives in the procedure known
as controlled demolition. Collapses had never been caused by fires, earthquakes,
or any other cause other than explosives. Another reason to
posit explosives is that the building came straight down, collapsing
into its own footprint. Now this is the part of
the lecture where I most need a video. How many
of you have seen Buildings seven come down? So how
many have not not seen that. Okay. If you've not
and your skeptical, just go google collapse of World Trade
Center seven, collapse of Building seven. You'll find it. You'll
see this building is perfectly stable. This is a very
tall building in half of the states in the Union.
It would have been the tallest building in the state.
So this should have been big news. It's sitting, They're
perfectly stable, and then all of a sudden, It's pretty
dramatic when you see it. My acting isn't quite so good.
I got to work on playing buildings, playing Building seven now.
For this to happen, this building was held up by
eighty two steel columns, these vertical columns, eighty two of them.
For the roofline to remain level, all eighty two columns
had to fail simultaneously within a split second. This cannot
happen because of fire. This is what happens in the
type of controlled demolition known as implosion, or the building
folds in on itself. It is not something that can
be caused by fires. Simply seeing the video of this
building coming down makes it obvious to anyone who knows
anything about these things that it was brought down by explosives.
On nine to eleven itself. CBS anchor Dan Rathers said,
it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen on television
where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite
to knock it down. In two thousand and six, a
filmmaker named as asked Danny you'll Winkle, the owner of
a controlled demolition company in the Netherlands, to comment on
a video of the collapse of Building seven, without telling
him what it was. Although you'll Winkle was in the
in the field, he had never heard that a third
building came down that day. After viewing the film, Jill
Winkle said, they simply blew up columns and the rest
caved in afterwards. This is controlled demolition. When asked if
he was certain, he replied, absolutely, it's been imploded. This
was a higher job. A team of experts did this.
An organization called Architects and Engineers for nine to eleven Truth,
which was formed in two thousand and six, now has
over twelve hundred members. When I did an interview with
Amy Goodman a few years ago, this was the crucial question,
how many engineers did you have? We didn't have any.
The implicit assumption seemed to be well, if you had
a bun engineers, we would believe you. Now we have
twelve hundred architects and engineers. Somehow they haven't come around.
Many of the people said they joined architects and engineers
when they saw the collapse of Building seven. In the
light of all these considerations and investigations, seeking the truth
about Building seven should have begun with a hypothesis that it,
too had been brought down by explosives. However, this hypothesis
did not provide the starting point for NIST, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, which took over from FEMA
the responsibility for writing the official report on the destruction
of the World Trade Center. Rather, NISS said, with regard
to Building seven, the challenge was to determine if a
fire induced floor system failure could occur in WTC seven
under an ordinary building contents fire That was the challenge.
So although every other steel framed building that has collapsed
did so because explosives were used to destroy its support columns,
NIST said, in effect, we think fire brought down this one.
To understand why NIST started with this hypothesis, it helps
to know that it is an agency of the US
Commerce Department, which means that all the years that it
was working on these reports, it was an agency of
the bush Cheney administration. Also, a scientist who had worked
for ANST reported that by two thousand and one, nists
had been fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,
so that scientists working there were had lost their scientific
independence and became little more than hired guns. One manifestation
of NIS's political nature may be the fact that it
delayed its report on Building seven year after year after year,
releasing it only late in two thousand and eight, when
the bush Cheney administration was prepared to leave office. Be
that as it may, NIS did in August of two
thousand and eight, finally put out a report in the
form of a draft for public comment. Announcing this draft
report at a press conference, sham Sunder Nis lead investigator, said,
our take home message today is that the reason for
the collapse of World Trade Center seven is no longer
a mystery. World Trade Center seven collapse because the fire
is fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives, however,
and then he said science is really behind what we
have said. However, far from being supported by good science,
this report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud.
Two of the major types of scientific fraud, as defined
by the National Science Foundation are fabrication, which is the
making up of results, and falsification, which means either changing
or omitting data. I will begin with falsification. Claiming that
it found no evidence of controlled demolition, NIS simply omitted
or distorted all such evidence, some of which was testimonial.
Two city officials, Barry Jennings of the Housing Authority and
Michael hess the city's Corporation Council and Juliani's good friend,
reported that they became trapped by a massive explosion in
Building seven shortly after they arrived there at nine a m. NIS, however,
claimed that what they called an explosion was really just
the impact of debris from the collapse of the North Tower,
which did not occur until ten twenty eight, in other words,
at least an hour later than what they reported. Jennings
had explicitly said that they were trapped by this explosion
before either of the towers had come down, which would
mean before nine fifty nine, when the South tower came down.
This rather obviously distorted this testimonial evidence. People reported that
explosions went off in the late afternoon when the building
finally started to come down. Reporter Peter DeMarco of the
New York Daily News said there was a rumble, the
building's top row of windows popped out, Then all the
windows on the thirty ninth floor popped out, Then the
thirty eighth floor, pop pop, pop was all you heard
until the building sank into a rising cloud of gray.
NIS dealt with such testimonies by simply ignoring them. Nis
also ignored a lot of physical evidence the Building seven
was brought down by explosives. For example, three professors from
Worcester Polytechnic Institute discovered a piece of steel from Building
seven that had melted so severely that it had holes
in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese.
New York Times, pointing out that the fires in the
building could not have been hot enough to melt the steel,
called this the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation. Professors
and a report included as an appendix to the two
thousand and two FEMA report, said a detailed study into
the mechanism of this phenomenon is needed. When this report
on Building seven appeared, However, it did not mention this
mysterious piece of steel. NIST even claimed that no recovered
steel from Building seven was identified, and this was just
the beginning of this omission of physical evidence. The nearby
Deutsche Bank building was heavily contaminated by dust when the
towers came down, but the bank's insurance company refused to
pay for the cleanup, claiming that the dust in the
Deutsche Bank building was simply ordinary building dust, not something
from the WTC event. So the bank hired the RJ
Lee Group, a scientific research organization, to do a study,
and their study showed that the dust in the building
was World Trade Center dust with a unique chemical signature.
Part of this signature was spherical iron particles, and this
meant the RJ Lee Group said that iron had melted
during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles. Iron does
not melt until it reaches twenty eight hundred degrees fahrenheit,
which is about one thousand degrees hotter than the fires
in the building could have possibly been under the most
optimal optimal circumstances, which did not exist, by the way.
The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been
reached at which lead would have undergone vaporization, meaning over
three thousand degrees fahrenheit. Another study was carried out by
scientists at the US Geological Survey, so this is a
government agency. Besides also finding iron particles, these scientists found
that molybdenum have been melted, even though it has an
extremely high melting point almost five thousand degrees fahrenheit. These
two studies proved, therefore, that something had produced temperatures many
times higher than the fires could have produced. Nist Tower
made no mention of these studies, but even this was
not the end of its omission of physical evidence. A
report by several scientists, including University of Copenhagen chemist Nils Herrott,
showed that the world trade centered dust contained unreacted nanothermite.
Whereas ordinary thermite has been around for over a century
and is an incendiary, nanothermite is a high explosive of
very powerful, high exploicity. This report by Herrot and his
colleagues did not appear till two thousand and nine, several
months after the publication of NIS's final report, so they
could not have reported about that, but NIS should have
as a matter of routine. Tested the World Trade centered
dust for signs of incendiaries such as ordinary thermite and
explosives such as nano thermite, and this is in their manuals.
This is standard and particularly when there's any sign of explosion,
you must test. They didn't do it. When asked whether
it did, Nis said no. When a reporter asked Michael
Newman and this spokeman, why not, Newman replied, because there
was no evidence of that scratching her head. The reporter said,
but how can you know there's no evidence if you
don't look for it. First, Newman replied, if you're looking
for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time and
the taxpayer there is money. I'm really not making it up.
Another case of fabrication is a graphic in NIS report
showing that at five pm there were very big fires
covering much of the north face of floor twelve. They
picked out three floors eleven, twelve, and thirteen and they
said these with crucial floors, they're the ones that cost
the collapse. This claim is essential to this explanation as
to why the building collapsed. Just twenty one minutes later,
at five point twenty one this raging, enormous fire. However,
if you look back at NS two thousand and four report,
you will find this statement. Around four forty five pm,
a photograph showed fires on floors seven, eight, nine, and
eleven near the middle of the north face. Floor twelve
was burned out by this time. Other photographs even show
that the twelfth four floor fire had virtually burned out
by four o'clock, and yet Nist, in his final report
claims that fires were still going strong on that floor
at five o'clock. In addition to omitting, falsifying and fabricating evidence,
Nist affirms a miracle. How many scientists in the room.
In addition, you have perhaps seen the cartoon in which
the physics professor has written a big proof on the board,
mathematical equation equal, therefore mathematical equation therefore well, and then
at one point it says, then a miracle happens. Now
this is humorous and particularly to scientists, because in science
that's the one thing you absolutely cannot do. You cannot
affirm a miracle, meaning of violation of the fundamental laws
of physics. And yet that's what NIS does. I will
explain members of the nine to eleven. Truth movement had
long been pointing out that Building seven came down at
the rate of a free falling object, at least virtually felt.
In other words, that if you were on the top
of Building seven and you felt it start to move,
and that knocked a brick out of your hand, and
then the building starts going down, you would go down
at the same speed as that brick. That's what freefall is.
Virtual freefall would be very close to it. In this
draft for public comment put out in August two thousand
and eight, it denied this, saying at the time that
the time it took for the upper floors the only
floors that are visible on the video, to come down,
was approximately forty percent longer than the computed free fall
time and was consistent with physical principles. This statement applies
any assertion that the building did come down in freefall
would not be consistent with physical principles, meaning the principles
of physics the law of physics. Explaining why not, Sean
Sunder said a free fall time would be the fall
time of an object that has no structural components below it.
The time it took for those seventeen floors to disappear
was roughly forty percent longer than freefall, and that is
not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that
was provided in this particular case, all those eighty two columns,
in all that concrete would offer. If you've ever fallen
through a steel frame concrete building, you know it provides
a little structural resistance to your body. And you had
a sequence of structural failures that had to take place.
This is the notion of progressive Call them eighty one,
then call them eighty two, and then keeps going. So
he says you had a sequence of structural failures that
had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous. In saying this,
Thunder was presupposing nis rejection of controlled demolition, which could
have produced a free fall collapse by causing all eighty
two columns to fail simultaneously, in favor of niss fire theory,
which necessitated a theory of progressive collapse. In response, high
school physics teacher, and I stress high school because this
is not sophisticated physics that you cannot understand. This is
like freshman or eighth grade physics. David Chandler challenged Thunder's
denial of free fall, pointing out that Thunder's forty percent
claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity. And Chandler
puts this on YouTube and you can he slows it
down and so you can watch him measuring it. Chandler
then placed this video on the Internet showing that by
measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could
see that for about two and a half seconds, the
acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall. In this
final report, which came out in November, Nist admitted freefall amazing,
but he did it dividing the building's descent into three stages.
Nist described the second phase as a free fall descent
over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately two
point twenty five seconds. So it's only quibbled with Chandler
was two and a quarter seconds, not two and a half.
Trivial and gravitational acceleration is just a synonym for freefall
mean it's coming down at the rate that gravity pulls
something down with the acceleration of gravity. So, after presenting
over six hundred pages of descriptions, testimonies, photographs, graphs, analyzes
explanations and mathematical formula, and this says, in effect, then
a miracle happens. Why would this be a miracle was
explained by Chandler, who said freefall can only be achieved
if there is zero resistance to the motion, because if
there's any resistance, the stuff coming down the top floor
uses some of its energy to push the stuff out
of the way, and so it couldn't come down in
free fall. You will have freefall with zero resistance. In
other words, the top floor of the building could come
down in freefall only if all the support in the
lower forty six floors, all that steel, all that concrete,
had been removed simultaneously, and that could only happen with explosives.
If everything had not been removed, and the upper floors
had come down in freefall anyway, even for only a
second or two, even for only a half a second,
a miracle, meaning of violation of laws the physics, would
have occurred. That was what Sunder himself had explained the
previous August, saying that a free falling object would be
one that has no structural components below it to offer resistance.
But then in November, while still defending the fire theory,
NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened
for a period of two point twenty five seconds. NIST
admitted the descent of World Trade Center seven was characterized
by gravitational acceleration free fall. Knowing that it had thereby
affirmed a miracle, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis
was consistent with the laws of physics. In its August draft,
in which it said the collapse occurred forty floorer than freefall,
NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis was consistent with
physical principles. One encountered this phrase time and time again.
In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase
was removed. NIS thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report
on World Trade Center seven, by admitting free fall, what
continued to ignite deny that explosives were used is not
consistent with the laws of physics. The science of World
Trade Center seven is therefore settled. This fact is reflected
in the agreement of many hundreds of professionals with various
forms of expertise and engineers, firefighters, physicists, and chemists that
this building was brought down by explosives. This truth has
also been recently recognized by a symposium in one of
our leading social science journals, American Behavioral Scientist, which treats
This symposium treats nine to eleven as an example of
what its authors called scads state crimes against democracy, state crimes,
criticizing the majority of the academic world for its blithe
dismissal of more than one law of thermodynamics that is
violated by the official theory of the World Trade Center collapses.
These authors also criticize the academy for its failure to
protest when Professor Stephen Jones found himself forced out of
a tenured position for merely reminding the world that physical
laws about which there is no dissent what soever. Their
italics contradict the official story. Now, Normally, if a professor
with a tenure position gets removed from his job, the
AAUP American University Association University Professors protests, big protests, not
hardly a peep here, even though, as this document says,
all Stephen Jones as physicists at Brigham Young University. All
he was doing was pointing out that the laws of
Newtonian physics rule out the NIST explanation of World Trade
Center seven, and not anyone in the academy would come
to his defense. Not the official AAUP would not do that.
And now the world can see, if only it will
look that even NIST, in its final report, did not
dissent from these laws of physics. By admitting that Building
seven came down in free fall for over two seconds,
while simultaneously removing its previous claim that its report was
consistent with physical principles, NIS implicitly admitted that the laws
of physics rule out its own non demolition theory of
the building's collapse. NISTS thereby implicitly admitted that explosives were used,
and with that implicit admission, NISTS undermined the al Qaeda
theory of nine to eleven. Why for one thing, the
straight down nature of the collapse of the twin towers
in Building seven means that the buildings were subjected to
the type of controlled demolition known as implosion, which is,
in the words of the Controlled Demolition website, by far
the trickiest type of explosives project. The easiest type has
just knocked the building over sideways. By far the trickiest
type of explosive project. Which only a handful of blasting
companies in the world possess enough experience to perform Okada terraces,
simply wouldn't have had the expertise to do this. Second,
the only reason to go to the trouble of bringing
a building straight down is to avoid damaging nearby buildings.
Had the World Trade Center buildings toppled over sideways, they
would have caused massive destruction in Lower Manhattan, destroying dozens
of other buildings and killing tens of thousands of people.
Does anyone believe that even if al Kada had had
the expertise, they would have had the courtesy to bring
the building straight down. A third problem is that foreign
terrafts could not have obtained access to the buildings for
all the hours it would have taken to plant explosives.
Only insiders could have done this. The science of the
collapse of World Trade Center seven therefore disproves the claim
used to justify the war in Afghanistan that America was
attacked on nine to eleven by al Qaeda. It's the
gest instead that nine to eleven was a false flag
operation to provide a pretext to attack Muslim nations. The
official rationale for a presence in Afghanistan is invalid, and
we are there for other reasons which our political and
military leaders dare not admit. The war is neither legally
nor morally justified. It is in fact an abomination. We
should demand that our troops be withdrawn as quickly as possible,
Thank you very much. Listenings of the fact count of
radio network.
Speaker 2: Just the facts, mammy, mm hmm.