|
WELCOME
TO OUR WEBSITE
"We
to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American
Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," ...
"It was just so far from the truth. . . It's one of
those loose ends that never got tied."
Thomas
H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor and
co-chair of the 9/11 Commission. [full
article]
How
can we be satisfied with the 9/11 Commission Report when
the leaders of the 9/11 Commission say that they
were lied to?
Update
January, 2008: Hamilton and Kean say that the CIA
stonewalled the investigation of the 9/11 Commission: [read
article]
Purpose
of this Site
The
purpose of this site is to introduce questions
that have been raised about 9/11 and to connect those who
believe that a new, thorough, and truly independent
forensic investigation is needed. The supporters of this
website, while agreeing on the need for such an investigation,
come from a number of perspectives and do not endorse any particular view on what actually
happened on and surrounding 9/11/2001.
It
must be emphasized that some of the questions about 9/11
are more controversial than others. Some issues
are compelling to some supporters of a new investigation
but not to others. Supporters of a new
investigation have no agenda other than securing a new
investigation that will address all legitimate questions
that our government has not yet addressed.
What
Really Happened on September 11, 2001?
The
Government's Official Version of Events
The
government's Official Version of 9/11 events, which some
refer to, legitimately, as "the official conspiracy
theory", is that:
>
All of the
events of September 11, 2001 were brought about entirely
and exclusively by a conspiracy of Arab terrorists.
>
There was no negligence
on the part of U.S. government officials, either prior
to 9/11, on 9/11, or after 9/11, that required subsequent
disciplinary or corrective action.
>
And there was no
complicity (including any deliberate failure to act) on the part of the Bush Administration or
any individuals within the U.S. Government.
Supporters
of the Official Version of events deny that
important questions remain unanswered or that a new 9/11
investigation is needed.
The
alternatives
There
is a wide spectrum of views among doubters of the
Official Version.
>
At one end are those
who believe that the U.S. Government
failed to respond properly to intelligence indicating
that the 9/11 attacks were coming, or that there were
unexplained failures to follow established procedure on
9/11 (such as procedures to intercept wayward aircraft),
or that there were failures to protect people on and
after 9/11. They believe that
the failures on 9/11 need to be explained, and that steps should be taken to prevent similar failures in the
future.
>
In
the middle of the spectrum, some believe that the failure to respond to
the pre-9/11 intelligence was deliberate, that certain
individuals within the U.S. Government "let it
happen on purpose" ("LIHOP"). And some
believe that individuals within the U.S. government
helped the Arab terrorists achieve their goals.
>
Those
at the other end of the spectrum believe that
individuals within the U.S. Government, or connected to
people within the U.S. Government, actually planned
the attacks ("made it happen on purpose" or
"MIHOP"), and that any Arab terrorists were only
patsies.
Supporters
of a new investigation include those whose concerns
relate only to the failure of the government to fully
explain the events of 9/11, including structural
failures, and those who question aspects of the
government's response to the events of 9/11, including
false
statements by the EPA regarding the air quality in New
York following the attacks. This group believes
that these questions must be answered in order to
prevent the deaths and illnesses that should have been
avoided on 9/11 even in the absence of any pre-9/11
negligence or complicity on the part of any government
officials. It is not
necessary to suspect that there were controlled
demolitions or any complicity of government officials in
9/11 in order to conclude that there must be a new
investigation. See our Voter's
Guide to Ballot
Question 2.
The
belief commonly shared by critics of the Official
Version of 9/11 Events
Across the
spectrum of critics, essentially all agree that:
>
The 9/11
Commission Report failed in explaining the events on and
surrounding 9/11.
>
A new, thorough, and
fully-independent forensic investigation is warranted.
>
Without such an investigation, the threat of another
attack like 9/11 remains unabated, and mistakes made in
response to 9/11 may be repeated.
Why
Doubt the Official Version of 9/11 Events?
Many
questions have been raised about the Official Version of
9/11 Events. For a review of many of the
important questions, complete with links to source
material, see this Introduction
to the Evidence and our Voter's
Guide to Burlington Ballot Question
2.
Also
see the following discussions:
procedural
and intelligence questions and
physical
anomalies and questions.
Shortly
after 9/11, Colin Powell said on "Meet the
Press" that a paper outlining the evidence
supporting the government's identification of the
alleged perpetrators would soon be released. Such a paper was never
released. When later asked about the paper, White
House Press Secretary Scott McClellan denied that Colin
Powell had promised one.
Consider
who was running
the 9/11 Commission.
Consider
the "experts" and the changing official
collapse theories: Kevin
Ryan article.
The
9/11 Commission Report failed to address numerous points that
are inconsistent with the official story, and seems to
have distorted many others. [more]
A
review
of the 9/11 Commission Report.
Here
is another list of reasons
to doubt the official story.
Here
are links to over 250 "smoking
guns" reported by mainstream sources.
The
Pentagon estimates that it is spending approximately
$6.8 billion per month on the Iraq war [source].
Only $15 million was budgeted for the 9/11 Commission,
and $16 million was allocated to the investigation by
the National Institutes of Standards and Technology. In other words, the amount the U.S.
government allocated to investigating 9/11 is less than
what is spent on the Iraq war every four hours.
If
you are new to this issue, you are encouraged to view
the films and read the
articles and books
that are referenced in this website and to visit the websites and other materials
linked throughout the site.
Even members of the 9/11 Commission felt that
they were lied to by the Pentagon. [Read
article]
Osama Bin Laden is not even
wanted by the FBI in connection
with 9/11. [more]
Listen to 2/22/07 Vermont
Public Radio interview with Kyle Hence,
producer of "9/11 Press for Truth"
"Jersey Widow, New England Filmmaker Urge Support
for 9/11 Ballot Measure", Seven
Days, 2/21/07
Why
is this so important?
There is general agreement among those
calling for a real investigation of 9/11 that the 9/11
Commission did not adequately study the failures of 9/11
or identify those individuals responsible for such
failures. Are we any safer now than we were before
9/11?
Potentially
far more important are the policies adopted by our
government for which 9/11 is cited as justification,
including:
>
the USA
Patriot Act (reportedly
written prior to 9/11);
>
warrantless wire-tapping (reportedly commenced long
before 9/11);
>
torture, secret prisons, and
extraordinary renditions;
>
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;
>
the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 and the suspension of
habeas corpus;
>
expanded and unchecked
presidential powers.
The
president has used 9/11 repeatedly to justify his tools
in the "War on Terror", and Congress has
willingly granted all of his requests. Would any
of this have been possible without 9/11?
If
any significant part of the Official Version of 9/11
events is false, isn't exposing such
falsehood the most effective way, if not the only way,
to restore our civil liberties and reverse the Bush
Administration's foreign policies? If the
government's version of events is correct,
shouldn't we be allowed to see the supporting evidence?
Some
commentators suggest that the real threat to our freedom
is not coming from foreign terrorists. [Paul
Craig Roberts essay]
Discuss this with
others. Think critically. Ask questions.
Reach your own
conclusions.
A
large and growing number of current and former
government officials, including members of the military
and intelligence agencies, now doubt the official
version of 9/11 events. [read
more]
The
"Jersey Girls", a group of widows of victims
of 9/11 who were largely responsible for the creation of
the 9/11 Commission, are calling for the release of information that
they feel is necessary in determining what the U.S.
government really did and did not do prior to 9/11.
[Sign
their online petition.]
Lorie Van Auken, one of the Jersey Girls, has
said: "Only an honest re-evaluation of how
the 9/11 attacks could have happened will allow us to
reverse the adverse consequences of overreaching laws
and the existing loop holes in our security systems in
order to allow us to be safer in the future."
In the new film 9/11
Press for Truth, the Jersey Girls explain their
extreme disappointment with the job done by the 9/11
Commission.
What
do other families of survivors say? [read
article]
As
of October, 2006, a substantial majority of Americans
now have doubts about the Official Version of 9/11
events. [view
poll results.]
"We
didn't want to scare people." Christie
Todd Whitman,
head of the EPA, answering charges that she, with the
assistance of the Bush Administration, deliberately
withheld information about the toxicity of the air in
New York City following the attacks. Thousands of
New Yorkers are now sick and dying as the result of this
toxic air, which they were told was safe to breathe.
The
supporters of this site encourage you to consider
competing viewpoints. A website that disputes many
claims of the critics of the official story and offers
links to many other similar sites is www.debunking911.com.
As you consider the competing viewpoints and responses
to questions, ask yourself whether all of the questions
are really answered (are any of the Jersey
Widows' questions answered?), and whether the answers are
credible and authoritative.
Finally,
note this point by the creator of the debunking site
just referenced: "If
you ask me today: 'Some have argued that some leaders in
the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were
planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they
consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or
disagree with this argument?' I would say
yes." http://www.debunking911.com/zogby.htm
If
you agree that a new 9/11 investigation is warranted,
please help make it
happen.
A
new investigation will NOT happen unless we all join
together and demand it.
If,
after reviewing the facts, you are not convinced that a
new investigation is warranted, please write to the
administrator of the site to share your thoughts on
this. We would appreciate the opportunity to
understand your reasoning and compare it with ours.
FURTHER
MATERIAL FOR CONSIDERATION
>
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN'S NEW (MAY,
2007) BOOK, "DEBUNKING 9/11 DEBUNKING", IS THE
MOST THOROUGH AND COMPELLING COMPILATION OF EVIDENCE
THAT THE OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS NOT TRUE. [more
info]
>
ROSIE O'DONNELL SPEAKS
OUT [see
article and video clips]
> DEFEND
HABEAS CORPUS
>
IMPEACHMENT SITES: www.vtimpeach.com
http://www.impeachbush.tv/
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/07/342801.shtml
http://impeachcheney.org/
|
