Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance

11 Jan


I spent a year in Sweden a few years after the assassination of Olaf Palme in 1986, the controversial former prime minister of the country who at the time of his death was serving as a member of the Swedish cabinet. He was assassinated while walking with his wife back to their apartment in the historic part of the city after attending a nearby movie. It was a shocking event in a Sweden that had prided itself on moderateness in politics and the avoidance of involvement in the wars of the twentieth century. A local drifter, with a history of alcoholism, was charged and convicted of the crime, but many doubts persisted, including on the part of Ms. Palme who analogized her situation to that of Coretta King who never believed the official version of her martyred husband’s death.

I had a particular interest in this national traumatic event as my reason for being in Sweden was a result of an invitation to be the Olaf Palme Professor, a rotating academic post given each year to a foreign scholar, established by the Swedish Parliament as a memorial to their former leader. (after the Social Democratic Party lost political control in Sweden this professorship was promptly defunded, partly because Palme was unloved by conservatives and partly because of a neoliberal dislike for public support of such activities)

In the course of my year traveling around Sweden I often asked those whom I met what was their view of the assassination, and what I discovered was that the responses told me more about them than it did about the public event. Some thought it was a dissident faction in the Swedish security forces long angered by Palme’s neutralist policies, some believed it was resentment caused by Palme’s alleged engineering of Swedish arms sales to both sides in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, some believed it was the CIA in revenge for Palme’s neutralism during the Cold War, some believed it could have criminals in the pay of business tycoons tired of paying high taxes needed to maintain the Swedish maximalist version of a welfare state, and there were other theories as well. What was common to all of these explanations was the lack of evidence that might connect the dots. What people believed happened flowed from their worldview rather than the facts of the event—a distrust of the state, especially its secret operations, or a strong conviction that special interests hidden from view were behind prominent public events of this character.

In a way, this process of reflection is natural, even inevitable, but it leads to faulty conclusions. We tend to process information against the background of our general worldview and understanding, and we do this all the time as an efficient way of coping with the complexity of the world combined with our lack of time or inclination to reach conclusions by independent investigation. The problem arises when we confuse this means of interpreting our experience with an effort to provide an explanation of a contested public event. There are, to be sure, conspiracies that promote unacknowledged goals, and enjoy the benefit of government protection. We don’t require WikiLeaks to remind us not to trust governments, even our own, and others that seem in most respects to be democratic and law-abiding. And we also by now should know that governments (ab)use their authority to treat awkward knowledge as a matter of state secrets, and criminalize those who are brave enough to believe that the citizenry needs to know the crimes that their government is committing with their trust and their tax dollars.

The arguments swirling around the 9/11 attacks are emblematic of these issues. What fuels suspicions of 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.

This brings me to the Arizona shootings, victimizing both persons apparently targeted for their political views and random people who happened to be there for one reason or another, innocently paying their respects to a congresswoman meeting constituents outside a Tucson supermarket. As with the Palme assassination, the most insistent immediate responses come from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, both proceeding on presuppositions rather than awaiting evidence.

On one side are those who say that right-wing hate speech and affection for guns were clearly responsible, while Tea Party ultra-conservatives and their friends reaffirm their rights of free speech, denying that there is any connection between denouncing their adversaries in the political process and the violent acts of a deranged individual seemingly acting on his own.  If we want to be responsible in our assessments, we must restrain our political predispositions, and get the evidence. Let us remember that what seems most disturbing about the 9/11 controversy is the widespread aversion by government and media to the evidence that suggests, at the very least, the need for an independent investigation that proceeds with no holds barred.

Such an investigation would contrast with the official ‘9/11 Commission’ that proceeded with most holds barred.  What has been already disturbing about the Arizona incident are these rival rushes to judgment without bothering with evidence. Such public irresponsibility polarizes political discourse, making conversation and serious debate irrelevant.

There is one more issue raised, with typical candor and innocence, by the filmmaker, Michael Moore. If a Muslim group has published a list of twenty political leaders in this country, and put crosshairs of a gun behind their pictures, is there any doubt that the Arizona events would be treated as the work of a terrorist,, and the group that had pre-identified such targets would be immediately outlawed as a terrorist organization. Many of us, myself included, fervently hoped, upon hearing the news of the shootings, that the perpetrator of this violence was neither a Muslim nor a Hispanic, especially an illegal immigrant. Why? Because we justly feared the kind of horrifying backlash that would have been probably generated by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly,  Sarah Palin, and their legion of allies. Now that the apparent perpetrator is a young white American, the talk from the hate mongers, agains without bothering with evidence, is of mental disorder and sociopathology. This is faith-based pre-Enlightenment ‘knowledge.’

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.

About these ads

230 Responses to “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance”

  1. Joseph Farsakh January 11, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    Thank you Richard. Once again, your perspective reignites hope in the existence of sound logic and sanity.

    • Richard Falk January 12, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

      Thanks, Joe, we share the same hopes!

      • 1dognsuds February 9, 2011 at 11:44 am #

        To your long long life. Robert U.S.A

      • 1dognsuds February 9, 2011 at 12:02 pm #

        I hope you live to see your 200th birthday!

      • Richard Falk February 9, 2011 at 5:21 pm #

        me too! at least, I think so. There is a novel by the Portuguese writer, Saramago, about
        the disruption of society when people no longer die!

      • Ray Joseph Cormier February 9, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

        Before Saramago there was a book written about a planet that was created to be a Paradise Garden for ALL it’s inhabitants. The inhabitants were naked and unashamed, forever young, males and females living in a perfect harmony all together as One.

        The planet is called Earth, and in the Beginning, God created it to be that way for humans. Anyone understanding the Spirit of the letter, can read all about it in the Book of Genesis.

        One does not have to believe in God to see this earth could be arriving at it’s last days if there is not a re-evaluating change of heart among the people and a renewal in Spirit.

        Prime Minister Trudeau once described Canadians as being materially rich, but Spiritually poor.

        Watching the situation in Egypt, I have that sense of deja vu.

        Wasn’t it Moses the Law Giver who said to Pharaoh in Egypt in the name of I AM, “Let my people go?” History really does repeat itself.

    • Kouby February 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

      Yes, thank you for a bit of logic and courage in this madness called politics.
      Truth cannot be withheld for long if the people are prepared to seek it.
      Again, thank you sir.

  2. Claudia Damon January 11, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    “Don’t connect dots without evidence” indeed. You are so correct. The trouble is that too often people don’t want to “hear” the evidence if it doesn’t comport with their worldview. You alluded to this when you wrote, “What people believed happened flowed from their worldview rather than the facts of the event.” I would just push that out into the future further and would say that all too often belief and emotion trump evidence and reason. We have to fight this with all our might.

    There can’t be any question that we live in a time of vitriolic discourse in the political arena. Whether that influenced the shooter in Arizona or not, who knows. But I think Paul Krugman hit the nail on the head when he asked, in a January 9, 2011 New York Times Op-Ed piece: “… will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before? If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.”

    • Richard Falk January 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

      Thanks, Claudia, for your perceptive comments. I think we have to separate the argument about the linkage of the toxic rhetoric to this particular incident from the argument about the rhetoric, which relates to the quality of democracy and civic discourse. Whether it also makes the society more prone to resolving its tensions violently remains conjectural according to my sense of the evidence.

      • Claudia Damon January 12, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

        Agreed–apples and oranges. The rhetoric makes me sick at heart.

      • Jeffrey Hill January 26, 2011 at 12:48 pm #

        Hey Richard,

        Please look at this factually documented, sourced information that poves beyond any doubt that there was a cover up concerning September 11, 2001.

        link –

        http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/4080726/

        Sincerely,
        Jeffrey Hill
        Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, Canada
        (705) 945 – 0011

  3. Christopher Hoare January 12, 2011 at 8:54 pm #

    I’m afraid waiting for compete investigation and a thorough disclosure of solid evidence is something that will only appear when the public has been turned away by some other event. Today, he who waits for truth must remain silent.

    All one can do until then is connect the unverified stories in various forms of media to fit the context as one understands it. The result is — he who makes most noise wins the public’s opinion. As an observer from outside the US, all one can be certain of is the context of the social climate, the belief in an armed citizenry, and the political invective to suggest that even a madman is a child of his environment.

  4. John Scrivener January 23, 2011 at 12:44 am #

    UN Chief Urged to Fire Official for Promoting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory – http://www.unwatch.org

    UN Watch, an independent Geneva-based watchdog organization, called on Ban Ki-moon to condemn the remarks of Richard Falk and demand his dismissal.

    “Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Palestine, has just called into question the cause of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We urge you to strongly condemn Mr. Falk’s offensive remarks and given that he has done this numerous times before, to immediately remove him from his post.”

    Shocked by this report, I have just written to UN Watch to express my surprise and concern about the attempt by Executive Director of UN Watch, Hillel C. Neuer, to suppress and discourage discussion about the events of September 11, 2001.

    In his letter to the UN Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, Mr Neuer demanded the dismissal of the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Richard Falk, simply because Falk has questioned the official account of the 9/11 events.

    This demand by Mr Neuer illustrates a profound contempt for the right of freedom of opinion and expression, a right that has been codified in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

    It seems clear to me that Mr Neuer has scant regard for the human rights of any who question the official account of September 11, 2001.

    This contempt for the right of individuals to hold and express opinions contrary to official dogma, is widespread and enthusiastically encouraged by government officials and the media, especially in the West.

    Attempts to curb free speech in relation to 9/11, such as this letter from Neuer, are not based on any sort of rational argument or empirical evidence, rather they are based solely on subjective opinions and political considerations.

    I consider Neuer’s demand for the dismissal of Richard Falk to be attempt to censure and censor public debate about the events of 9/11. I can see no justification for this blatant abuse of basic human rights by the Executive Director of UN Watch.

    • Richard Falk January 23, 2011 at 7:43 am #

      Thanks for this comment, which is of course persuasive on its face.

      Actually, the UN Monitor is not concerned about 9/11 itself but is using my acknowledgment of uncertainty about the official version as a pretext to smear me because of my views critical of Israel.

      • John Scrivener January 24, 2011 at 5:27 am #

        Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying the motives behind the attacks against you by UN Watch. A google search revealed that this is not the first time UN Watch has attempted to besmirch your character by referencing comments you have made about 9/11. For example, from the Jewish Internet Defense Force website, “On Monday, June 16, 2008, the UN Human Rights Council welcomed Richard Falk as the new expert to oversee its standing investigation into ‘Israel’s violations of the principles and bases of international law.’ When UN Watch took the floor to ask Falk to explain his support for 9/11 conspiracy theories …”

        Sounds like a ridiculous charge to me, since your position on 9/11 seems to be one of doubt or skepticism about the official 9/11 “conspiracy theory”, rather than one of “support for 9/11 conspiracy theories”.

        Google also turned up this interesting bit of information about UN Watch, from the Institute for Policy Studies website …

        “Despite efforts to paint itself as an independent watchdog, UN Watch has repeatedly been accused of having an excessively ‘pro-Israel’ bias, and an outlook on Middle East peace closely in line with Israel’s rightwing Likud Party. The group is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), former publisher of the neoconservative flagship journal Commentary, whose editors have included Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. According to the AJC website, it ‘maintains offices in Berlin, Brussels (Transatlantic Institute), Geneva (UN Watch), Paris and Rome.’

        UN Watch has also gone after those who point to the one-sided nature of the ‘war on terror’. UN Watch’s work often involves critiquing anti-Israel views expressed by some members of the UN Human Rights Council, and promoting hardline views of Islamic countries. Regarding the rights situation in the Middle East, observers have argued, UN Watch is clearly biased.”

        And here I was, thinking they were an “independent watchdog” … ha!

        But I really can’t understand why they equate questioning the events of 9/11 with holocaust denial and anti-semitism.

    • Matthew January 26, 2011 at 7:40 am #

      Mr. Falk, Thank you.

    • james griffin January 26, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

      The evidence for a proper investigation into 9/11 is overwhelming and the families of the victims want it too.

    • Ray Joseph Cormier January 27, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

      Just made aware of this controversy yesterday, I had to do some Google research on Human Rights Watch. The person seeking knowledge and Truth has to keep an open mind and learn to read between the lines whether they come from the left or right.

      Human Rights Watch is not an Official Department of the United Nations Organizations, but is recognized an accredited, external Lobbyist.

      In beginning the search for information to understanding why there is a concerted effort to discredit Professor Falk coming from such a high personage as the Secretary General of the United Nations I didn’t know he is Jewish.

      Having found this in their Mission & History page on their Official Website, I can see clearly now what’s going on.

      UN Watch is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

      http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/Mission__History.htm

      I believe the 1st seeds of Democracy were planted before The Common Era and are Chronicled in the story of Micaiah the Old Testament Prophet. Four hundred Jewish Prophets of Israel were agreed on the Word of Lord to Power, and Micaiah alone stood against them with the Truth of The Lord. The Power listened to the 400 false prophets.
      Click on my name and it will bring you to an iReport uploaded to CNN on these ideas August 17, 2009.

      For those who have eyes to see, there are definite similarities from that 2700 year old Chronicle and this current attack on Richard Falk. I call on all those love Truth, Justice and Democracy to stand with the Professor.

      This is a blatant effort by those who give lip service to Democracy but who work to silence dissent in practice as they are attempting to do to the Professor. Learn to discern.

      On another level I see this as a beginning of the process to separate and clearly identify the good Jew from the bad Jew. In the Revelation of Christ it is written, in two places,

      I know your works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but you are rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Revelation 2:9

      Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

      Because you have kept the word of my patience, I also will keep you from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
      Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which you have, that no man take your crown.
      Him that overcomes, will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
      He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. Revelation 3:9-13

      Joining the dots, that fits with this,

      And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
      For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
      Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
      And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. Revelation 16

      For those who don’t know, Armageddon is derived from Har Mediggo, a place in the Roman Province of Palestine when The Revelation was given 2000 years ago, 600 years before Islam, the 3rd arm of the God of the Jews, Christianity being the 2nd, came into being.

      Today Har Mediggo/Armageddon is located in the Occupied West Bank and The Revelation can now be seen in real Time while it’s called Today. The struggle for True Freedom continues and most people don’t even know it’s going on.

      For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12

      Bertrand Russell made the astute observation and recognizing Truth said, ‘War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.

  5. niqnaq January 25, 2011 at 11:19 am #

    In the book, Griffin cites and analyzes the claims of numerous architects and engineers who believe the collapse of the WTC was a controlled demolition. If this was so, it would have required the cooperation of WTC owners Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy to arrange entry for the covert team who placed cutting charges throughout the vertical central core girders of the Towers (ex hypothesi, from within the lift shafts). This in turn, given Silverstein and Lowy’s ethnicity and their zionist sympathies, would suggest an active Israeli involvement, which feeds into a rather over-generalised tendency to imagine that the Mossad orchestrated the entire event. Thus the suspicion of ‘anti-Semitism’.

  6. Mark from North Carolina January 25, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    Mr. Falk,

    Thank you for raising the issue for intelligent discourse regarding the actual events of 9/11. As you may know some of the families of the 9/11 victims have come together to demand an independent investigation with commercials in the NY area called “Building What”. http://buildingwhat.org/

    You must be on to something because of the ferocious response that it is generating. My encouragement is to keep seeking and speaking the truth on this. Perhaps the time will come, in no short order, when we reach a critical mass and address this turning point for our nation. Worts and all.

    • Richard Falk January 25, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

      Thanks, Mark, I agree with this hope for the scrutiny the issue has
      long deserved.

  7. Kim Hunt January 25, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    Why do you suppose that President Obama is keeping the lid on the 9/11 conspiracy? Is he a neo-con? I think that anyone who thinks the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks is either mentally deficient or an extreme hater. All those who believe that I’m wrong must accuse President Obama and the Democrats in Congress of being involved.

    • Richard Falk January 25, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

      My comment intended only to support the effort to investigate further unexplained
      gaps in the official version that have disturbed large number of persons who have
      looked into the facts.

    • Claudia Damon January 25, 2011 at 1:11 pm #

      You might be interested in looking at buildingwhat.org.

  8. Colin Wright January 25, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    ‘If a Muslim group has published a list of twenty political leaders in this country, and put crosshairs of a gun behind their pictures, is there any doubt that the Arizona events would be treated as the work of a terrorist,, and the group that had pre-identified such targets would be immediately outlawed as a terrorist organization…’

    This is rhetorically impressive, but it fails on one key point.

    If a ‘Muslim group’ published such a list, the presumption would be that they were literally calling for the targets to be assassinated.

    I’m tired of Sarah Palin, and this episode has made me realize that her continuous use of violent imagery would never be tolerated if she were a man. She’s a physically attractive woman, and so it’s been ‘cute,’ but post-Giffords, it’s not ‘cute’ anymore — and it doesn’t help that Palin appears to be in denial about the connection.

    However, no one this side of Berkeley would argue that she was literally calling for Giffords or anyone else to be killed. Had the unspecified ‘Muslim group’ done so, it would have been reasonable to assume they did indeed literally mean it.

    There would have been nothing ‘cute’ about it at all — a distinction Michael Moore (it’s more or less his stock in trade) elides.

    Don’t get me wrong. I respect you, and your comment about 9/11 arouses my curiosity. However, the equation between Palin using cross hairs and some potentially terrorist group using them is quite misleading. We all — even those of us who hold Palin in increasingly complete contempt — know she didn’t ‘mean it.’ So should you. Such grasping at cheap sophistries only serves to discredit more serious arguments you might have to offer.

  9. Colin Wright January 25, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    It is curious — and revealing — that Richard Falk’s rather vague claim that 9/11 could do with more investigation has provoked such a ferocious response.

    Compare to the Kennedy assassination theories. I think they’re all nonsense — but I’ve never felt inclined to hound all who adhere to them out of public life.

    Why should 9/11 be different? There are indeed some ambiguities — and if Richard Falk sees more in them than others do, so what? All he has done is assert that there are ‘awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations.’

    When that provokes demands that he be fired, the question becomes not whether he’s right, but why the reaction?

  10. Colin Wright January 25, 2011 at 1:57 pm #

    The reaction to your remarks has been impressive. Haaretz goes so far as to ‘quote’ you as referring to ‘an apparent coverup.’ I can’t see that anywhere above — maybe you could point me to it?

    Anyway, as I say, the point really has become, why the reaction?

    Thinking it through, I see three possible explanations. First, that people genuinely find your actual rather cautious statement outrageous.

    It’s not. Let’s dispense with that right off. There’s nothing outrageous about referring to ‘awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations.’ There ARE ‘awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations.’ What’s to be made of them is another matter, but so far, you haven’t made much of them at all, so no problem.

    The remaining two explanations I see are (a) that there is in fact some dark secret behind 9/11 that the protesters are privy to and concerned to cover up, or (b) that those who are desperate to discredit critics of Israel have seized upon this as a line of attack.

    (a) is intriguing, but I don’t think so. You simply didn’t say much. Not only didn’t you not threaten to let the cat out of the bag, but there’s not even any reason to think you’ve got a cat to let out of a bag in the first place. Nothing here to unduly worry anyone covering something up in the first place.

    (b) is also a bit overwrought, but is at least plausible. Possibly more than one motive is at work, but my guess is that the most powerful motive has been to discredit a critic of Israel.

    Possibly the idea is to make an example of you.

  11. Colin Wright January 25, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    Edit:

    My claim notwithstanding, you DO refer to an ‘apparent cover up.’ Of what, or why, you don’t speculate.

    However, just consider that first paragraph from my post struck. The rest still works. The reaction IS what is astonishing: not that you ha’ your doots about 9/11.

    • Brant January 25, 2011 at 6:50 pm #

      The response to your statements are nothing short of remarkable Mr. Falk.

      A glaring anomaly in the 9/11 theory promoted by the 9/11 Commission, co-led by the Democrat and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton, who also led the whitewash in Congress of Reagan’s Iran Contra scandal, and sandbagged the inquiry into the 1980 Reagan ‘October Surprise’, was that Hani Hanjour, the slightly built fellow who could not check out on a single engine Cessna in August, 2001, was tagged only weeks later as the pilot of a huge multi-engine commercial jet that executed a spiraling 5,000 foot descent under hijack stress, into the Pentagon, Hanjour adeptly pulling the huge plane out at ground altitude without even scuffing the lawn in front of the building. Believable?

      There is certainly some doubt as to this and many other facts of that day. see :

      http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.html

      I am reassured that Colin Wright believes that Oswald was the lone JFK gunman because I have had doubts. Oswald had no apparent motive, denied he had done it before he was murdered the next day, and after a night of questioning with no record, and the gun found by Dallas Officer Seymour Weitzman minutes after the JFK assassination in the Book Depository, was a 7.65 mm Mauser as documented by a sworn affidavit, not the 6.5 mm Carbano, the weapon later implicated by the Warren Commission. Also, when Weitzman testified before that body he was never presented with the weapon to identify it as the one that was found that day. see: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/wc_period/warren_report/MarkLane2.html

      • Colin Wright January 25, 2011 at 11:04 pm #

        Well, I don’t KNOW anything. However, I tend to be suspicious of conspiracy theories on principle. People want satisfying explanations for any sudden catastrophic event, and post-seeing the hand of God in everything, that boils down to positing a conspiracy.

        What’s more, it’s always possible to select and present facts so as to make it appear there was a conspiracy; confine your reading to the right sources, and you can make yourself believe almost anything. People do.

        That said, it’s also always possible there was a conspiracy. However, in the case of 9/11, I’m particularly inclined to dismiss the fullblown, it-was-all-a-CIA/Mossad/whatever-plot version.

        Two reasons. First, who was to bell the cat? That is to say, at the end of the day, someone had to deliberately fly the planes into the buildings. No career government agent is going to agree to do that. There had to be authentic, suicidal fanatics at the controls. Manipulated, perhaps. But sincere — and dare I say it, almost certainly authentic al Qaeda.

        Second, all that simultaneous controlled demolition, etc stuff strikes me as outrageously unlikely. Aside from everything else, you’re counting on your crazed Achmed at the controls actually coming through, actually hijacking the plane, and actually hitting the right building. It’s the organizational equivalent of a Rube Goldberg machine. I wouldn’t sign off on such a plan — whatever my motives.

        However, I DO think there was something of a coverup. I’ll agree Mossad was tracking these guys — it would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to do. How much they knew of their plans, whether they tipped off the FBI, whether the FBI is just trying to cover up for its own bureaucratic inertia — I couldn’t say.

        I’m certainly happy to see a renewed investigation — it could even shed some light. I’ll even agree there will probably be some modestly shocking revelation. But no full-on NSA plot with controlled demolitions and all of the rest. I’m too old to fall for that.

        However, it’s all really of peripheral interest to me. What I find more interesting — and more ominous — is the ferocious reaction to Richard Falk’s rather mild original remarks. After all, he doesn’t commit to much more than I have here. Why the reaction?

        I don’t think it has anything to do with 9/11. Why? He didn’t say anything offensive. He didn’t even make any claims that would frighten the putative plotters-if-there-was-a-plot.

        The only thing I can see is that there is a determination to discredit him as a critic of Israel. He must be a remarkably upright man if this is all they can come up with, though. So he thinks there was some kind of cover-up connected with 9/11. So? There probably was.

      • Ray Joseph Cormier January 27, 2011 at 2:03 pm #

        Many of the home grown American jihad “Islamic terrorists” we know from news reports, the FBI nurtured, encouraged, taught, supplied and then arrested the young Muslim men when they pressed the button.

        It’s not beyond the possibility some vested interest, government or not, could have sent in an operative more extreme than the extremists to groom suicide bombers.

        What always caused me to wonder is how they could so positively identify all the accused terrorists so quickly from the burned out rubble containing the likely crushed and separated body parts of so many people?

    • Oscar January 25, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

      I am a psychologist. I want to thank Mr. Falk for speaking up.
      I came to the same conclusion as he did: that the 9/11 comments were being used to attack him because of his human rights stands against Israel’s violations. His is a principled stand. Thank you.
      His concerns about 9/11 appear very warranted: sadly. We must find a way come to terms with 9/11.

  12. Aaron January 25, 2011 at 3:58 pm #

    Thank you for your support of a new 9/11 investigation. The families, first-responders, and activists will surely appreciate your input in the fight for truth.

    • Richard Falk January 25, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

      Thanks, Aaron, for your encouraging response. I am hopeful that some positive
      results will emerge eventually.

  13. Pastor Bob January 25, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    “This contempt for the right of individuals to hold and express opinions contrary to official dogma, is widespread and enthusiastically encouraged by government officials and the media, especially in the West.”

    As compared to other countries, not in the West where you get killed or re educated for expressing your opinion?

    It is my experience that Americans as a group have no problem expressing their opinions. Complaining about politicians is one of our God given rights.

    I find among conservative Christians a growing group of people who think we should have never invaded Iraq and that we ought to get out of Afghanistan. They don’t believe the official versions of Bush or Obama. And there isn’t anyone shouting them down.

    • John Scrivener January 26, 2011 at 2:31 am #

      “This contempt for the right of individuals to hold and express opinions contrary to official dogma, is widespread and enthusiastically encouraged by government officials and the media, especially in the West.”

      I stand by the bulk of that statement, and the reason I said “especially in the West” is precisely because the West believes it has freedom of expression, or at least more so than other parts of the world.

      This notion, that the West enjoys more freedom of expression than the rest of the world, is, in my opinion, debatable. The fact that government officials, diplomats and media personalities in the West are so keen to stifle certain opinions suggests that we in the West perhaps don’t really have as much freedom of expression as we’d like to think.

      • Pastor Bob January 26, 2011 at 12:55 pm #

        If freedom of expression refers to government officials, diplomats and media personalities you are right. Every day media outlets decide what is news and what is not. Every day government officials make statements intended to get the media outlets to publish them.

        But if freedom of expression means what I get to say and what my neighbor gets to say America has not lost its freedom of expression. No one gets arrested in America for saying their congressperson is on the take or that the president’s healthcare program is smoke and mirrors (not my opinion, btw.)

        I will agree that media outlets have been bought up and are owned by fewer and fewer corporations. I will agree that media outlets just haven’t gone after important stories the way they used to. And anyone who thinks that American political expression has gotten less civil needs to read what New Englanders said about Thomas Jefferson or the editorial drawings of Abraham Lincoln.

        I will agree that there have been rushes to judgment particularly around the Arizona shootings.

        As for the idea that the West enjoys more freedom of express than say, China or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia I think we are going to have to differ. I agree that governments and the media seek to control the news. That doesn’t stop me from saying exactly what I think. Example: I think handguns and assault rifles should not be covered by the 2nd amendment. A lot of people out there are going to hate me for saying that. I doubt I will be shot, hit or in any way stopped from expressing my opinion. Some may yell at me and tell me I’m anti American but that’s America. We all get to say what we want to say.

        Even Richard Falk. Notice while there was lots of yelling and screaming he DIDN’T get fired.

  14. CJ January 25, 2011 at 7:07 pm #

    This is insanity. No, that would be the driving force behind the Arizona shootings.

    This is sinister. Because none of you are insane.

    You speak of “hate speech” but tell the world a political assassin escapes harsh judgment because he is “a young white American.” If there was justice, you imply, Sarah Palin’s group would be “immediately outlawed.” You, a United Nations official, tell the world that the U.S. is so bereft of morality that it would conspire to murder 3,000 of its own citizens, perhaps, as one follower asserts, for Zionist reasons.

    You manufacture stories of evil American conservatives, and dare to accuse others of not wanting to look at the evidence. This will all be comforting for those planning the next attack against the U.S. Exploiting tragedy. Twisting reality for left-wing political purposes. Hate speech. Desperate hate speech.

    • Colin Wright January 25, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

      I assume this is a hit-and-run attack, and so ‘CJ’ won’t even read my response — but nothing he says is actually true.

      Richard Falk did not say the assassin will escape judgment because he is a young white American. The assassin personally will no doubt be tried — and will receive as much justice as anyone ever does in this imperfect world. Richard DID say something to the effect that the fact that he wasn’t Muslim or an illegal immigrant or whatever meant that there wouldn’t be a wider backlash — which is probably true, and a perfectly valid point.

      Richard also did not say that the US conspired to murder 3000 of its citizens. He said apparently there was a cover up ‘of some kind.’ What kind, he doesn’t say. Like me, he probably doesn’t know. After all, if it was clear, it wouldn’t be much of a cover up.

      To my mind, it’s not proven that there was a cover-up, but it’s certainly possible. There are, as Richard says, ‘gaps and discrepancies.’

      I’ve seen no manufacturing of ‘stories of ‘evil American conservatives’ in this post. Maybe Richard manufactures them elsewhere — where?

      There was no ‘desperate hate speech’ in Richard’s post. I suspect he and I would turn out to differ on some issues — but it’d be a dull world if that never happened, and it’s certainly not proof that his opinions are ‘desperate hate speech.’ The only ‘desperation’ I perceive is in the attempt to discredit Richard Falk. Since you are apparently a part of it, perhaps you could explain why.

      That — again — is what interests me. What on earth is so abhorrent about what Richard Falk is saying? Is there something there that it is so important to hide? Why is it so imperative to discredit him?

      • CJ January 26, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

        I do not do “hit and run” and I commend the author for allowing my rebuttal. This professed fear of a Muslim or illegal immigrant “backlash” would only be valid in light of previous ‘wide backlash’ against same. Such backlash is a myth. Muslims pulverized 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam and the much-hyped backlash never materialized. Wounding a member of Congress would finally do the trick? Nonsense. A Muslim extremist gunned down 13 citizens at Ft. Hood just last year, and Americans quickly adopted a self-imposed prohibition against acknowledging his religious motive, or even discussing it. The backlash storyline designed to increase animosity toward Americans on the right, if not Americans in general.

        John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a left-wing extremist. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated by a Palestinian extremist. The attempted assassination of President Ford was by a ….left-wing extremist. The groups spewing the rhetoric behind each act of violence paused not one second to consider the consequences of their rhetoric. Because they didn’t have to. No one on the Left had the nerve to admit the obvious.

        It’s not enough that the Left would aggressively suppress such ideological ties. In the case of JFK, they labored to convince the world that the opposite is true: that he was the victim of a shadowy, right-wing conspiracy. Sinister.

        We know that Muslim extremists fueled by extreme Muslim rhetoric committed the 9-11 atrocities. We know a conservative extremist fueled extreme conservative rhetoric did NOT commit the Az atrocities. The author implies the opposite. Get the point?

        Hate speech? The Left, including influential media members and politicians, undertook a vigorous, dishonest campaign to tell the world that the Az shootings were the act of a conservative, fueled by conservative rhetoric. The President was forced to, reluctantly state the fact: It was not.
        Surely, accusing political opponents of mass murder amounts to hate speech, no?

        What the author said was ‘some blame right-wing rhetoric for the Az. shootings, the Right denies this, but we should keep an open mind and follow the evidence because, remember, a right-wing president probably allowed the 9-11 attacks to happen and got away with it because we got distracted.’ Sick.
        Your tactic of alleging a 9-11 cover-up because it hasn’t been *disproven* (requiring one to prove a negative) is a non-starter for reasonable discourse. ‘We know it must be a cover up because we can’t prove it, that’s how cover ups work’ is desperation.

        Gee, there are “gaps” in trying to piece together a sudden attack involving a clandestine group operating out of several countries, with multiple, simultaneous targets, thousands of distraught eyewitnesses and government staffers, fire, explosions and hijackings. And those directly involved are dead. What politically motivated conspiracy theorists see as evidence, most see as entirely expected.
        Again, if the topic is incitement to political violence, what is more dangerous than perpetuating this lie? It is the gold standard.

        “That — again — is what interests me. What on earth is so abhorrent about what Richard Falk is saying?”

        3,000 Americans were murdered by Muslim extremists. He is aiding those who assert otherwise. Nine Americans were murdered by a mentally ill individual. We know that. He insists that there remains a need for an “independent investigation” – implying, obviously, that the investigation up to now has been less so. That is abhorrent.

        The real question is, what has been the effect of nearly a half-century of employing this tactic, in which every act of political violence is blamed on the right – even those committed by leftists – and where even attacks on America are portrayed as being committed by America itself? What is the effect, keeping in mind that “no effect” is not a valid answer?

    • niqnaq January 26, 2011 at 6:52 am #

      It isn’t a matter of ‘the US’ in some simplistic unitary sense ‘conspiring to murder 3,000 of its own citizens.’ The US has an extremely complex set of overlapping and sometimes conflicting political elite groups, some of which have been exposed over the last fifty years as consistently striving for a functionally totalitarian military state. Peter Dale Scott’s studies of what he calls ‘deep politics’ explore this in some detail. The US is not unique in this respect; most countries have similar, though less powerful, embedded elites. But since WW2 the US has tended to be the global coordinator for all the rest.

      If I am the ‘follower’ who you claim asserts that 9/11 was a conspiracy hatched ‘for zionist reasons,’ then you simply have not read what I said. I made no assertions at all, but just pointed out the implications of believing that the Twin Towers might have been rigged with demolition cutting charges. I did not say that I believed this actually occurred, only that it is a feature of the theories that have developed around the subject.

  15. Charliebravo January 25, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    You are on the right track, so keep up the good job speaking up for the truth and pass on the information to colegues and co-workers. Investigate any “crazy” conspiracy theories around, they might provide you with very important clues, because unfortunately as it is, it´s the people who search for the truth that are regarded as conspiracionists and black sheep, but ultimately those are the people who might be right.

    And just like you, they make the greatest change in people´s consciousness.

    CB

  16. John Shuck January 25, 2011 at 8:03 pm #

    Thank you for your courage and integrity. Seeking the truth and speaking about our search for it is never without risk. I am pleased that more and more are taking this risk.

    Rev. John Shuck, Member
    Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth

    http://rl911truth.org/

  17. F Smith January 25, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    Ban Ki-Moon should be sacked. There has never been a proper investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 in New York, and to attack people for simply seeking answers to unanswered questions, to an event that killed ~3000 people, is simply outrageous.

    To react in such a way, he is obviously complicit in the lies that surround that day, that led to ( so far, ) two illegal, immoral wars of aggression, resulting in the murders of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

    For whatever its worth Mr Falk. My thanks.

  18. Edward January 25, 2011 at 11:14 pm #

    Turned out the deranged shooter in Tucson, though he might have white skin, is a liberal, brought up in a jewish houdehold and attended the same Synagogue as the Congresswomen. Nice try liberal (code word for communist) state controled media outlets, your lies and actions reveal your Neo-Marxist/Political Correct agenda very clearly to the American people, Long Live the Republic and the Tea Parties!!! Ron Paul for President 2012!!!

  19. Jeremy Jacobson January 26, 2011 at 3:05 am #

    Many critics of your (utterly benign) comments on 9/11, including Ban Ki-moon, have said that they are an affront to the memory of 9/11 victims. Now, besides the fact that numerous victim’s families are leading the call to question the official story on 9/11, I want to remind them that their support for the official story is a far greater affront to, not 3,000 people, but millions. Let me explain. As we learned from the Lancet study, by June 2006 the invasion of Iraq had taken 650,000 Iraqi’s lives, and given the intense violence that was soon to follow since, presumably even more. In Afghanistan, sometime hardly a week would pass without the air force accidentally bombing yet another wedding party, killing 50 profoundly innocent human beings (what could be more innocent than celebrating a marriage?). These victims families must be asking, why did all this happen? Why is it still happening? The answer is the official story of 9/11 and all the “official stories” that followed. First we were told Al-Qaeda caused 9/11, then that Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan, then that Al-Qaeda was working with Saddam. Now it is all a bloody mess, and it is the supporters of these official stories who should see what the true affront is.

  20. Dagny Alda Steinsdóttir January 26, 2011 at 3:21 am #

    Thank you for this article.
    When reading it I felt a sigh of relief and just a litle less crazy here in Iceland. It all seems so obvious that questions need to be answered yet they are not even allowed to be voiced and further more fear has been struck into the hearts of men in the efford to silence them forever. When writing of the horrors of Nazi Germany, Hannah Arendt asked the question, “how could it have happened?” Perhaps then as in now history can only afford a few herows. The few that will not stand idly by without pause to question the motives and actions of our trusted rulers that we suppose are there to protect and defend us. Luckely, history has often times revield that when one stands up, others will follow.
    Thank you Mr. Falk for standing up.

  21. Ray Joseph Cormier January 26, 2011 at 6:10 am #

    I am happy to have just learned of your being Today from this header in Haaretz, ‘Ban Ki-moon condemns UN Palestinian human rights official for backing 9/11 slurs.’ I suspect the Secretary General did not actually read your comments, but if he did, could not discern the nuance in your blog.

    I am looking forward to reading your take on the Turkel Commission findings.

    • Richard Falk January 26, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

      Thanks for this comment, and I hope to get around to the Turkel Commission report as soon
      as the pressure relents.

      • Colin Wright January 26, 2011 at 10:12 pm #

        Isn’t going after the Turkel Commission ‘Report’ kind of flogging a dead horse, or lending dignity to an obvious travesty, or something?

        Those who take something like that seriously are going to need to believe, and nothing you can say will sway them.

  22. Carmela January 26, 2011 at 8:34 am #

    “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 . . . Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally disturbing filter of self-censorship?”

    Exactly. The explanation for Building 7, the official explanation for the 47 story building that wasn’t hit by a plane to collapse, is “the new phenomenon” or “thermal expansion.” If its true, no one should be going into skyscrapers. They should all be taken down because according to the government a fire could cause them to suddenly collapse, just from the heat.

    Re the Arizona shootings: This is from a very reputable, mainstream website:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/giffords-youtube-account-is-subscribed-to-loughners.php

    Is it true or not? Was Rep. Giffords’ subscribed to her attacker’s youtube account? I don’t know for sure but it ought to be something the mainstream media could nail down for sure and if so, what was the reason for subscribing? You have to become suspicious when the mainstream media rushes to blame Sarah Palin – who they love to talk about – rather than nail down what would have to be an important story if it is true.

  23. Dan January 26, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    I just wanted to drop in during the work day to let you know that you have many, many, many supporters out here. I’ll be back later with a more lengthy commentary in support of your position.

  24. Douglas Brown January 26, 2011 at 12:16 pm #

    Well said. Unfortunately the media uses statements out of context to provide a sensational and controversial story. I wish people would take the time to read your whole post and understand the big picture.
    It’s also getting pretty tiresome hearing that you are a ‘terrorist’ or ‘un-American’ if you ask questions, seek the truth or demand an investigation.

  25. Chris Capozzi January 26, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

    Thank you Mr. Falk. I hope others in important positions like you will display the guts you have to speak the obvious truth. Sincerely, you are the man! Please keep it up, the tide will turn.

    Chris in CT, USA

  26. Robert North January 26, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    I’m glad that someone working within the United Nations is willing to admit the truth. The mainstream controlled media has served, and serves as a tool of dialectical control for certain very powerful individuals, and groups. It’s conspiracy praxis. The numerous quotes from these power brokers indicates their level of hubris.

    “… it would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government …”
    – David Rockefeller in Baden-Baden, Germany 1991, thanking major media for keeping secret for decades the movement of the prophetic one world government.

    • PatrickSMcNally January 28, 2011 at 4:25 am #

      That’s a bogus fake quote circulated by the John Birch Society and related hoaxers. David Rockefeller never said that. Will Banyan tracks the fake back to its original source in this piece:

  27. Brian Clark January 26, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    Mr. Falk,

    Let me encourage you in your efforts to seek truth. You are not alone.

  28. JohnFLob January 26, 2011 at 1:22 pm #

    Trying to connect all the dots may be a laudable goal, but what if some of the dots are extraneous, not applicable to the incident(s)?

    Asking questions then developing a conspiracy hypothesis because there is no answer or the answer is not what you expected is disingenuous.

    • Smith GT Washington January 28, 2011 at 8:03 pm #

      Griffin consistently connects the dots to form conspiracy images far from the truth but not unique to this Rorschach type. Case in point, which he still connects these conspiracy dots in more recent books too:

      David Ray Griffin: “In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
      Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.”
      (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the
      Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in
      support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.”

      http://davidraygriffin.com/articles/the-911-commission-report-a-571-page-lie/

      Griffin goes on to list 100+ “lies”. Here are five related “lies” I believe proves Griffin is a
      conspiracy theorist that propagates pure lies and/or Rorschach’s of himself:

      17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

      18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse
      until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to
      have entered (34).

      19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757
      were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

      21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras—including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike—could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

      89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77
      (224-25).
      ————————–

      What Griffin is trying to do is mislead his audience down the path to the discredited conspiracy theory
      that a missile hit the Pentagon. I am disgusted & repelled that he is so foolish & deceptive (and/or mentally defective or unbalanced) to advance this set of dots & “lies” to create a missile conspiracy lie!

      This conspiracy internet/urban legend caught on with an Alex Jones sponsored Internet movie “Loose Change”. I’ve listened to this conspiracy loon for years, as I am in Austin Texas, and AJ creates lies & conspiracy dots on a daily, weekly, or, at least, monthly basis using his Internet website & podcast. Unfortunately, this tends to discredit some useful information AJ uncovers from time to time. His world view has been distorted by some personal experiences that have unbalanced him towards seeing everything within conspiracy colored glasses. His conspiracy theories have made him a multimillionaire.

      I do believe some limited number of our government employees & representatives (high&low) do engage in lies, conspiracies, fraud, mental or physical torture, and criminal activities against its own citizens, deemed enemies within, because this is THE HUMAN CONDITION. We all live within our “tribal dangers”. WE ARE acting as a nation of psychopaths & sociopaths & power corrupts absolutely, too often, within our government that sanctions undeclared wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else our treasure or pride/ideology is threatened. Lithium was the latest idea floated-recently about Afghanistan!

      We NEVER needed to go to War for Kuwait or for the terrorists that downed the Twin Towers, etc. We do NOT need to murder ten of thousands of innocent people that had nothing to do with 911. Now, we have far more enemies & sick people in the world, including our soldiers, from OUR bloody hands of our failed government’s leadership.

      Everyone understand this: 911 was 100% preventable had our leadership been on proper alert for this well known plot the terrorists planned for years!

      The REAL CONSPIRACY is why WE, I, you have conspired, at least passively, to have blood on our hands for the misdeeds of our government’s warring-leadership to take us into our undeclared and unnecessary wars. Fools! Republicans & Democrats are equally, brutally, guilty as charged. Screw-Our-US-Constitution! Oath keepers?

      War is the most extreme Evil we can do to one another. Why do we allow our leaders take us to war to commit this most extreme form of OUR SHARED Evil? Why are we Americans so Evil to engage in wars we do not need to be doing for our very own survival?

      WE HAD NO INVASION ON 911.

      Now, our economy & future self-investment is being destroyed by these wars we never needed for our very own survival. (The terrorists have us pegged perfectly for the insane fools we are! Soon, we will be and are hunting each other for our self-created scarce resources & our race to the bottom!)

      I despise our “free” trade. I despise our out-sourcing and export of jobs for corporate elitist profits & evasion of our health/welfare laws & regulations. I despise our global domination. I despise our trickle down economics. I despise FOX, MSNBC, and CNN for all the propaganda & ratings-money-whoring in trade for talking points from their corporate & government DC intellectual elites self-serving themselves. I despise the war-on-drugs. I despise Waco & the demonizing of my fellow Americans. I despise the financial instruments & taxes & laws that are created to allow for these Evils. I hate expansionist property war! (With the exception of territorial invasions & NOT terrorist attacks we can prevent by other means.)

      I despise any “crusade” leader that supports these Evils instead of ending this global-madness including our current leadership on both sides of the same coin.

      Why am I so sane in our insane-country asylum?

      We repeatedly self-create our own hell? We have to find, support, and vote for leadership that prevents our expansionist property/ideology foreign hot/cold wars. Corporate & government elites exist to run our International government & these Sociopathic Evils have no moral boundaries or borders.
      ————–

      See the Google Video “Screw Loose Change” to understand the falsehoods about the Pentagon being hit by a missile.

      Screw Loose Change is free online:

      The Truth is Out There (upcoming documentary) & in you!

      • Shelton F. Lankford January 29, 2011 at 8:49 am #

        “What Griffin is trying to do is mislead his audience down the path to the discredited conspiracy theory that a missile hit the Pentagon. I am disgusted & repelled that he is so foolish & deceptive (and/or mentally defective or unbalanced) to advance this set of dots & “lies” to create a missile conspiracy lie!”
        Dr. Griffin’s integrity is not in question here, but by this assertion you have placed your own in serious question.
        In fact, Dr. Griffin, in “The New Pearl Harbor Revisited” cites extant witness accounts supporting Thierry Meyssan’s theory that that the Pentagon was struck by a missile. There is no attempt to lead the reader anywhere except to examine the evidence. There is good and sufficient evidence to conclude that whatever caused the explosion in the newly renovated and almost empty section of the Pentagon, it was not a Boeing 757 crashing into it, and there is considerable evidence that it was a carefully staged deception designed to lead observers to believe that it was an aircraft. A team of investigators called Citizen Investigation Team has done a thorough job of making this case in a documentary called “National Security Alert” in which first-person accounts of the approach of a passenger-type aircraft toward the Pentagon unmistakeably places it on the North side of the Citgo gas station, from which position it would not have been possible for it to do any of the observed damage to the Pentagon or its surroundings. Whether it was a missile or pre-placed explosives that caused the damage to the building, the impossibility of the aircraft doing it renders the official account of 9/11 a deliberate hoax on the American people and a crime of gigantic proportions.

        http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/

      • Smith GT Washington January 29, 2011 at 11:26 am #

        Shelton F. Lankford wrote: “Whether it was a missile or pre-placed explosives that caused the damage to the building, the impossibility of the aircraft doing it renders the official account of 9/11 a deliberate hoax on the American people and a crime of gigantic proportions.”
        ———————

        This is simply more 100% false 911-inside-job propaganda. Please watch the three-four minute free video here:

        OR, for those who have the time & interest, please go here to study & research the facts:

        http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

        “104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

        6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

        26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

        39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

        2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a “commuter plane” but didn’t mention the size.

        7 said it was a Boeing 757.

        8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

        2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

        4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

        10 said the plane’s flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

        16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it’s unknown if they saw them hit.

        42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

        2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.”
        ———————

        PLEASE NOTE: No eyewitnesses, not one, said it was an independent explosion (building planted explosives) or a missile, as you insist & suggest as fact!

        BTW, yes, Griffin does continue with the missile conspiracy “lie” idea noted here below, check his last word (missile) in this 2008 quote from Griffin:

        “The list to which I referred, which was compiled by Eric Bart, contains 152 people who were regarded as “witnesses” in some sense or another to what happened at the Pentagon. But in a statement that you simply ignored, I pointed out that “only some of them claim to have seen an airliner hit the Pentagon.” Some of the other people gave quite different reports, with six of them speaking of a small or mid-sized aircraft, perhaps a commuter jet or even a missile.”

        http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/10/dishonesty-of-david-ray-griffin.html

        AND, much more detail here:

        http://www.alternet.org/story//101703?page=entire

        Respectfully: Please respond factually to debunk the specific eyewitness information I provided above.

      • Ganapatrak February 2, 2011 at 6:46 am #

        Regarding the Pentagon, there is no need at all for any reasoning, consideration, argument or whatever : you have only to take in account this evidence, plain and simple :
        ON THE FRONTSIDE OF THE PENTAGON, THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE THAN A SINGLE HOLE MEASURING ABOUT 5 X 5 METERS… AND AT THE PLACE WHERE THE 2 ENGINES (EACH ONE WEIGHING MORE THAN 2.5 TONS) SHOULD HAVE PULVERISED THE MASONRY, THE WALLS WERE ABSOLUTELY INTACT, WITH THE WINDOWS STILL HAVING THEIR GLASSES…
        Everybody has to notice that, following the 9/11 official report, the “Boeing 757″ crashed on the wall at a speed of 540 M/H.
        And we have to agree that such an absurdity is the very truth ???
        THE ONLY REASONABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT ANY EXPLANATION OF THIS CRASH INVOLVING A 2 REACTORS PLANE IS LITERALLY, TO STATE THE OBVIOUS, A NONSENSE. HENCE A LIE… OR, AT LEAST, A STRANGE, A TERRIBLE LACK OF OBJECTIVITY.
        THIS IS WHY A NEW INVESTIGATION IS URGENTLY, DRAMATICALLY NEEDED.
        GOT THE POINT ?
        HATS OFF, NOW, TO RICHARD FALK, HIS BRAVERY AND HIS LOVE FOR THE TRUTH.
        HATS OFF TO THE LT COL. SHELTON F. LANKFORD WHO IS A VALOROUS? RIGOROUS AND TIRELESS DEFENDER OF A NEW INVESTIGATION.
        HATS OFF TO THE LT COL. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI WHO IS A SERENE AND ACTIVE EYEWITNESS OF THE PENTAGON CRASH SITE…
        AND – LAST BUT NOT LEAST – HATS OFF TO SO MANY HONEST AND VIBRANT CITIZENS CALLING ON THEIR GOVERNMENT TO ASCERTAIN ONCE FOR ALL THE TRUTH.

      • Ganapatrak February 2, 2011 at 9:03 am #

        There is an error in my last post to Smith GT (just above this one). In the sentence : “” HATS OFF TO THE LT COL. SHELTON F. LANKFORD WHO IS A VALOROUS? RIGOROUS AND TIRELESS DEFENDER OF A NEW INVESTIGATION “”. one has to read : VALOROUS, AND not : VALOROUS?.
        Thank you for your attention… and please, Mr Lankford, be good enough to excuse me.

  29. Bridget January 26, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    Wow! I am amazed to see such an honest, rational person in the UN. I send you my love and respect and wish you all the best while they try to bring you down.

    I have been active in the 9/11 truth movement for less than a year but already we have done great things here in Atlanta, GA and continue to do so.

    You should run for president! :) Please take care.

  30. Elias Davidsson January 26, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Dear Richard,

    I applaud your courage and your wise words that only few of your colleagues, both within the United Nations and within academia, have dared to utter (even if they share your concerns).

    Having said so, I believe that we are passed the point where we must demand a new investigation of 9/11. A huge community of dedicated investigators has established more than sufficient evidence to impute 9/11 to the United States government. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. What is needed is actually a criminal investigation of the suspects. However, this cannot be accomplished before reversing the US regime.

    Calling for a new investigation of 9/11 merely provides the criminal US regime with more time to eliminate evidence and witnesses and continue its imperial policies. The world has no time for such luxuries.

    Anyone merely scratching the surface of the forensics of 9/11, will soon discover that the U.S. government (a) failed to prove that any Arabs/Muslims actually boarded the four flights that are linked to 9/11; (b) failed to positively identify the wreckage of the crashed aircraft; (c) failed to determine the true reason for the unprecedented pulverization of the Twin Towers; (d) attempted to prevent a true investigation of 9/11; (e) pre-determined the focus and results of investigations that it grudgingly allowed; (f) condoned the destruction of criminal evidence; (g) bribed or intimidated witnesses and victims’ families in order to silence them; (h) spread false rumors to amplify the impact of 9/11; and (i) showed no interest in finding and detaining Osama bin Laden or charging him for 9/11. If this is not “guilty demeanor”, then what is?

    • Dan Noel January 26, 2011 at 9:25 pm #

      Yours could be the most thoughtful comment in this discussion. Indeed, a “real” 9/11 investigation will find what anybody in high school will know by simply ponedering on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s materials for a few hours:
      * the twin towers were demolished with explosives with 2,000+ civilians inside
      * the real 9/11 terrorists are the well-oiled team of experts, featuring highly experienced engineers, who pulled this technical feast under the nose of the occupants and the security company
      * these are the most formidable terrorists in history
      * the U.S. government gave cover and protection to these terrorists
      * this cover-up was amateurish at best, so that even people with average intellectual abilities can sustain the demonstration of the twin towers’ demolition: http://www2.ae911truth.org//ppt_web/2hour/slideshow.php?i=506&hires=1.
      Conclusions literally impose themselves:
      * tens of thousands of leaders and organizations of many different backgrounds (watchdogs) opposed the neocons; they could have denounced this, but they did not
      * in plain English, these innumerable watchdogs conspired to censor 9/11
      * just as the terrorists were unlikely to accept to demolish the twin towers without the prior assurance of a cover story blaming Osama bin Laden’s and his fanatics, Bush and his accomplices were unlikely to accept to provide that cover without the prior assurance that it would be censored
      * as such, these watchdogs bear much responsibility for allowing 9/11 to happen
      * they also bear much responsibility for the decade of war and misery that 9/11 inspired
      * conversely, should even a few of them spill the 9/11 beans, the whole game is over
      A real 9/11 investigation would reveal many more details, but its essential findings, listed above, are already widely known. The next logical step is for people who already have this awareness to analyze this censorship, find its probable root cause, verify it, and draw a sensible course of action. This is not unlike the way Japanese corporations treat a problem.
      It so happens that this analysis has already been done. It yields an amazingly easy and highly promising road map. When enough of “us the people of the world” are aware of it, things will change: http://www.global-platonic-theater.com
      Love,

    • Ryan Elson January 27, 2011 at 1:47 am #

      learn common law, figure out how your leaders deceive you into admitting you are a child in diapers, and use the law to become a master. A society of masters is useful, a society of slaves being led by a few rich masters is a tyranny being ran by the greedy. You are bound by the laws of the colonies, and not bound by the revisions and twists these greedy people using words as tools have done.

      Use blacks law 2nd edition. Have a look at what definitions are in that book, and which definitions have been stricken from modern publications and you will see exactly how your leaders have been deceiving you all. It’s time to get rid of government and rely on communities full of masters who have proven that they won’t let the system walk all over them and treat them as children.

      I HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE UN NANNY STATE, and by forcing me to partake is an insulting blow to my dignity — the UN is in contradiction to the law of the land based on the definitions of legal words of the era that the foundation laws of the land have been built upon. Get lost you master deceivers I know what you really want to roll out, and it has nothing to do with providing me with an ounce of dignity nor basic human rights. Keep your scientific tyrannical dictorship, I’ll take true freedom, education and justice, aristocracy, over the UN’s nannying any day of the week.

    • Jeffrey Hill January 27, 2011 at 9:44 am #

      Mr. Davidsson

      Please try concentrating on the FACTS and EVIDENCE we already have. There is enough information in the 9/11 Commission, the joint senate/congressional inquiry, and the Pentbom investigation to show there was a cover up and collusion with Saudi intelligence, among other things.

      Even the demolition argument of the buildings will just keep going in circles because for every expert that speaks up about the issue, the criminals can provide two that will argue the official explanation,

      Here is a links to the pdf files of the above mentioned investigations:

      http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/4062830/

      ps: I accidentally spelled proves (poves) in my above comment… how embarrassing.

      Sincerely,
      Jeffrey Hill

  31. Matt Jarvie January 26, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    You, Mr. Falk, are a one-worlder and World Federalist, so I don’t trust your motives. I think there are some who would like to exploit alternative 9/11 views to create a pretext for a globalist “solution” via the UN, World Court or some other globalist body. I, for one, am privy to your agenda. You pose as a truthseeker, but I feel you operate with an ulterior motive unbeknownst to those who are praising you.

    I share your views about 9/11. That is it.

    • CharlieBravo January 27, 2011 at 9:27 am #

      Dear Matt,

      Agree with you on his views on 9/11, but please provide more data on Mr. Falk´s views for a one world federation. Certainly a man, jewish by the way, who is against the system with two different agendas(9/11 & Israel) hardly can be part of the system, unless being unaware of it. Looking forward to your kind response.
      CB

      • Richard Falk January 27, 2011 at 11:32 am #

        Just for the record: I am not, and never have been, a proponent of world government. I favor global justice, and recognize that can be achieved in many different formats. See my earlier blog on ‘anarchism without anarchism’ for my recent views on world order.

    • Ray Joseph Cormier January 27, 2011 at 4:18 pm #

      Multi-National corporatism is working toward one world government behind the scenes.

  32. lenef January 26, 2011 at 9:30 pm #

    Professor Falk, my sentiments are articulated pretty well among the supportive comments here. I appreciate your points about the rush to familiar belief structures when things get uncomfortable and scary.

    I’m not surprised to hear your theory of the true motivation behind the intense media backlash to your reference to 9/11. But Zionism is another sacred pillar in this hall of illusions.

    Best of luck to you in weathering this storm.

    Dave Lenef

    • Richard Falk January 27, 2011 at 11:37 am #

      Thanks, Dave. I agree with your assessment of the backlash..

  33. Mark January 27, 2011 at 1:21 am #

    Thank you, Mr. Falk

  34. Ryan Elson January 27, 2011 at 1:41 am #

    hi richard,
    Just wondering seeing as you see through the bs of the official 9/11 cover story as spun by government and the media; perhaps you can also see the problems with how the UN is proposing world government? We need to build a world of masters, and government is a tool of the public, their servants. The united nations has not served my interests, period. The only mandate of the united nations should be to spread the spirit of law, common law, and criminal law, and to ensure that an educated public has the opportunity to confront the system and have a jury of their peers decide what is lawful and what is not lawful. The united nations should inspire creativity to make responsible masters contribute to the good of all, and not irresponsible slaves, nor irresponsible monopolizing corporations who are robbing human beings of their dignity. Remember, the un, is not my master. I am not their child. I do not need to accept their liabilities, nor should I ever submit application to this body nor ever need to.

    If you want to manage corporations, go ahead, but leave us individuals alone. Reaganomics never works, it only manages to create a populace of children in diapers and who are being taken advantage of by the greedy. I will never bow to the UN, nor will I ever stop fighting their influence in trying to create a tyrannical dictatorial world government. I am a sovereign man if I can prove that I can live in peace and treat others with dignity, if I can establish that I am an adult, and not a child in a diaper. I’m tired of being surrounded by idiot children in diapers, and I am tired of watching how the UN doctors and spins information, it is sickening to me.

    GOOD JOB on taking notice of the facts that do not add up for 9/11.

  35. Bryan Hemming January 27, 2011 at 4:01 am #

    Amazing, I picked up the link to this from MediaLens.

    To read the response of some to the comments you made, it might be believed you were a conspiricist, whereas in reality you are just questioning whether there shouldn’t be a little more neutrality on certain polemic issues from both sides.

    I have never been a 9/11 conspiricist, simply because I am always a third party reading someone’s particular point of view. Nevertheless, there seem to be a lot of things that need explaining.

    The controversy over your – forgive me for saying – weak, but relevant attack on the way government has handled the aftermath of 9/11, only fuels a growing suspicion that some people do have something to hide.

    I suppose that confirms I have joined the ranks of conspiricists simply for not swallowing everything I’m fed.

    The UN is not a political organisation as such, and therefore all its workers should be entitled to express differing opinions on world matters. Isn’t that the whole point?

    Calling for your dismissal is a political act.

    It is high time the US stopped seeing the UN as an arm of American foreign policy.

    I admire your bravery, and believe support for people who stand up for what they believe in is growing throughout the world.

  36. anon January 27, 2011 at 4:46 am #

    The reason you are never allowed to question 9-11 is because there were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11. The war on terror just like the WMD’s in Iraq were a staged US lie. The images of planes were brought to you by the top US military corporations that own the US media outlets, GE owns NBC, Westinghouse owns CBS etc.

    There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11. NOT ONE single piece of debris from any of the 4 planes from any of the 4 locations from 9-11 has ever been physically verified in any way. Nothing. Not one single piece. There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11.

  37. Dick Scar January 27, 2011 at 10:22 am #

    Richard, I would like to offer the support of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in defending your statements and calling for an new independent investigation.

    • Richard Falk January 27, 2011 at 11:29 am #

      Thanks, Dick, much appreciated. I think there may be an increased receptivity (and with it intensified opposition) to the move for an authoritative inquiry that examines unanswered questions.

  38. rehmat1 January 27, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    Glenn Beck, Daniel Pippes, Bill O’Reilly, David Horowitz are among FAIR magazine’s 2008 list of America’s top Muslim-haters (Islamophobes). These bigots love to smear Islam and Muslims, but when westerner try to say the truth – he/she loses ‘credibility’ like Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez or Richard Falk.

    While Susan Rice has demanded that Mr. Falk be expelled from UN – 400 Rabbis have asked CNN’s owner Rupert Fox to fire Glenn Beck for making the ‘political wrong’ statement. Last year Canada’s top university, the University of Toronto came under fire from the pro-Israel Jewish groups – for awarding a Master degree to a Jewish female student for thesis on ‘Jewish racism’.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/u-of-t-under-fire-for-thesis-on-jewish-racism/

  39. Shelton F. Lankford January 28, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    Mr. Falk, I commend you for your candor in addressing 9/11 as a worthy subject for investigation. The reaction to your remarks is, in itself, strongly indicative of the truth of your statements. The near-panic reaction among those officials is very familiar to anyone of any prominence who dares question orthodoxy around the “Al Qaeda did it all by themselves and caught us completely by surprise and Bin Laden is the focus of evil in the world” school of what passes publicly for thought among officials of the current world order. Those of us who have been following closely the researchers and scholars who have been patiently collecting evidence around the events of 9/11 are all too familiar with the studied indifference to that evidence exhibited by the mainstream media. It begs the question “In what respects would the media behave differently if it were a totally controlled organ of the United States government?”

    Thank you for speaking out.

  40. The Truth is Out There & In You! January 28, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    David Ray Griffin: “In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
    Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.”
    (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the
    Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in
    support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.”

    http://davidraygriffin.com/articles/the-911-commission-report-a-571-page-lie/

    Griffin goes on to list 100+ “lies”. Here are five related “lies” I believe proves Griffin is a
    conspiracy theorist that propagates pure lies himself:

    17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

    18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse
    until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to
    have entered (34).

    19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757
    were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

    21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras—including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike—could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

    89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77
    (224-25).
    ————————–

    What Griffin is trying to do is mislead his audience down the path to the discredited conspiracy theory
    that a missile hit the Pentagon. I am disgusted & repelled that he is so foolish & deceptive (and/or mentally defective or ill) to advance this set of “lies” to create a missile conspiracy lie!

    This conspiracy internet/urban legend caught on with an Alex Jones sponsored Internet movie “Loose Change”. I’ve listened to this loon for years, as I am in Austin Texas, and Alex tells lies on a daily, weekly, or, at least, monthly basis. Unfortunately, this tends to discredit some useful information AJ uncovers from time to time. His world view has been distorted by some personal experiences that have unbalanced him towards seeing everything within conspiracy colored glasses. His conspiracy theories have made him a multimillionaire.

    I do believe some limited number of our government employees & representatives (high&low) do engage in lies, conspiracies, fraud, mental or physical torture, and criminal activities against its citizens, because this is THE HUMAN CONDITION. We all live within our “tribal dangers”. WE ARE acting as a nation of psychopaths & sociopaths & power corrupts absolutely, too often, within our government that sanctions undeclared wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else our treasure or pride/ideology is threatened. Lithium was the latest idea floated-recently about Afghanistan!

    We NEVER needed to go to War for Kuwait or for the terrorists that downed the Twin Towers, etc. We do NOT need to murder ten of thousands of innocent people that had nothing to do with 911. Now, we have far more enemies & sick people in the world, including our soldiers, from OUR bloody hands of our government’s leadership.

    Everyone understand this: 911 was 100% preventable had our leadership been on proper alert for this well known plot the terrorists planned for years!

    The REAL CONSPIRACY is why WE, I, you have conspired, at least passively, to have blood on our hands for the misdeeds of our government’s mis-leadership to take us into our undeclared and unnecessary wars. Fools! Republicans & Democrats are equally, brutally, guilty as charged. BF-Our-US-Constitution!

    War is the most extreme Evil we can do to one another. Why do we allow our leaders take us to war to commit this most extreme form of OUR SHARED Evil? Why are we Americans so Evil to engage in wars we do not need to be doing for our very own survival?

    WE HAD NO INVASION ON 911.

    Now, our economy & future self-investment is being destroyed by these wars we never needed for our very own survival. (The terrorists have us pegged perfectly for the insane fools we are! Soon, we will be and are hunting each other for the scarce resources & our race to the bottom!)

    I despise “free” trade. I despise our export of jobs. I despise global domination. I despise trickle
    down anything. I despise FOX, MSNBC, and CNN for all the propaganda & ratings-money-whoring in trade for failed leadership’s talking points from both corporate & government elites. I despise the war-on-drugs. I despise Waco & the demonizing of my fellow Americans. I despise the financial instruments & taxes that create & allow for these evils. I hate war! I despise any leader that supports these Evils instead of ending this madness including our current leadership on both sides of the same coin. Why am I so sane in our insane-country asylum?

    Is it any wonder life is hell in this regard?
    ————–

    See the Google Video “Screw Loose Change” to understand the falsehoods about the Pentagon being hit by a missile.

    Screw Loose Change is free online:

    • The Truth is Out There & In You! January 31, 2011 at 1:00 pm #

      This post by me just above was accidentally posted before completing editing. The actual completed post is here:

      http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/#comment-465

      In the post here (The Truth is Out There & In You!), at this location, I left out my idea of Griffin creating Rorschachs, which “consistently connects the dots to form conspiracy images far from the truth but not unique to this Rorschach type.”

      These Rorschach dots lead to “lies” & conspiracy theories that are totally false except in the minds of people that think this way… It’s still NOT reality or real world for many if not most people, when all the related (relevant) factual dots are accounted for. (Griffin too often uses a shotgun method, which many of the scatter-shot beads/dots never hit the mark or real “factual” target.)

      I can’t know Griffin’s motivations for creating a lot of erroneous “what if” dots to suggest he is willfully lying or distorting reality, but I will say he forms a lot of limited or exclusive “conspiracy theory” dots that some of us will connect quite differently than the total picture of most of the relevant dots… just as we see Rorschach images in different ways.

      The truth or lies can be viewed quite differently in these Rorschach dots depending on how one thinks or believes & the dots one is (sometimes purposely) limited to “seeing”.

      A case in point, is there are willful & disgusting Rorschach-falsehoods being spread aggressively by conspiracy theorists that American Airlines flight 77 never hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 and/or that a missile or planted explosives were involved.

      Check these five links to debunk these 911 Pentagon falsified conspiracy dots:

      (At Youtube you can select the HD high-definition versions on the player. The distracting music ends near the beginning of each video.)

      Part One:

      Part 2:

      Part 3:

      Part 4:

      Final Part:

      Here is an 11 minute version, by two well known 911 conspiracy theorists, if you don’t have time or interest for the details above:

    • The Truth is Out There & In You! January 31, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

      This post by me just above was accidentally posted before completing editing. The actual completed post is here:

      http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/#comment-465

      In the post here (The Truth is Out There & In You!), at this location, I left out my idea of Griffin creating Rorschachs, which “consistently connects the dots to form conspiracy images far from the truth but not unique to this Rorschach type.”

      These Rorschach dots lead to “lies” & conspiracy theories that are totally false except in the minds of people that think this way… It’s still NOT reality or real world for many if not most people, when all the related (relevant) factual dots are accounted for. (Griffin too often uses a shotgun method, which many of the pellets/dots never hit the mark or real “factual” target.)

      I can’t know Griffin’s motivations for creating a lot of erroneous “what if” dots to suggest he is willfully lying or distorting reality, but I will say he forms a lot of exclusive or selected “conspiracy theory” dots that some of us will connect quite differently than the total picture of most of the relevant dots… just as we see Rorschach images in different ways.

      The truth or lies can be viewed quite differently in these Rorschach dots/images depending on how one thinks or believes & the dots one is (sometimes purposely) limited to “seeing” and believing.

      A case in point, is there are willful & disgusting Rorschach-falsehoods being spread aggressively by conspiracy theorists that American Airlines flight 77 never hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 and/or that a missile or planted explosives were involved.

      Check these five links to debunk these CIT 911 Pentagon falsified conspiracy dots, or skip to the last link below for the short version:

      (At Youtube you can select the HD high-definition versions on the player. The distracting music ends near the beginning of each video.)

      Part 1:

      Part 2:

      Part 3:

      Part 4:

      Final Part:

      Here is an 11 minute version, by two well known 911 conspiracy theorists, if you don’t have time or interest for the details above:

      • Ganapatrak February 6, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

        You, and your “Rorschach dots”, are simply ludicrous.

    • Ganapatrak February 2, 2011 at 7:24 am #

      You said : “” What Griffin is trying to do is mislead his audience down the path to the discredited conspiracy theory
      that a missile hit the Pentagon. I am disgusted & repelled that he is so foolish & deceptive (and/or mentally defective or ill) to advance this set of “lies” to create a missile conspiracy lie! “”
      And I say :

      ON THE FRONTSIDE OF THE PENTAGON, THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE THAN A SINGLE HOLE MEASURING ABOUT 5 X 5 METERS… AND AT THE PLACE WHERE THE 2 ENGINES (EACH ONE WEIGHING MORE THAN 2.5 TONS) SHOULD HAVE PULVERISED THE MASONRY, THE WALLS WERE ABSOLUTELY INTACT, WITH THE WINDOWS STILL HAVING THEIR GLASSES…
      Everybody has to notice that, following the 9/11 official report, the “Boeing 757″ crashed on the wall at a speed of 540 M/H.
      And we have to agree that such an absurdity is the very truth ???
      THE ONLY REASONABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT ANY EXPLANATION OF THIS CRASH INVOLVING A 2 REACTORS PLANE IS LITERALLY, TO STATE THE OBVIOUS, A NONSENSE. HENCE A LIE… OR, AT LEAST, A STRANGE, A TERRIBLE LACK OF OBJECTIVITY.
      THIS IS WHY A NEW INVESTIGATION IS URGENTLY, DRAMATICALLY NEEDED.
      GOT THE POINT ?

      • The Truth is Out There & In You! February 4, 2011 at 8:50 am #

        “THE ONLY REASONABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT ANY EXPLANATION OF THIS CRASH INVOLVING A 2 REACTORS (edit: 2 Jet Engines) PLANE IS LITERALLY, TO STATE THE OBVIOUS, A NONSENSE. HENCE A LIE…”
        —————

        Regarding the Pentagon, for example, once the two policemen, the Citco Gas Station Attendant, and the Pentagon’s air traffic controller (about 75ft from impact) are accounted for, then there is no doubt these people will swear the AA77 757 impacted the Pentagon. There are many other CREDIBLE witnesses to this event that are documented too. No witnesses saw the AA77 miss the Pentagon or a missile. Too many CREDIBLE eye-witnesses saw what actually happened.

        Don’t forget thousands of people would have been watching the skies near the Pentagon, since the Twin Towers were already impacted by large passenger jet aircraft. There was an alert or obvious assumption that other hijacked airline planes were possibly headed for Washington too.

        The government’s flight animations were never meant to substitute for the real-life CREDIBLE eye-witness accounts. There was no way to track the aircraft accurately with the transponder off & it flying low to the ground. The plane was never going in a straight line, and the data-logger inside the plane is not a perfect replication or precision log of exactly what happened. Crash data instruments are not perfectly accurate. There is room for calibration or logging errors without the need to use the word or idea of “conspiracy” or cover-up.

        The damage to the Pentagon was huge compared to your suggestion there was a single 5×5 meter approximate sized hole. The 757 jet hit a newly bomb-hardened area of the Pentagon. I have personal knowledge & experience with bullet-bomb resistant windows, so I know these will not disintegrate. The Pentagon’s polycarbonate-glass windows would curve in or out slightly from any blast waves with the glass cracking from the debris, and the 757 hit the hardened wall at an unusual angle, not head-on, thus “folding” the wings inward towards the fuselage hole.

        Your wasting your time worrying about whether a 757 AA77 jet impacted the Pentagon just as you would be wasting your time wondering whether jet aircraft impacted the Twin Towers in NYC. It 100% happened, unless “your world” of 911 is your brain conspiracy contained only within your mind & in similar thinking conspiracy minds too. That’s still not reality to most impartial observers of all the evidence.

        The Pentagon victims deserve to rest in peace & with the already known truth about how they died… including the surviving families & friends of AA77.

        FACT: The US government failed to track the terrorists & detain them to prevent 911. There were multiple opportunities or possibilities this could have happened.

        THEORY that could be fact:

        1) It is possible some government employees high&low were criminally negligent to do their jobs.

        2) It is possible there were horrible insane decisions to wait and “see what happens” with some government employees responsible for investigating the terrorists before their attack.

        3) It is possible there was a criminal conspiracy, especially, to cover-up the failed reasons the government did not prevent the 911 attacks. After all, it is a known fact that the terrorists were attempting to destroy the Twin Towers for many years, and that there was a strong possibly of using passenger jets to do it. (IMO, there is very likely criminal conspiracy to cover-up various aspects of these negligent failures.)
        ————-

        Almost 10 years have passed to destroy such evidence, so it is likely we will never know ‘the truth’ about all the cover-ups whether criminal or just embarrassing & humiliating abject failures.

        If 911 had happened in Japan, then many top leaders would have resigned ‘on principal’ for the failures to prevent the attacks. Unfortunately, no top leadership, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Defense Department, Covert Operators, or Bush’s political appointments were fired or asked to resign.

        There has been no accountability in this regard too, and I think that is a complete and total failure of our leadership, noted above, to take responsibility for 911. Conspiracy Theories will continue to be a multimillion dollar business, & some 911 criminals & incompetent people in multiple governments (foreign & domestic) prefer to keep it that way.

        FACT: 911 definitely was an International job that included some failed inside-job preventions within our government too.

      • Ganapatrak February 4, 2011 at 11:27 am #

        To “” The truth is out…””

        You are still denying the elementary laws of the physics IN IGNORING this simple fact : THERE WAS NO TRACK, NO SIGN, NOT THE SMALLEST MARK OF ANY ENGINE ON THE PENTAGON’S WALL.
        AND NO LANDING GEAR.
        NO FUSELAGE.
        NO TAIL.

        HENCE: NO BOEING 757.
        Have you at least read the Karen Kwiatkovski testimony ? She is a much reliable eyewitness of the crash. She was present at the site with Donald Rumsfeld and consorts, a vezry short time after the event and, however, at least 10 minutes before the collapsing of the façade… so, read her testimony… it’s worth the time which you’ll spend on it. Here is the link : http://patriotsquestion911.com/ … and an extract of her testimony :
        “”There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a “missile”. …
        I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact – no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. … all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
        The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. … But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
        The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. …
        More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day.”
        Editor’s note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro. “”
        End of quotation.
        Tell me, dear american citizen : aren’t you able to take in account, once for all, this reality ?
        Why do you try irrepressibly to minimize the gravity of the 9/11 slaughters ?
        For instance – regarding the Twin Towers – why are you unable to realise that the pulverisation of 850 000 Tons of material in 10 seconds is absolutely impossible without explosives ?
        THEY DID NOT COLLAPSE… THEY WERE DISINTEGRATED… THEY WERE TURNED INTO DUST.

        Haven’t you seen the incredible geyser throwing out several hundred thousands Tons of plaster, asbestos and concrete turned into dust all around the building while the STEEL COLUMNS (weighing 200 000 Tons) were cut in small pieces, a part of it (weighing several Tons) being thrown at 150 meters from the site ?
        IN TEN SECONDS ? I repeat : IN TEN SECONDS ?
        And, subsequently, are you able to understand that the “jihadists” could not be implicated, giving the fact that they obviously could not have done the mining of the buildings ?

        And – huh – how do you swallow the WTC 7 FALL IN 6.6 SECONDS ?

        What the hell about the insider traders ?
        The hell, too, about the strange attitude of Bush focusing on the problems of a goat (and magically watching on a TV screen the first crash before any broadcasting) ?
        Are you sleeping in your good old habits and certainties ? Blindly buying the enormous hoaxes of your government ? So enormous, so puzzling, squalid, grubby and miserable that you always will do anything but face the terrible truth ?
        Are you sleeping, dear old citizen Kane, comfortably nestled in your childish dreams ?

      • Smith GT Washington February 4, 2011 at 5:54 pm #

        1) You wrote:
        “THERE WAS NO TRACK, NO SIGN, NOT THE SMALLEST MARK OF ANY ENGINE ON THE PENTAGON’S WALL.
        AND NO LANDING GEAR.
        NO FUSELAGE.
        NO TAIL.

        HENCE: NO BOEING 757.”

        There were two engine (right-left) impacts outside the building documented in photos I already provided links to in previous posts. The aircraft disintegrated & burned inside the Pentagon after it penetrated at several hundred mph by the impact just as the two Twin Tower airliners were similarly destroyed after impact.

        The Pentagon was a hardened target, so any aircraft hitting & penetrating inside the Pentagon, just as American Airlines Flight 77 did, would be destroyed with the debris shredded & burned inside the Pentagon. AA77 did not crash on the Pentagon lawn, and that is why there is very little debris outside the Pentagon building.

        2) “Have you at least read the Karen Kwiatkovski testimony ?”

        The question is whether or not flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. Karen did NOT eye-witness the AA77 fly into & hit the Pentagon. Karen is NOT an EYEWITNESS to the flight or impact, and she never saw anything until later. Everything she knows happened several minutes AFTER the AA77 impact & explosion. I’m sure lots of people were confused, just as Karen was, since she never saw AA77 hit the Pentagon.

        The fact remains two airliners hit the Twin Towers & one 757 AA77 hit the Pentagon. The foreign middle-east-born terrorist “agents” used giant passenger airliners to do the damage. It is simply not reality to believe otherwise. You are most likely infected by a “mind conspiracy” that does not match real-world history if you don’t ‘know’ or ‘understand’ AA77 hit the Pentagon & there was no missile.

  41. antoinette crowne January 29, 2011 at 9:04 am #

    I came upon your blog whilst I was viewing Haaretz.com. The distortion between what your blog actually read and what their article said it read, is quite fascinating, I am glad I took the time to read your blog, and to discover the intelligent discourse and high quality debate you initiated. The misinformation banks on the hope that most readers will not bother to verify what you actually expressed in your blog. I would like to thank you for encouraging people’s right to seek the truth and be unbiased in their judgement of right and wrong. The more people take the time to care, the more respect governments will have for their real watchdog, the average person with a thinking analytical brain.

    • Richard Falk January 29, 2011 at 9:44 am #

      Thanks Antoinette for these sympathetic words. Your message certainly captured my intention in the blog, and yes, it is my impression that my assailants were not interested in reading accurately what I was trying to express.

  42. Robert Dov Levin "Bob" January 29, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    As to 9-11, I opine it was a false flag operation based on insider information volunteered to me by a republican source very close to the U.S. Secret Service under Bush 41. I am a validated FBI Whistleblower and today was communicated a letter from the U.S. Passport office that makes me a political prisoner of the United States, whereby they has made a demand from me that if honored would cause me to violate the same federal laws that applied in the Valerie Plame Wilson case; albeit I’ve been outed multiple times by known clandestine federal agents.

  43. Shelton F. Lankford January 31, 2011 at 9:24 pm #

    Quoting from Smith, GT Washington
    January 29, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    “Shelton F. Lankford wrote: “Whether it was a missile or pre-placed explosives that caused the damage to the building, the impossibility of the aircraft doing it renders the official account of 9/11 a deliberate hoax on the American people and a crime of gigantic proportions.”
    ——————— (to which Mr. Smith replied)
    This is simply more 100% false 911-inside-job propaganda. Please watch the three-four minute free video here:

    OR, for those who have the time & interest, please go here to study & research the facts:

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

    “104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
    6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact…”

    Shelton F. Lankford Replies:

    The information from which I (and many others) derive the conclusion that the best evidence shows that the passenger-type aircraft seen over Arlington on 9/11 could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon, is presented in great detail in the website of the Citizen Investigation Team, where their film “National Security Alert – 9/11 Pentagon Attack” can be seen in its entirity. Here is the link: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html . There is neither room nor reason to present it here. If you are interested in evidence beyond a loose aggregation of random quotes, sentence fragments of uncertain attribution, and misleading or mistaken assertions, please go to the site. There you will see and hear from their own mouths in their own words statements of 13 witnesses who were in the best position to observe the aircraft over Arlington, inbound to the Pentagon. After hearing their accounts, decide how likely it is that they could be mistaken as to the position of the aircraft relative to the Citgo Gas Station, a fixed point of common reference. They unanimously place it on a path that passes North of the station, a position from which the aircraft has already eliminated the official story’s flight path, from the trail of destroyed light poles, the damaged generator trailer, the entry hole, and the path allegedly made by the plane through the Pentagon, as being in the realm of the possible.

    It is simply impossible for a transport category aircraft to achieve that flight path from that position. Even an attempt to do so would require maneuvering beyond the capability of the airframe.

    Mr. Smith offers his evidence summary which can be found in several places around the internet. It is frequently cited in rebuttal of CIT’s evidence, and CIT has dealt with this material in supplemental presentations and other interviews. Mr. Smith’s number of 104 counter-witnesses includes some who were not able to see the point of alleged impact, one of whom was out of town at the time. The bare assertion that they saw the impact of the plane, is to me insufficient to overcome the simple fact that that plane could not have struck the Pentagon. When eyewitnesses differ in their accounts, what is one to believe? Ordinarily other factors must be consulted to answer that question. The crucial question to consider is “Did the aircraft pass North or South of the Citgo station?” North of the station means no impact, but it contradicts, clearly, what many people, (including the witnesses CIT interviews) honestly BELIEVE: that the aircraft indeed hit the Pentagon.

    The entire event at the Pentagon was obviously intended to create the illusion of a plane hitting the Pentagon. They saw what they were supposed to see. Inconveniently for Mr. Smith, one interviewed witness, Pentagon Police Officer Roosevelt Roberts observed the aircraft after it passed over the building and was flying away.

    On close examination, the official account is much like a large jigsaw puzzle in the middle of which a close look reveals pieces which do not quite fit and which appear to have been altered by scissors and paint to try unsuccessfully to MAKE them fit.

    This is not a proper venue in which to exhaustively argue this case. I invite you to examine CIT’s evidence along with Mr. Smith’s list and sources, and ask yourself which would be credible in a court of law?

    CIT has been attacked by a great many critics for putting their evidence into a clear understandable form, identifying their sources, and conducting multiple interviews to get at the truth. Have their critics gone so far? You be the judge.

    There are many other reasons whose roots pre-date the CIT efforts, to doubt the Pentagon story. A suspicious lack of wreckage, bodies, luggage, etc., a highly questionable investigation, that omitted such standard features as attempting to reconstruct the aircraft, and even a lack of positive identification of the aircraft as Flight 77, which should be easily done by reference to serialized parts traceable to maintenance records, was not. This last fact raises a great many questions, since the airframe identification and carrier is part of the Flight Data Recording. In the alleged records of the Pentagon FDR, those fields are zero’d out, removing the possibility that the “black box” or that recording could ever be traced to any particular airframe or carrier. For more on this, visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20999 . This joins many other questionable features of that FDR record which, even if you took it at face value, and IF you believed the data, does not support the government story as to position of the aircraft and ability of the aircraft to hit the Pentagon. But conclusive evidence that the aircraft could not have created the damage means that artifacts of the “crash” including the FDR, are discredited .

    Mr. Smith requested an answer, and here is mine. Mr. Falk made reference to “reluctance to address” the holes in the official account, ably documented by Dr. David Ray Griffin, a highly respected author and researcher, in his 13 books on the subject, which, if Mr. Smith is going to refute, he had better get started. He has some catching up to do.

    Mr. Falk merely pointed to legitimate questions, and is being unjustly castigated for it – a not uncommon treatment accorded those who dare challenge imperial orthodoxy. My words here are my own and do not represent his views.

    Shelton F. Lankford is a retired LtCol. USMC, a Naval Aviator with over 10,000 flight hours, a Vietnam veteran, a core member of Pilotsfor911truth.org, and a signatory of a statment from 25 former military officers requesting a new investigation into the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

    • Shelton F. Lankford February 4, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

      Update: Those of you who have been aware to the attempts to discredit the Citizens Investigation Team’s evidence may find their response to critics who claim to be inside the Truth Movement enlightening. Their long-form rebuttal to those who claim “hundreds of witnesses” proving it happened just as the official story claims can be found here:

      http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement/

      • Smith GT Washington February 4, 2011 at 7:05 pm #

        Shelton F. Lankford wrote:

        “Update: Those of you who have been aware to the attempts to discredit the Citizens Investigation Team’s evidence may find their response to critics who claim to be inside the Truth Movement enlightening. Their long-form rebuttal to those who claim “hundreds of witnesses” proving it happened just as the official story claims can be found here:”
        ====================

        I reply:

        WARNING!!! CIT, Citizen Investigation Team, are committing docudrama LIAR-FRAUD or pure fiction (I believe willfully) on unsuspecting innocent people everywhere on planet earth with an Internet connection that are concerned about what hit the Pentagon!!! CIT has used or manipulated & doctored photos and video to distort images and “fake-out” those innocent people that are looking for honest answers! This is a form of Conspiracy-Evil, imo, because the key CIT investigators KNOW the photos & video used as their evidence are EXTREME DISTORTIONS and DO NOT MATCH REALITY OR WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IN REAL LIFE AT THE PENTAGON.

        CIT uses satellite Google Earth pictures, which CAN NOT be “ground-distance accurate” due to the wide camera angles & camera wide-angle-lens distortions. These satellite pictures were not taken directly overhead causing more distortions of reality. CIT falsified or changed or misused distorted ground photos, distorted & altered pictures shown in video, and other distorted overhead topography pictures taken at angles with extreme wide-lens effects to distort the flight path of AA77’s trajectory in relation to light poles that it hit before impact. It is very likely photos were willfully altered by special-effects software to exaggerate further these lens distortions.

        This is a Conspiracy-Evil being perpetrated on the innocent public that can not understand or believe CIT would willfully lie and distort the truth. Most people do not understand camera optics or topography distortions & how photos and video can be further distorted to make a complete FALSE-fabrication of reality. CIT are willful liars, imo, but CIT is certainly NOT presenting the truth about what happened… CIT’s main conclusion, as of 2-4-11, is that AA77 never hit the Pentagon, and/or that it could never have hit the light-poles & hit the Pentagon too. It is SHAMEFUL & insane, imo, so please realize you are being TOTALLY DUPED if you can’t understand you’re being fooled & believe-in their LIAR DOCUMENTARY.

        Remember, it is possible to create movies or documentaries with special-effects or distortions and creative editing & use misdirection to look real & documented as factual, but it still is NOT reality. That is why magic tricks & Hollywood movies can be so entertaining, and why CIT can fabricate a LIAR or FALSE Documentary regarding what really happened on 911 at the Pentagon. Yes, AA77 hit the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001 killing all its passengers & many inside the Pentagon too. CIT is disgusting to suggest otherwise.

      • Shelton F. Lankford February 4, 2011 at 9:17 pm #

        With respect to Mr. Smith’s hysterical rant, please just review the writings and evidence on both sides of this issue, and compare. CIT’s case is fully documented. Mr. Smith’s side, not so much. I don’t think he is all that confident of his facts, but that may just be me.

      • Ganapatrak February 4, 2011 at 10:17 pm #

        Let us ignore such a professionnal liar. He is just one more TROLL whose only job is deception, deception and deception. In no way and by no means will he give any true attention to a single fact, a single element of proof that could invalidate the official story.
        In France, we call this kind of mercenaries “sold”, which mean mole and finally, more or less : traitor. The bad faith of this one is blatantly illustrated in his last (hysterical, yes !) post…

      • Ganapatrak February 4, 2011 at 10:44 pm #

        Here is a quote of a post sent here by Elias Davidsson on Jan 26, which is a good rundown of the 9/11 file :

        “” Anyone merely scratching the surface of the forensics of 9/11, will soon discover that the U.S. government…
        (a) failed to prove that any Arabs/Muslims actually boarded the four flights that are linked to 9/11;
        (b) failed to positively identify the wreckage of the crashed aircraft;
        (c) failed to determine the true reason for the unprecedented pulverization of the Twin Towers;
        (d) attempted to prevent a true investigation of 9/11;
        (e) pre-determined the focus and results of investigations that it grudgingly allowed;
        (f) condoned the destruction of criminal evidence;
        (g) bribed or intimidated witnesses and victims’ families in order to silence them;
        (h) spread false rumors to amplify the impact of 9/11; and…
        (i) showed no interest in finding and detaining Osama bin Laden or charging him for 9/11.
        If this is not “guilty demeanor”, then what is it ?

      • The Truth is Out There & In You! February 15, 2011 at 1:36 am #

        Shelton F. Lankford wrote:

        Update: Those of you who have been aware to the attempts to discredit the Citizens Investigation Team’s evidence may find their response to critics who claim to be inside the Truth Movement enlightening.
        ================================

        A major figure in the 911 Truth Movement, Richard Gage, has come forward to speak out against CIT.

        Full article here:

        http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1905

        Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

        Excerpt:

        “I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.”

  44. David Lenef February 5, 2011 at 12:05 am #

    Smith GT Washington, Shelton F. Lankford, Ganapatrak, et al: I’m dismayed at your 9/11 flame war. I understand the emotional background for the conversation, as I’m a total 9/11 truther myself. But not here in this context. You are not serving the interests of the author with this argument. He’s given us the privilege of providing feedback about his blog post, and your 9/11 facts battle is abusing that privilege. The comments section are intended for, um… comments about Richard’s post. So for crying out loud, please take your fight out to the playground and leave the rest of us in peace in the classroom.

    • Ganapatrak February 5, 2011 at 11:01 am #

      You’re right, David Lenef, and I was conscient of something being wrong from my part. But I was strongly disturbed by several commentaries distorting, in this very thread, the 9/11 facts.
      Actually, and as you say, we have to focus on one of the best news of this new year : the Richard’s post and his enligtening words which – thanks to the fury of two or three influential persons – are traveling all over the world.
      Wise, cautious and acute words! I praise you, Richard Falk, for your clarity, your loyalty to the palestinian people and to any human being fighting for his elementary rights.
      Not many people are able to realise that we are on the verge of being denied these rights in our own democracies, in the very heart of the Jefferson homeland, in Europa and in France, too.
      These rights are more and more precarious… and nobody -or almost nobody – seems really conscient of this erosion, this alarming empoverishment. Hence the merit and the unique value of a Richard Falk : he belongs, these days, to an endangered species.
      Let us work with him and propagate his spirit of solidarity.
      Ready to help you and act concretely.
      Yours,
      Gana

  45. Mrethiopian February 5, 2011 at 8:30 pm #

    Anyone with integrity that speaks or writes against the fiction made up by the 9/11 commission or the criminals involved with the cover-up are instantly labeled as criminals them selfs.

    When we look at the government documentation that has been produced (Fiction)explaining why and how 9/11 was perpetrated by simple men with box cutters, and explanations with critically omitted findings of buildings that fell without answer, we are made to beleave this is the truth; and that questioning it suggests we are deviant or that we are somehow questioning or hate the USA. This could not be further from the truth, as some of us are US citizens, questioning our government is nothing more than the basis of how and why America was created. We the people that question the 9/11 farce given too us by our government should be looked at as patriots, not criminals.

    The USA was created because the government ruling us was corrupt and wanted nothing more than to exploit its human resources (people). So how is this situation, 9/11 any different? The 9/11 commission report is incomplete and until we get answers how can any of us be satisfied, if anything we should be questioning or ostracizing the people that question why we need the truth.

    The people that question our simple suggestion that the 9/11 story is incomplete are crooked and need to be investigated, turn-about is fair play; question the questioners, infiltrate the liars and expose the truth, people that say Mr Falk is wrong are suspect and need to be scrutinized, if you work for thees people, dig through their records find us the proof and save the world.

    Harsh words for a harsh time.

    • Richard Falk February 6, 2011 at 7:18 am #

      As has been said, questioning 9/11 in any way, has become a ‘third rail’ in American political life, which is itself grounds for suspicion. Why the over-reaction to asking for answers to questions that persist, and are being asked by credible
      individuals who have looked hard at the evidence and the official version.

    • The Truth is Out There & In You! February 7, 2011 at 5:36 am #

      ================================
      AN HONEST APPEAL TO THE TRUTHERS
      ================================

      Mrethiopian February 5, 2011 at 8:30 pm wrote:
      When we look at the government documentation that has been produced (Fiction)explaining why and how 9/11 was perpetrated by simple men with box cutters, and explanations with critically omitted findings of buildings that fell without answer, we are made to beleave this is the truth; and that questioning it suggests we are deviant or that we are somehow questioning or hate the USA. This could not be further from the truth, as some of us are US citizens, questioning our government is nothing more than the basis of how and why America was created. We the people that question the 9/11 farce given too us by our government should be looked at as patriots, not criminals.
      —————————–

      I agree about “questioning our government”, our founding fathers & historical heritage is one that should compel every US Citizen to question those in power within our government, AND, ALSO, to question those in power in private business closely connected to our government both foreign & domestic.

      I have honestly studied the CIT (very young inexperienced “believer” adults -usually perfect patsies for that reason alone) film makers & documentary, and I stand by “my rant” against their single conclusion that AA77 never hit the Pentagon.

      In fact, only by digging through all the outside data they provide (CRITICAL key information is MISSING in their video) can one learn “the truth”… AND THE TRUTH IS: there is enough eyewitness accounts from believable & reputable people to KNOW AA77 hit the Pentagon. Only by careful examination AND UNDERSTANDING of the photography & video can one ALSO grasp my allegation of fraud or willful deceptions!

      I will also declare I spent many hours over months researching the Twin Towers, and I believe these collapsed directly as a result of the airliner impacts & resulting damage.

      I will also declare I spent many hours over months researching Building 7, and I will say no one can say for certain exactly how it collapsed. Anyone that studies the structure of building 7, AND knows that it was BUILT ON TOP OF ANOTHER BUILDING that remained, the power station, can understand its design & beam support system was unique. It would not be the way to build that building from scratch, so it could/did have serious design flaws for a 911 type failure. I’m not going to waste anymore of my time or my life debating these issues. Why?

      My question to ALL THE TRUTHERS is why in the hell are you wasting your time and your life debating THE BUILDING ISSUES, when the real question IS: Why did the US government not hold accountable those that KNEW these terrorists were inside our borders plotting terrorist attacks? Why weren’t these attacks easily prevented?

      Honestly, I don’t think we have been given ANY ANSWERS or RESULTS, because the “STUPID” truth movement has wasted 10 years focusing on THE BUILDINGS.

      Honestly, I think there is a Disinfo Campaign that captures young or naive “Truthers” that is ultimately STUPID & FOOLISH by focusing on any of the building collapses, because this IS NOT ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS… SO WE WILL NEVER GET ANY ACCOUNTABILITY!!!

      Whether this is a conscious PSYOPS campaign does not really matter, but IT IS GETTING THE SAME RESULT AS A PSYOP CAMPAIGN THAT WOULD WANT THESE RESULTS…

      No focus on why the FBI, CIA, NSA, political leadership, military leadership, AND those directly tracking these terrorists got away with it AND why there is still no resignations or accountability or prosecutions!!!

      This is WHY I believe the Truther Movement is an abject failure AND a godsend to the conspirators, incompetents, and criminals in government involved in 911 cover-ups!!!

      Geee, the drama of buildings falling is soooo much more important than holding those accountable that allowed for these attacks to occur in the first place. FOOLS & PSYOPS, NO DOUBT.

      IF THERE ARE ANY CRIMINALS OR CONSPIRATORS THAT AIDED IN 911 WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENT, THEN THESE PEOPLE LOVE & THANK THEIR LUCKY STARS “THE BUILDING TRUTHERS” EXIST.

      Has any building collapse “Truther” realized this yet, and gone on to offer productive investigation in the matters I’m concerned with?… What REALLY MATTERS, IMO.

      • Ganapatrak February 7, 2011 at 11:59 am #

        I beg your pardon, Mr Richard Falk, but… will you allow me to give just the beginning of an answer to this charming fellow ? In the name of the (sad) Truth ?

        To “The Truth is Out”
        You wrote : ” No focus on why the FBI, CIA, NSA, political leadership, military leadership, AND those directly tracking these terrorists got away with it AND why there is still no resignations or accountability or prosecutions!!! ”

        Why indeed ?!! Yes. Why the hell ?
        Well… because they (the government top members who are supposed to defend their people) aren’t ready to spill the beans, and… is’nt it understandable ?
        Tell me : WHY the hell were the 9/11 FOUR boeings not intercepted by the FAA, the NORAD, etc… especially the flight 77 during its long approach of the Pentagon (Cheney himself being perfectly aware of this approach) ? Because they wanted at any cost a new Pearl Harbour ! Simply. Squarely.
        And all their stuff was very well organized in order to accomplish their mission. You are so naïve ! An abysmal candor ! Haven’t you realised that there is a ferocious cover-up, a merciless “omerta” in the media and in the political world ? That till date, the call for a new 9/11 investigation is a taboo ? Haven’t you realised that the FIRST requirement of all the truthers is – and was always – the opening of a serious and thorough investigation ?
        How do you think that they will succeed ? In asking the truth to the very responsables of this terrific treason ? No way, of course !
        Have’nt you noticed the hue and cry raised by Richard Falks (God bless him) in his post, where he was merely claiming – in his own blog – the right to question in full serenity the official report ?
        In fact, one of the best levers still available to the truth seekers consist in a rigorous, unobjectionable technical file bringing the proof that what happened on 9/11 was a long story of administrative failures (the truthers have always fought to get the culprits facing their responsabilities) and technically, a full set of absurdities. This file is existing. But it must get the approval of a sufficient number of citizens to constrain the Congress to launch a new – and serious -investigation under the eyes of all the US citizens, and of the whole world community, too.
        And you, my dear, are fighting beak and claws to prove – against all probabilities, against the simplest common sense – that the truthers are irresponsable fellows and liars just losing their energy in vain ?
        Having in the same time, under your eyes, the example of the manner in which an honest and moderate person like Richard Falk was treated by the representatives of his own government ?
        And please… who are you to turn a deaf ear to a skilled and experienced pilot like Shelton Lankford ? Don’t you think that his knowledge on the matter of piloting, hunting, bombing, etc… is far, far better than yours ? My dear ?
        And please again… have you taken any time to read the pilots and engineers testimonies on http://www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org ? It seems that you have not. You are too busy in shouting STUPID, FOOLISH, etc…
        Tell me : what are you doing, presently ? How much time do you spend in your search of the Truth ? Do you realise that the United States of America are on the verge of a socio-economical cataclysm, an overwhelming disaster ? And you are there, barking at the truth seekers instead of joining them to ACT and HELP !
        Have you read, for instance, the text “ 9/11 – MISSION ACCOMPLISHED ” written 15 days ago by another pilot and engineer : Nila Sagadevan ?
        No doubt that it will be much interesting for you, my dear. And enlightening.
        Now, let us drink a small black coffee, namely : an “espresso”.
        And remember…

        LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO BE SMALL

      • The Truth is Out There & In You! February 7, 2011 at 8:43 pm #

        Ganapatrak wrote: “And please… who are you to turn a deaf ear to a skilled and experienced pilot like Shelton Lankford ? Don’t you think that his knowledge on the matter of piloting, hunting, bombing, etc… is far, far better than yours ?”

        Well, I grew-up flying from age 10 thanks to my father. He was a pioneer Glider pilot. I have thousands of hours flying both VFR & Instrument & Gliders too. I have 1,000’s of hours watching the ground from different lower (1,000-10,000ft.) altitudes from these aircraft, so I do know something about flying & ground appearance from lower altitudes & countless landings too.

        I have many years of photography experience too including darkroom work. I have many years of digital video editing using software filters too. I used Google Earth on the ground-level going around the light-poles, Highway, Citgo, Pentagon, etc. Yes, I think I know what I’m talking about critiquing the NSA video made by CIT. It is a farce, imo, because they suggest AA77 never hit the Pentagon. Wrong!!!

        I have nothing personal ‘against’ Lt. Col. Lankford, and I deeply respect his service & expertise flying military aircraft & surviving dangerous bombing missions. I have nothing against Dr. Falk, of course, and I have enjoyed & agree with his original post except the endorsement for Griffin. Griffin is not a scientist but an expert in religious beliefs. He has a 911 congregation of true believers that do subscribe to his questions-ideas, but I believe many of his questions-ideas lead to nowhere but dead-ends.

        I believe that the real terrorists were middle-east-born and from Pakistan too, and these foreign-born terrorists carried out the attacks. The USA-Foreign criminal conspiracy or negligent failures are limited to those in charge not doing their jobs by preventing the attacks. It is also possible that these terrorists were real patsies that some extremely small faction of the US government AND/OR foreign governments conspired to allow these attacks to occur.

        Too much energy-time goes into debating the building collapses, and I think the government will trump any dust-explosive evidence the Truthers have or will have. It is a lost cause, because, sorry, these sidelined issues people won’t stay focused on. The criminals AND those negligent will be very happy to extend this building collapse debate forever. Understand?

        I am very frustrated & emotionally drained to defend the building attacks as more than airliner aircraft that were sufficient enough to destroy the buildings. Why not stop right there to avoid the further confusion & debate about what/whom else may have played a role in ‘the specifics’ of the building collapses??? The label of “conspiracy theorist” will be applied, and it is easy to let go of the focus to hold accountability pressed directly on the people in responsible positions of prevention.

        I just think most Americans are exhausted by all this confusion about the buildings & pilots or remote control crap, BUT most Americans can accept that the terrorists were helped by domestic & foreign agents. Investigate & prosecute everything before the buildings were hit, because it is still going to get to the source, the criminals, the negligent ones, and the conspiracies.

        Do you not understand that the government holds all the building evidence? The government will discredit any explosive evidence found anywhere, and it will prove the Pentagon was hit by AA77. It does not matter, honestly, what building evidence the Truthers want. The building evidence will go nowhere… Because for every expert the Truthers will have, the government will line-up 10x that number in opposition point for point.

        Meanwhile, those that are negligent or criminal will go free. Time will lapse, and “the delay of game” is won. Guilty conspirators retire & die… 911 memories expire or go stale, meanwhile some insignificant few will still debate what caused the buildings to collapse. SOL.

        Obama will do nothing, and I doubt the Republicans will agree to investigate Bush or the military. Is there a political champion leading the way to investigate?

        There will have to be some 911 whistle-blower or a leak of Top Secrets implicating those to warrant an investigation, unless the political 911 champion exists AND is elected with a mandate to investigate. The Truth is sacrificed, and I’m ashamed of my country’s leadership regarding accountability for 911 & Evil Wars! Power has corrupted absolutely.

        We are their sheeple, their property, and ‘they’ are untouchable Gods.

    • The Truth is Out There & In You! February 9, 2011 at 8:12 pm #

      I had a post in reply to this specific start-message about “Plausible Deniability”, which was mainly some ideas about what I thought Bush-Cheney might be doing August 2001 at his new ranch. These ideas were posted to try and illustrate how Bush could have been disinterested (or negligent) or misinformed about the known terrorists in the USA, etc.

      That post appeared on this blog on Tuesday 2/8/11 without moderation or awaiting approval, but it was since removed today on 2/9. Nothing in that post was “extremist” or over the top “emotional” in its viewpoint, nor was it attacking anyone in a personal way. I would like to post that censored & removed post from this blog to somewhere else if it is not welcome here, so could the blog owner please send me a copy of what I posted but was then removed.

      I do not have a copy and would prefer to not rewrite again the long post.

      Thank you.

      • Richard Falk February 9, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

        I am sorry but I do not have your text. It may have been removed by the monitor of the website.
        You must copy in your sent mail file.

  46. When will the brainwashing end? February 6, 2011 at 9:29 pm #

    Just show them the information:
    http://www.xrl.in/72qq

  47. Robert May February 6, 2011 at 11:52 pm #

    Professor Falk, I just found you. Thank you very much for your 9/11 comments. It seems that the mainstream media and all the politicians, with some exceptions, are against the truth because it will expose the brutal, inhuman dark side of those in power. It also exposes the human nature of self-preservation, as demonstrated by the 9/11 Commission and the NIST authorities.

  48. David Lenef February 7, 2011 at 4:21 am #

    Just wanted to point out that the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth posted today on their site about Richard’s blog post and the UN response, which they describe as a “public meltdown”.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/448-top-un-officials-have-public-meltdown-over-call-for-new-911-investigation.html

    They also include UN fax number and email addresses for the UN secretary-general and US ambassador so readers can show their support for Richard. I’ll quote those here:

    “Flooding the UN with comments supportive of Falk could help make that happen. Carefully fact-checked comments pointing out the scientific evidence uncovered in recent years and how it conflicts with the official account should be faxed to Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon at (212) 963-3301 or emailed to pga65[at]un.org. Copies should also be sent to US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice at (212) 415-4053 or emailed to http://archive.usun.state.gov/Issues/Contact2.html.”

    –dave

  49. Mark February 9, 2011 at 8:19 am #

    Kudos Mr. Falk , the world agrees that 911 needs to be re-investigated due to the “official” stories lack of facts. Whenever governments attempt to dismiss something that they do not wish to be known, they simply attempt to call the messenger a “conspiracy theorist” hoping that this will indeed do the trick. The world has been watching these same corrupt officials for years. What is sad is that the world now laughs at these same greedy and power hungry officials as one laughs at the monkeys in a zoo. May God bless you for allowing this impotent U.N. to know what MANY already know and that is there needs to be an unbiased (if that were even possible though it is doubtful) new investigation into the 911 murders.

    • Richard Falk February 9, 2011 at 5:33 pm #

      Thanks, Mark. I think a raw nerve in the body politic has been struck.

      • Pengue, Michael February 10, 2011 at 4:36 pm #

        Hello Mr. Falk,

        Thank you for speaking out on 9/11. Yes, the world has not been told the whole story. In my opinion the attacks reflect the extreme possibility of major complicity from the highest levels of govt officials.

        Below is an email I sent to the Montreal chapter of
        CJPME – Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East.

        I’ve attended some of their events and have been disappointed with their silence on questioning 9/11 and the whole war on terror, just like the anti-war movement.

        February 8, 2011

        Hello Grace and all from CJPME,

        This is Michael Pengue. We met a few times several years ago at some of your CJPME speaking events which I attended with Ken Fernandez.

        I’m a Montreal anti-war activist and would like to bring up the importance of CJPME supporting professor Richard Falk,UN Special Rapporteur
        on Palestine,after the recent attacks he’s endured for questioning the official version of 9/11. UN Watch,a pro-Israel front, has demanded his resignation and the UN Secretary General has called his claims “preposterous.”

        http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20110201185751747

        Where is CJPME on voicing their support for a new and impartial 9/11 investigation??

        Over 1400 building professionals (www.ae911truth.org ) and countless others of various expertise have been demanding for a new one for years now. Not to mention that two of the 9/11 commission heads have stated that their inquiry has failed the American public, including the commission’s senior counsel having also stated that the pentagon has lied to the public.

        http://patriotsquestion911.com/

        It is quite obvious that the attacks against those seeking the truth about 9/11 are visceral cause exposing the truth behind it all could indict criminals in high places.

        In addition, the truth of what happened could bring down the war on terror like a deck of cards. George Galloway has even gone further by saying that if this was an inside job then the USA and Israeli govts would collapse. This goes without saying how it would also benefit the case for Palestinians.

        Regards,

        Michael Pengue

  50. The Truth is Out There & In You! February 9, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    Richard Falk wrote:

    “In the course of my year traveling around Sweden I often asked those whom I met what was their view of the assassination, and what I discovered was that the responses told me more about them than it did about the public event. Some thought it was a dissident faction in the Swedish security forces long angered by Palme’s neutralist policies, some believed it was resentment caused by Palme’s alleged engineering of Swedish arms sales to both sides in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, some believed it was the CIA in revenge for Palme’s neutralism during the Cold War, some believed it could have criminals in the pay of business tycoons tired of paying high taxes needed to maintain the Swedish maximalist version of a welfare state, and there were other theories as well. What was common to all of these explanations was the lack of evidence that might connect the dots. What people believed happened flowed from their worldview rather than the facts of the event—a distrust of the state, especially its secret operations, or a strong conviction that special interests hidden from view were behind prominent public events of this character.”

    Yes, you are precisely right, Dr. Falk, and here is a case in point regarding those that believe the Twin Towers was destroyed by demolition using nano-thermite…

    I am very disturbed that many people will seriously consider the nano-thermite science as “fact” from a dismissed (from teaching) professor at BYU named Steven Jones, essentially, forced into retirement by his peers for his 911 demolition ideas. The more I learn about his history & background the more skeptical I have become about the Truther Movement & its close association to the Jones-science of so called nano-thermite.

    This is mainly because Jones is a physics expert, with some notoriety about cold-fusion in the 1980’s, but he is not an explosives or chemistry expert. He makes all kinds of exclusive assumptions & exclusive explanations that limit the possibility for open examination for many other explanations about the “911 dust”. His peer reviewed article about nano-thermite is highly questionable, since it is not reviewed by scientists specializing in chemistry or explosives or civil engineering. It is also not reviewed in a respected science journal noted for expertise in explosives, chemistry, or civil engineering. Let’s see, this is akin to needing brain surgery and going to an explosives expert to remove the tumor.

    Truthers: Jones is not validated science. It is “quack” “quack” & walks like a … proven? science?

    Yet, a whole giant spectrum of isolated one-off Jones-Science for 911 Truth becomes their foundation for proof that the Twin Towers fell from nano-thermite demolition charges ignoring many other possible explanations, point for point, about what the 911 dust & video replays & molten flows-objects mean.

    I never knew Science is so susceptible to belief & religious fervor, until 911 Science was born, but I have learned, shockingly, about how people are so easily fooled and lied to regarding the “quack science” of 911. Yet, they believe, come Hell or High Water.

    Truthers: Just realize no reputable academic scientist specializing in explosives and/or chemistry and/or civil engineering will associate themselves directly with Dr. Jones & his nano-thermite theories. There is no repeatable science done by independent labs or expert scientists that have evaluated 911 dust.

    This single result isolates the nano-thermite believers from learning the truth by repeated independent analysis of the 911 dust. For the sake of science alone & the 911 believers I hope independent repeated experiments & repeated analysis will be done ASAP. (Please repeat the previous sentence 5 times to understand me.)

    I HONESTLY believe these tests will be delayed by all, and not because the government knows its nano-thermite!!! No, the government will delay the testing & results as long as possible, because it knows Steven Jones is wrong!!! These delays, imo, allow for those responsible for 911 to never be held responsible! Why?

    It’s the perfect disinfo psyops campaign. A godsend answer to mislead the sheeple as long as possible into the dead-end they were mislead into by their one true leader.

    Does this make me a liar, evil, a “secret agent” for outing the unproven Jones-science of nano-thermite AND my opposite beliefs of the 911-Jones herd?

    Meanwhile, I’m sickened those responsible disappear into this ether of nowhere, just chaos!

    • The Truth is Out There & In You! February 10, 2011 at 9:24 am #

      Btw, I am a published researcher from a top University in Civil Engineering, many years ago, so I will flippantly comment about this one reference in Jones’ nano-thermite paper…

      Steven Jones writes:

      1. How Much of the Energetic Red Material Survived
      During the WTC Destruction?

      In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay the
      fraction of red/gray chips was roughly estimated. Fifteen small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable glass and concrete fragments had been removed by hand. Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately 0.1% by weight in the separated dust. Another sampling showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated
      dust. Further samples are being analyzed to refine this estimate. The fall of the WTC Towers produced enormous clouds of dust whose total mass is difficult to ascertain; but clearly the total mass of red/gray chips in the WTC dust must be substantial given the fraction observed in these samplings.
      —————————–

      What is amazing about this revelation is I can find no further alternative speculation about what else this material must be except paint, which Jones discounts in his paper.

      Later, I find out from their website video production (part 11 of A Blueprint for Truth) that there was 90,000 tons of concrete poured in the Twin Tower building for the floor(s) construction. So, this is 180,000 tons of concrete for two Twin Towers.

      Alright, using Jones’ own test results, footnote 1 shown above, Jones finds 0.1% of this alleged “thermite material” in the dust.

      Please think about this… 180,000 tons concrete dust
      x 0.1% of “thermite material” = 18,000 tons of UN-IGNITED UNBURNED THERMITE??? (Less some amount accounting for concrete that was not turned into dust.)

      The nano-thermite number might be even greater if one took into account the total weight of 911-dust beyond the estimated concrete weight. Remember, most of the concrete was pulverized into dust along with other debris too, wall-ceiling materials, but this estimate is close-enough for this post & the point I’m making.

      Yet, this nano-thermite was supposed to be burned-up in an instant in order to cut the beams at near free-fall speed, so how can there be this incredible amount of UN-ignited nano-thermite left over in the dust? Well, it’s not rational or plausible for this to occur, since the nano-thermite must be used to destroy the support beams & it would ignite being highly combustible. Also, it’s just too expensive & volumetric in size and weight to suggest otherwise.

      In fact, an interesting experiment would be to ignite enough nano-thermite to cut a 911-sized test beam and learn how much unburned UN-ignited nano-thermite will remain. Then, take that number and extrapolate how much nano-thermite was used based on the evidence samples Jones has provided.

      My answer: It will be implausible & impossible to account for this huge quantity of un-ignited nano-thermite, therefore Jones provides the evidence in his own footnote one that this is not nano-thermite but something else entirely different.

      This sort of reminds me of all the media-hype that went on over cold-fusion at BYU regarding Jones in the late 1980s, but now this is a much more traumatic national disaster & humiliation to be involved in… This is not nano-thermite using Jones’ sample evidence & extrapolating rational thought about its percentage weight & un-ignited, unburned, pre-explosive status in the 911-dust.

      Jones’ nano-thermite theory literally crumbles into dust…

      • The Truth is Out There & In You! February 10, 2011 at 10:38 am #

        Mathematical Correction where I wrote: “Please think about this… 180,000 tons concrete dust
        x 0.1% of “thermite material” = 18,000 tons of UN-IGNITED UNBURNED THERMITE???”

        ‘18,000 tons’ should be ‘360,000 pounds’ (180 tons) of UN-IGNITED UNBURNED THERMITE.

      • Simon Kulberg February 10, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

        I understand your point, I was just trying to make mine by pointing out that no agency ever looked for signs of demolition, because they were working with fire-induced collapse as their only hypothesis. And I would also add that one of the reasons for the scarcity of forensic evidence with which we have to draw our conclusions is largely the fault of various federal and even private organization`s excessive hurry in removing all the debris.

        Whether or not Jones ascertained the presence of high energy explosives in WTC or not it should be perfectly obvious to anybody that enormous, over-constructed skyscrapers do not collapse symmetrically in near free-fall speeds due to minor structural damage and office-fires. This is why Jones`research was interesting, and in my opinion still is.

        I understand that being s published engineer is a great achievement, but it doesn`t make you perfect. God knows we all have our blind spots. But there are at present 1433 architects and engienners in AE 9/11 truth who have reached different conclusions than you have, after research and above all experiments, as opposed to computer simulations which NIST employed.
        I certainly wouldn`t want to seem close-minded, and if anybody could explain the observed events of 9/11 to me along the lines of the official version, without resorting to simplified and crude propaganda about terrorism, endless repetition of half-truths and lies, inadequate computer simulations, because the physical experiments prove NISTs hypothesis false and above all denial of obvious facts, then I`ll listen. It would be nice if more people on the governments`side of things would do the same.

      • Ganapatrak February 10, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

        Once more, please, dear Richard Falk, let me write one or two words to this cute TTOTIY…
        Quotation of “The Truth is Out, etc…” :
        ”” The criminals AND those negligent will be very happy to extend this building collapse debate forever. Understand ? ””
        No. Don’t understand.
        Because regarding the 9/11, the main question is, now and for ever, the TRUTH… my dear “Truth is out” ! The simple, the square, the holy Truth ! It’s the truth only – the terrible truth – that will push the american citizen down the streets in order to stop the mess and put an end to his rotten society.
        In fact, the main problem is not the presence of nanothermite in the wreckage of the 110 storeys twin towers. It is the fact that they collapsed in TEN SECONDS after being stricken close to their top (respectively at the 95th and the 81st floor) by the planes, then enduring a fire lasting 1h45mn (North tower) and 56 mn (South tower). This collapse at free-fall speed is squarely, scientifically, strictly impossible without the presence of explosives strategically distributed in advance and followed by a minute control of the detonators. Period.
        Regarding the Pentagon, nobody – being healthy in spirit – can say that two jet engines – each one weighing more than 2T500 – flying at the speed of 560 M/H (about 815 km/h) may smash a wall without damaging neither the smallest bit of masonry, nor the windows and even the GLASSES of these windows. And, please, don’t tell me that the glasses were reinforced by extra-schock-absorbers, and that the wings were just folded with the two massive engines, then swallowed by the square hole in the wall and immediately, wholly converted – along with the whole plane – in pure smoke ! Period.
        And the WTC7 ? Built on a house of cards ? Therefore, falling in 6.6 seconds ? Well thought ! Period.
        Your problem, dear “Truth is out”, is that you definitely refuse to go further than half the way (or rather : a quarter). You have admitted that your president and your ministers COULD be liars, but you cannot climb up the next step and realise that they COULD be, too, authentic criminals. We have seen, we the french people, the same striking phenomenon when we expressed our disagreement upon the Irak agression on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction… we were likened by the most part of the US people to monsters…
        Remember : you, the american people, could not imagine that your president and your government were liars, purely and simply. War obsessed. The world biggest terrorists.
        And – last but not least – banksters, too. Greedy, insatiable banksters.
        I agree that it’s difficult (impossible, maybe, for you, who are still embedded in your dream) to wake up. Deal with the truth. And finally landing in the reality. Harsh reality, but nonetheless reality. Huh, my dear “Truth is out”… denying the evidence is denying yourself ! In other words : coming back to a childish universe of iresponsability.
        Here is a new degree in your slide to the hell : you have to discover that they have fabricated a terrible hoax… and that this was one of their agenda masterpieces.
        9/11 : mission accomplished ! Bravo !!!
        And there you are, looking for all the possible contortions to avoid the raw, the rude truth. Delaying the calls of your inmost conscience. Saying night and day : “Truthers are wrong and harmful… the only culprits are the jihadists… our government have just let them go to the hell… with us the people-sheeple… Brave Big Bush… Cheney… Rumsfeld… They are untouchable Gods and They have built the Marvellous Patriot Act… that is good enough for us who are so cute in our holy diapers…”

      • The Truth is Out There & In You! February 10, 2011 at 2:23 pm #

        The “footnote one” I referenced is actually Discussion 1, not a footnote, and is from The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2, page 23.

        Btw, the expert scientist that was the Editor of that “concept online journal” resigned in protest, when Jones’ article was published.

        Quoting: A telephone call reveals that editor in chief Marie-Paule Pileni had never been informed that the article was going to be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal giant Bentham Science Publishers.

        “They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.

        She feels not only stabbed in the back, but is puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

        “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Concludes the former editor in chief.

        Jones’ final conclusion: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

        (Marie Paule Pileni does have direct past associations with consulting related to National Defense & explosives, in France, but there are no specifics about what she did do.)

        My conclusion: Jones got his paper published “under the sly”, at a new “start-up” online journal, so the Editor saved her reputation & resigned to distance herself from Jones as far as possible.

      • The Truth is Out There & In You! February 11, 2011 at 12:06 am #

        Ganapatrak wrote:
        “No. Don’t understand.

        In fact, the main problem is not the presence of nanothermite in the wreckage of the 110 storeys twin towers. It is the fact that they collapsed in TEN SECONDS after being stricken close to their top (respectively at the 95th and the 81st floor) by the planes, then enduring a fire lasting 1h45mn (North tower) and 56 mn (South tower). This collapse at free-fall speed is squarely, scientifically, strictly impossible without the presence of explosives strategically distributed in advance and followed by a minute control of the detonators. Period.”
        =======================

        Bonjour Ganapatrak,

        First of all, the Twin Towers never fell at “free fall” speed. This is easily proven by watching some debris fall faster than the buildings did. That can be seen with your own eyes if you are willing to watch a variety of 911 videos.

        Why did the 2nd tower to be hit fall much sooner than the first tower? Because the aircraft hit the building much lower & at a better angle. The failure loads were much higher, and this was caused only by WHERE the airliner hit the building.

        There is no way ANYONE or ANY government could have precisely controlled WHERE the airliners impacted the Twin Towers, especially, in relation to where any hidden explosives were placed. So, any explosives inside the buildings where the planes hit would have been burned or ignited or destroyed. Yet, the towers crushed the lower floors once the buildings gave way, and the videos show this “moment of failure” occurred where the planes hit. Again, only the planes could have caused this failure, since any explosives would have been burned or destroyed by the planes impacts.

        Demolitions of buildings typically happen with two sets of explosions, very quick in sequence, and then the “free fall” occurs after these sets of explosions.

        The Twin Towers came down pancaking, floor by floor, as the debris was mainly blown out just below each floor crushing the next floor. Beams were disconnecting at the attachment points, snapping bolts or welds, and it would sound like hundreds or thousands of explosions going off. There are incredible forces being released at these points of failure, so anyone would hear these sounds as explosions.

        Americans do NOT have English words to describe this type of “sound” any differently than “an explosive sound”… this sound is the same for explosives or beams failing at their connection points. It is an explosive sound, period.

        Jones’ 911-dust sample & research paper can not be taken seriously for nano-thermite, or peer review, and I can not believe for one second the Twin Towers fell because of ANY demolition explosions… the explosion sounds were the beams failing at the connection points. It’s a simple and wise “Truth”, imo.
        —————-

        Ganapatrak wrote:
        “Regarding the Pentagon, nobody – being healthy in spirit – can say that two jet engines – each one weighing more than 2T500 – flying at the speed of 560 M/H (about 815 km/h) may smash a wall without damaging neither the smallest bit of masonry, nor the windows and even the GLASSES of these windows. And, please, don’t tell me that the glasses were reinforced by extra-schock-absorbers, and that the wings were just folded with the two massive engines, then swallowed by the square hole in the wall and immediately, wholly converted – along with the whole plane – in pure smoke ! Period.”
        ================

        Well, what you describe is not what happened, so some of what you say seems “real” or possible.

        You are fooled by camera optics and the incorrect witness accounts that do NOT know the measurement of the size of the hole or damaged areas. The Pentagon is still the world’s largest office building… It is about 80-ft high & each side is almost 1,000-ft long. It’s huge size fools the human eye like an optical illusion, and it fools the camera optics too. Our minds “see” camera or video pictures or images of the Pentagon differently than what ‘IS’. Understand?

        Even the witness was fooled by the large building size & distances involved. Only actual measurements can tell the truth about the size of the damaged areas.

        Because of the camera optics & witness “hole-size” mistakes, you are now mistaken. Read my previous posts in this thread & PLEASE follow the links I provided to help you understand AA77 hit the Pentagon. I hope this will remove your “firm belief” that the plane flew away & never hit the Pentagon. Otherwise, I will continue to think you must be mistaken for reasons of faith and/or politics or some traumatic stress over 911?
        ————

        Ganapatrak wrote:
        And the WTC7 ? Built on a house of cards ? Therefore, falling in 6.6 seconds ? Well thought ! Period.
        ================

        Ok, WT7 ‘IS’ “a problem” to explain how & why it fell. Some things in life are a mystery and remain a mystery… enjoy it! Do you not appreciate a good mystery?

        I AGREE WITH YOU THAT NO ONE HAS PROVIDED ME WITH A COMPLETE OR RELIABLE EXPLANATION.

        Can you, my dear truth-seeker, be happy we are together in some agreement on this WT7 question? I am. I want answers, but I don’t know enough to provide any. WT7 is a mystery, but there are possibilities… Think about it from other ideas that could explain what it could NOT be…

        My theory about WT7: This is a government “spook house”. WT7 is a secret government hiding place for “Top Secret” operations of some kind. This still does not exclude ‘the fact’ that WT7 was severely damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers & explosive fires & beam failures. The building was severely damaged by eyewitness accounts from people that were trapped inside the building for hours. One trapped witness said paraphrasing: “It was like King Kong had stomped through the building in a rampage.”

        My WILD GUESS is the building failed somehow by some unknown design flaws and/or construction mistakes that only became activated from the debris damage & fires causing catastrophic failures from falling debris, heat damage, & beams finally snapping or tearing apart at connections.

        There was a cascading failure affect where everything could fail at critical structural supports up to the complete breaking “free fall” point. So, the building appeared to fall all at once, though the actual failures had cascaded to the “snap point” of “free fall” & these effects were hidden from view inside the building.

        This collapse would appear to be a demolition or implosion, because the building did seem to fall in its own footprint. Also, the failure mode had “the feel” or “look” of a professional demolition. Later videos that were revealed long after 911 do show some strange small plumes along vertical sections of WT7. IF that video is unaltered, not faked, then it seems to be a failure caused by what looks to be demolition or explosive failures.

        Out of the box thinking to explain the logic for possible reasons to use demolition charges…

        Could the building have some top secret self-destruct functions built into it for times of War? That seems a bit far fetched. What information was there in WT7 that the government would need to implode the building, rather than just remove it or destroy it by other easier covert methods??? Just imploding a building will not necessarily destroy evidence that the government would want to hide or destroy, and there would be easier ways to do that. Also, one does NOT need to destroy the Twin Towers just to “provide cover” for destroying WT7 too. Again, there is no need to expend the additional insane effort just to get to WT7.
        =====================

        Ganapatrak wrote:
        Your problem, dear “Truth is out”, is that you definitely refuse to go further than half the way (or rather : a quarter). You have admitted that your president and your ministers COULD be liars, but you cannot climb up the next step and realise that they COULD be, too, authentic criminals.
        —————

        Someone that controls the postings for this blog, not Dr. Falk, deleted a post of mine. It was “my scenerio” about Bush & what I believe probably happened before 911. It is very strange that it was censored or deleted for some reason I do not know. Maybe I had ‘the answers’, and the conspiracy people never wanted ‘the truth’ to appear here??? LOL. hehe…

        Bush Jr. would go to War against Iraq IF he would be pushed into it and would get the opportunity, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE BUSH OR CHENEY CREATED 911. No way! There are real terrorists that were seeking to destroy the Twin Towers for at least 10 years, imo. Also, the American government is filled with foreign spies & foreign interests that would want this to happen!

        We “the sheeple” are dominated by domestic & foreign interests that don’t give a damn about our US Constitution or Bill of Rights. Our government is filled with fraud & abuse of power & foreign corruption & foreign influence that is destroying our nation.

        The Pakistani ISI & Osama bin Laden would definitely continue to target the USA for terrorist attacks. Why do you not believe that is possible? Tell me why?

        Yes, the foreign-born terrorists could be the patsies for the ISI and/or Osama.

        I believe Bush was inattentive about terrorist attacks at his new “ranch” in August 2001. Bush was no deep chess player, and Bush Jr. was not interested in International politics compared to all modern Presidents. I do think Bush would want to impress his Dad with some International accomplishment, but going to war is not a strategy Bush would plan for, even attempt, at that beginning stage of his new Presidency in August 2001.

        Bush would NOT make those terrorists into his patsies at that time just starting out as President. He just did not have the ambition or personality type to reshape the world in that way. Sorry, you are wrong, imo, if you believe otherwise. Bush owned part of a baseball team & was governor of Texas… Bush Jr. was never a grand-strategy world-power chess player, nor was he sophisticated or insane enough to go for world domination.

        I do believe there was foreign and domestic elements that had infiltrated our government AND wanted a 911 to occur here, and there were some very few Americans that may have helped these foreign agents & terrorists too. It could be high-up in the government too, but I don’t think it touches Cheney or Bush. Cheney would not “trust” Bush with War, because Bush was too inexperienced in national or international politics.

        Yes, Bush Jr. was very vulnerable to terrorist attack AND the ideal time to do it was when he would be distracted on vacation at his ranch in August 2001. Bush would be planning his political strategy for his first full-term congressional session.

        Don’t you understand that Bush was the perfect patsy for some foreign attack with foreign & domestic help to do it against Bush. Perfect timing, imo. Understand? Seriously, Bush was their patsy!
        —————–

        Ganapatrak wrote:
        We have seen, we the french people, the same striking phenomenon when we expressed our disagreement upon the Irak agression on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction… we were likened by the most part of the US people to monsters…
        Remember : you, the american people, could not imagine that your president and your government were liars, purely and simply. War obsessed. The world biggest terrorists.
        ====================

        Bush was a fool to go to War against Iraq, and Bush was definitely the terrorist controllers “patsy” too by falling for this insane lure & bait. Bush should have led a serious investigation to find out why 911 was NOT prevented.

        Yes, there are cover-ups to protect us from our embarrassment & our humiliation & from uncovering the negligent or criminal ones too! There is a dual shadow government here, foreign & domestic, that runs for its own interests, and the American people have no idea what the hell it is. We know it is Evil & corrupted & alien to our values and beliefs.
        ————————

        Ganapatrak wrote:
        And – last but not least – banksters, too. Greedy, insatiable banksters.
        I agree that it’s difficult (impossible, maybe, for you, who are still embedded in your dream) to wake up. Deal with the truth. And finally landing in the reality. Harsh reality, but nonetheless reality. Huh, my dear “Truth is out”… denying the evidence is denying yourself ! In other words : coming back to a childish universe of iresponsability.
        Here is a new degree in your slide to the hell : you have to discover that they have fabricated a terrible hoax… and that this was one of their agenda masterpieces.
        9/11 : mission accomplished ! Bravo !!!
        And there you are, looking for all the possible contortions to avoid the raw, the rude truth. Delaying the calls of your inmost conscience. Saying night and day : “Truthers are wrong and harmful… the only culprits are the jihadists… our government have just let them go to the hell… with us the people-sheeple… Brave Big Bush… Cheney… Rumsfeld… They are untouchable Gods and They have built the Marvellous Patriot Act… that is good enough for us who are so cute in our holy diapers…”
        —————————

        We “true” Americans do not approve of our Wall Street & its control of our government. Again, this is the shadow government that is destroying our nation, but it is ‘other’ than us. It is both foreign & domestic in its power. It is protected offshore too.

        You, in France, have a shadow government too, and it knows something about our shadow government too.

        I think America should stop trying to be the World’s policeman, and we need to leave all our foreign military bases & become energy independent here. Unfortunately, the Saudi & Kuwaiti interests control much of our government leadership here. You see, these “foreign controllers” are part of the shadow government, including Wall Street, and we have lost our own destiny…

        Americans do NOT want this New World Order. It is Evil & puts too much power into just a few powerful rich world leaders hidden behind their politicians that are owned by them too.

        The shadow knows, but we do not know…

        We are ruled by a hidden shadow that is not Just or just “us”. There is a gathering storm…

      • Ganapatrak February 11, 2011 at 2:28 am #

        To TTOTIY
        Consciously or not, you are a troll. Bad faith or blindness, I don’t know. But surely : weakness.
        The result beeing that you are stubbornly shuffling in a forest of inconsistent words.
        Not interested to go further. Hopeless. M’going to write to Rice and Ban Ki Moon.
        And I thank very much Richard Falk for his patience.

      • Ganapatrak February 11, 2011 at 3:03 am #

        I’m OK with your last six paragraphs. But – except this part – your treatment of the 9/11 facts is completely “loose” : blindness, bullshit.

      • Ganapatrak February 11, 2011 at 6:15 pm #

        In freng language, we call your tactics : “Drown the fish in the water”.

      • The Truth is Out There & In You! February 19, 2011 at 6:47 am #

        Simon Kulberg February 10, 2011 at 12:35 pm Wrote:

        “I understand your point, I was just trying to make mine by pointing out that no agency ever looked for signs of demolition, because they were working with fire-induced collapse as their only hypothesis. And I would also add that one of the reasons for the scarcity of forensic evidence with which we have to draw our conclusions is largely the fault of various federal and even private organization`s excessive hurry in removing all the debris.

        Whether or not Jones ascertained the presence of high energy explosives in WTC or not it should be perfectly obvious to anybody that enormous, over-constructed skyscrapers do not collapse symmetrically in near free-fall speeds due to minor structural damage and office-fires. This is why Jones`research was interesting, and in my opinion still is.”
        ————————-

        It is stated on camera by a lead investigator that demolition evidence was looked for in the debris… meaning the wiring, or wireless devices, and the ignition charges. There would be 100’s to 1,000’s of pieces of evidence such as this that would remain to be seen & found. None were found, and this would have been impossible to hide from the firemen & construction clean-up crews that were there for months!

        Many firemen heard explosions, so there is NO DOUBT they would be looking for that evidence. At least dozens of firemen would have found that evidence. Plenty of first responder volunteers where there that also would have found such evidence. It was just not possible to have a conspiracy to hide or destroy that demolition evidence.

        Yes, it was a tragic mistake to remove & recycle most of the metal in the buildings, so major clues about the failure modes are lost forever. It was stupid, at a minimum, to do that to a crime scene without full documentation & collection of numerous samples. The truth is there probably are a lot of samples still preserved, but no smoking guns were found for demolition.

        The Twin Tower building collapses were far from symmetrical and were not even close to free fall. You discredit “the truth” suggesting otherwise.

        WTC7 did freefall, according to David Chandler (a “truther” for demolition), for about 8 stories. That building was predicted it would fall, because there was no water to fight the fires. The building was heavily damaged by the Twin Towers. Many “explosive sounds” were heard throughout the day coming from the WTC7 building, and just before it collapsed. This does not mean those sounds were actual detonation of explosives, but could have been loading failures “exploding” or failing making similar sounds. The evidence leads in that direction, since the explosions never duplicated a demolition sequence or loudness level.

        I agree the government will probably never prove exactly how the buildings fell just as Jones-science will be even further from the truth.
        ————————–

        What people need to do is research Julie Sirrs & Sibel Edmonds. These people know Osama bin Laden and/or KSM were out to attack America, as in 911. There are cover-ups & conspiracy, but, my opinion, the Twin Towers & WTC7 came tumbling down from THE INDISPUTABLE FACT airliners hit the Twin Towers.

        Yep, WTC7 had its water cut-off, so the fires damaged the buildings uncontrolled by firefighters. Research WTC7 & you will learn it was a unique design, not typical, because it was built on top of a power station & subway station. It’s design made it vulnerable to failure by falling debris & fires that were allowed to burn uncontrolled.
        ————-

        Julie Sirrs & Sibel Edmonds: These are people that are American heroes, because they lost their jobs in government acting as true patriots. They knew too much and had to be discredited & disposed of, but their truth is out there. These two people are “the real truthers”.

        I suggest focusing your Truth efforts on finding out why the terrorists were not prevented from attacking, and root-out the truth about that. We need to expose the shadow government for what it is. A negligent & rogue failure that has criminal conspiracy to cover-up its mistakes.

        This is what ALWAYS will be criminal & conspiracy… The willingness to cover-up mistakes & hide the truth for the sake of National Security & to protect those in higher positions to prevent their deserved sacrifice or prosecution.

        The government doesn’t want to go through the hassles of another Watergate that directly implicates FBI & Intelligence & Political failures, so just bury it instead. Even Obama does not care, because it is too much of a distraction for his agendas.

        This will only serve to mobilize more fraud & criminal abuse, encourage spies & infiltration both foreign & domestic, because there was no accountability for the massive failures throughout the Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Military, Dept. of Justice, and political leadership. The government would Fall & Crash with honest revelations about 911, and a “new order” would arise replacing their little fiefdoms of corruption & fraud.

        I wonder how long it will be before I can’t find Sibel & other whistle-blowers on the net under the Police State guise of National Security & State Secrets?

        It’s time to end the shadow governments & let them sink along with their pawns; they sacrificed us for what?

  51. Simon Kulberg February 10, 2011 at 6:21 am #

    I have read this post with great interest, especially your perspectives on the Palme death. Even in Norway this event has lingered and not really been properly adressed, except to reinforce the slightly improbable official version which includes Mr Pettersson as the lone culprit. Considering the character and history of Olof Palme this has always seemed to me to be a particularly incredible story, and apparently no other angle has ever been seriously considered by either the media or the Swedish government. I did see once though that the Stockholm police had issued a press-statement stating that it would probably be best if the truth about his death were never known. I have no idea what this might mean, but it certainly doesn`t sound like Christer Pettersson.

    I agree with your views about polarization of debates, but having said that there comes a point where further compromize is no longer possible and we are forced to speak plainly. Consider where we would have ended up in nazi-Germany if all we were concerned with was avoiding a polarized debate. You would have been forced to follow the increasingly deranged nazi rhetoric further and further to the right to avoid looking conspicuous, losing all credibility in the process. I think the fundamental lack of trust between the general public in the west, and elsewhere for that matter, and their media, governments, corporations and institutions is caused at least in part by the timid way in which the critics and detractors within the establishment confront what are blatant cases of lies and criminal negligence/conspiracies.

    I am not directing this at you in particular though, but at the world of academia and media in general. At a certain point any person of prominence has to either deliver his Marburg-speech or risk losing credibility, and can compromise no longer.

  52. posicionamiento web February 13, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    I loved as much as you will receive carried out right here. The sketch is tasteful, your authored subject matter stylish. nonetheless, you command get bought an nervousness over that you wish be delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come further formerly again as exactly the same nearly very often inside case you shield this increase.

  53. sandlas February 16, 2011 at 1:06 am #

    I ACTUALLY was happy to search out this web-site.I wanted to appreciate it for your effort for the excellent read!! I ACTUALLY definitely loving every single little bit of it all and I’ve you bookmarked to look at fresh items you article.

  54. download Trader Swiper FREE February 16, 2011 at 11:07 am #

    There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also. Keep working ,great job!

  55. clomid help February 16, 2011 at 11:19 am #

    I feel like you could probably teach a class on how to make a great blog. This is fantastic! I have to say, what really got me was your design. You certainly know how to make your blog more than just a rant about an issue. Youve made it possible for people to connect. Good for you, because not that many people know what theyre doing.

  56. Sylvester Mckiver February 17, 2011 at 3:17 am #

    cool web site u have ghere

  57. Elvin Patrie February 18, 2011 at 11:27 pm #

    Awesome website yo have here btw

  58. Becky Lytell February 19, 2011 at 9:05 am #

    Quite interesting posts on your website. I keep on returning for more information. I’ve bookmarked it as well for future reference. I hope you dont mind at all.

  59. trannys February 20, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    I was suggested this web site by my cousin. I am not sure whether this post is written by him as no one else know such detailed about my problem. You’re wonderful! Thanks!

  60. ethibexia February 21, 2011 at 5:00 am #

    I recently found this website that I want to share with everyopne as they were a huge help when I was
    working on a recent project. I needed to know how to do some stuff in PHP and they were able to provide
    a tutorial sepcifically tailored to my needs. It was very helpful.

    [url=http://teamtutorials.com]TeamTutorials[/url]

    I recommend you hit them up and check them out if you need assistance.

  61. Emory Yray February 21, 2011 at 5:57 am #

    cool web site u have btw

  62. Justin T February 21, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

    Can I just say what a relief to find someone who actually knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You definitely know how to bring an issue to light and make it important. More people need to read this and understand this side of the story. I cant believe youre not more popular because you definitely have the gift.

  63. 100mg clomid cycle length February 22, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be really something which I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang of it!

  64. free sex videos February 22, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    I really like your post. Will continue reading your blog. :)

  65. Ira Hodek February 22, 2011 at 6:33 pm #

    What’s Happening i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve found It positively helpful and it has helped me out loads. I hope to contribute & aid other users like its helped me. Great job.

  66. Matthew C. Kriner February 22, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    Smart stuff, I anticipate reading more.

  67. Quinn Aurelia February 23, 2011 at 2:56 am #

    Aided me a lot, just what I was looking for : D.

  68. Best Way to Lose Weight February 23, 2011 at 9:01 am #

    Awesome post. d(^^)b Make more updates. I will bookmark your blog.

  69. Tennille Buhman February 23, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    My brother recommended I might like this website. He was entirely right. This post actually made my day. You can not imagine simply how much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!

  70. free backlink list February 23, 2011 at 12:48 pm #

    Thank you for taking the time to write this!

  71. Janines Free Wallpapers February 24, 2011 at 5:31 am #

    You know what, I never thought of it that way. Makes plenty of sense now. Thanks for explaining it so clearly, it really helped me and I’m sure it will help plenty of other people too. All the best!

  72. Arizona Pool Service March 23, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    Thank your Richard! Wow! This blows my mind!

  73. Elyse Laclair March 28, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

    What would most of us do minus the excellent ideas you share on this site? Who comes with the persistence to deal with essential topics just for common readers like me? I actually and my guys are very happy to have your web site among the ones we frequently visit. It is hoped you know how considerably we love your efforts! Best wishes from us all.

  74. Gary Goodman May 5, 2011 at 9:56 am #

    Comment to Haaretz (if they publish) please don’t consider my comments a criticism of your statement, rather a defense.

    fer cryin out loud
    They purposely misconstrued his remarks. What he said was basically that people (kooks, nicely put) develop conspiracy theories based on their general world view (such as the Palme assassination) when they don’t believe the govt and when the govt is secretive.

    The Bush admin was OVERTLY and PROUDLY SECRETIVE about 9/11. Cheney and Bush pledged to obstruct any investigation which they said would impede their planned War. Of course it would.

    They dragged heels for a year, then they put sycophants in charge like Hamilton, Keane, and Zelikow, and trashed critics on the panel like Cleland who were denied access to data.

    In the most generous non-conspiratorial view, THAT is nothing less than a cover-up.

    What Falk does not mention was that no less than five “bi-partisan” think tanks advocated the NEED for such an attack, mostly phrased as a hopeful “wish” that such an attack might occur to jump start more aggressive US foreign policy goals. AEI, PNAC, CFR and a few lesser known orgs published such remarks. THEY SAID IT, NOT ME.

    I can provide specifics if needed.

  75. pharmacy June 22, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Thanks for taking the time to talk about this, I feel fervently about this and I take pleasure in learning about this topic. Please, as you gain information, please update this blog with more information. I have found it very useful. There have to be charging stations everywhere.

  76. Mother of Civilization Library September 10, 2011 at 12:51 am #

    Honorable Sir

    With profound regards we humbly request you that We are a voluntary organization which sets up work in Indus Valley Sindh, the southern part of Pakistan our project is to help and facilitate a libraries program in Sindh, with the name of “Mother of Civilization Library” We therefore anxious in collecting resource materials including any books of Richard Anderson Falk an internationally well-known an American professor emeritus of international law, author ,speaker and activist on world affairs.
    Here is a large part of College and University aged population in Sindh towns and countryside, who love to read and know more about his notable work Legal Order In A Violent World, International Law And Organization, The Vietnam war and international law, Crimes of War, Criminal Acts in Wars with Gabriel Kolko, A Study of Future Worlds, Human Rights and State Sovereignty, Religion and Humane Global Governance, and The Declining World Order: America’s Imperial Geopolitics but unfortunately due to unavailability these books our people are underprivileged from these fundamental facilities, and became very much in troubled after big catastrophe of supper flood which hit the large part of population of this province in which all educational institutions and libraries infrastructure has been destroyed.
    Your donations of books can do much to stimulate and encourage the growth of learning, especially among the young generation of Sindh about it. Therefore we appeal your great institution to make a little contribution of above books on compassionate and humanitarian ground; the result would be the placement of new or used books (or equivalent educational materials) into the library for needy and destitute pupils who have thirst of knowledge.
    Hope you will consider our humble supplication with the glance of appreciation and make small numbers of books donation for this libraries program. You will truly make a difference in the lives of the Indus Valley people who will receive your gift of books In case, you wish to know more about our libraries program and various facets associated with it. Please free to contact our office on all the days.
    Thanking you
    Yours Sincerely
    Rashid Anees
    Project Manager

    Library mailing address.
    Name Mother of Civilization Library
    Sobho Khan Magsi
    City Radhan Station District Dadu
    Province Sindh
    Postal Code 76310
    Country Pakistan Phone 00923003609982

  77. weight loss September 18, 2011 at 3:58 pm #

    We were stupified by this awesome contents. Will come back again for more ideas!

  78. Learn To Lose Weight November 30, 2011 at 4:52 am #

    What a fantastic site and informative posts I definitely will bookmark your website

  79. buy liberty reserve instant September 13, 2012 at 7:15 pm #

    Terrific article! This is the kind of information that should be shared around the
    web. Disgrace on the search engines for not positioning this
    post upper! Come on over and discuss with my website . Thanks =)

  80. survival forums December 13, 2012 at 7:25 am #

    A motivating discussion is definitely worth comment. I do think that you need to publish more about this subject matter, it may not be a taboo subject but usually folks don’t discuss these subjects. To the next! Best wishes!!

  81. All You Need December 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    When I initially left a comment I seem to have clicked on the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now every time a comment is added I receive 4 emails with the same comment. There has to be an easy method you are able to remove me from that service? Kudos!

  82. SeoTools January 7, 2013 at 7:39 am #

    I blog frequently and I seriously thank you for your content. This great article has really peaked my interest. I’m going to book mark your site and keep checking for new information about once a week. I subscribed to your Feed as well.

  83. http://tinyurl.com/movibogg16205 January 13, 2013 at 12:14 am #

    “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance
    ” was in fact a great article, can not help but wait to look over far more of ur posts.

    Time to spend numerous time on the net hehe. Regards ,Juli

  84. kredyty okazjonalne February 17, 2013 at 9:00 am #

    Thanks for finally writing about >Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance
    <Liked it!

  85. Neto September 26, 2013 at 7:02 am #

    Nice post. I learn something new and challenging on blogs I stumbleupon on a daily basis. It will always be exciting to read through articles from other writers and practice a little something from their web sites.

  86. molotok-tmz February 22, 2014 at 6:57 am #

    Каждому Доброе утро! Только у нас инструменты со скидкой магазин профессионально инструмента интернет магазин техники уфа.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance « -- Topsy.com - January 11, 2011

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by levilachappelle, Hussam . Hussam said: Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance by Richard Falk http://j.mp/dE84qp […]

  2. Mais um coelho « O Insurgente - January 25, 2011

    […] Da política internacional. Um nojo. […]

  3. Michael Wolsey's Blog on Visibility 9-11, the Longest-running Podcast of 9/11 News & Information, Interviews, and Activism & Outreach for the Truth About the Terror Attacks of September 11th, 2001 » Blog Archive » U.S. says U.N. e - January 26, 2011

    […] Richard Falk’s Blog. […]

  4. UN Human Rights Official Under Fire For Describing 9/11 As A Cover Up : Dr. Leonard Coldwell - January 26, 2011

    […] law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights made the comments in a blog post last week, noting that the mainstream media is “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about […]

  5. Richard Falk Is Right on 9/11—Will Obama and Friends Forsake Falk for Telling the Truth | Dark Politricks - January 26, 2011

    […] demanding that Falk step down from his UN position and saying, “In my view, Mr. Falk’s latest commentary [a paragraph on the media and 9/11] is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he […]

  6. Richard Falk Is Right on 9/11—Will Obama and Friends Forsake Falk for Telling the Truth « Make up your own d… Mind - January 26, 2011

    […] Rice demanding that Falk step down from his UN position, and saying, “In my view, Mr. Falk’s latest commentary is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his […]

  7. Meine Meinung – Alltagsqualität bundesdeutscher Medien und Politik « Adalberts Meckerecke - January 26, 2011

    […] Blatt namens Richard Falk durch eine die 9/11-Attacken betreffende Passage in seinem Blog (=> Klick) ausgelöst hat. Nachdem ich den Artikel gelesen habe, kann ich diesen Aufruhr noch weniger […]

  8. Richard Falk ‘under fire’ for 9/11 comments « Waylon's Revolution - January 26, 2011

    […] international law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights made the comments in a blog post last week, noting that the mainstream media is “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about […]

  9. UN Human Rights Official a 9/11 Truther - January 26, 2011

    […] in the official explanations,” given by conspiracy theorists like David Ray Griffin, Falk said in a recent blog post. “What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie […]

  10. UN Human Rights Expert Questions Official 9/11 Story and is Immediately Condemned by US and Israel - Truth is Treason - January 26, 2011

    […] a law professor from Princeton University, wrote in his blog on Jan. 11 that “awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations” fuel […]

  11. ~ « a small room on the top floor - January 26, 2011

    […] international law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights made the comments in a blog post last week, noting that the mainstream media is “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about […]

  12. Stick a Falk In Him, He’s Done : Israellycool - January 26, 2011

    […] advanced without Mr. Falk and the distasteful sideshow he has chosen to create.Here’s an excerpt from the offending Falk blog post:We don’t require WikiLeaks to remind us not to trust […]

  13. RICHARD FALK UNDER FIRE FOR 9/11 COMMENTS ON HIS PERSONAL BLOG | My Catbird Seat - January 26, 2011

    […] UN Human Rights Council, and law professor Richard Falk, is under fire from the usual suspects for expressing skepticism about the official 9/11 story. This is what Falk had to say about 9/11 on his blog: […]

  14. Richard Falk Is Right on 9/11—Will Obama and Friends Forsake Falk for Telling the Truth | My Catbird Seat - January 27, 2011

    […] Rice, demanding that Falk step down from his UN position and saying, “In my view, Mr. Falk’s latest commentary [a paragraph on the media and 9/11] is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he […]

  15. UN Human Rights Official Under Fire For Describing 9/11 As A Cover Up - Wichita - January 27, 2011

    […] international law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights made the comments in a blog post last week, noting that the mainstream media is “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about […]

  16. UN Human Rights Official Under Fire For Describing 9/11 As A Cover Up | TRUTH OR TYRANNY - January 27, 2011

    […] international law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights made the comments in a blog post last week, noting that the mainstream media is “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about […]

  17. Richard Falk Questions 911 and the Politics of Murder « Therearenosunglasses’s Weblog - January 27, 2011

    […] Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance […]

  18. UN-Menschrechtsvertreter gerät unter Druck, weil er 9/11 als Vertuschungsaktion bezeichnet - January 27, 2011

    […] an der Princeton University und Experte bezüglich Menschenrechtsfragen, erklärte vergangene Woche in einem Blogbeitrag, dass die Massenmedien „nicht gewillt sind, die wohlbegründeten Zweifel über die offizielle […]

  19. The Progressive Mind » Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance « - January 27, 2011

    […] Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance «. January 27th, 2011 | Category: Uncategorized | Leave a comment | […]

  20. Richard Falk finally goes too far even for the UN « Autonomous Mind - January 27, 2011

    […] his UN colleagues and the media that he is a deluded and unreliable propagandist.  It follows his promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories and attempts to exonerate Al Qaeda of any involvement in the terrorist atrocity, instead claiming […]

  21. ONU e Israel Comecam o Linchamento do Oficial que Denunciou a Farsa do 11 de Setembro | Blog Anti Nova Ordem Mundial - January 27, 2011

    […] post no blog de Richard Falk (de 11 de Janeiro) pode ser lido aqui. O trecho que causou toda esta controvérsia está no […]

  22. Why the Fuss? Bizarre Call to Arms Against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk for Alluding to Gaps in the 9/11 Official Story | Dark Politricks - January 27, 2011

    […] [1] Richard Falk. “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.” http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/ […]

  23. Why the Fuss? Bizarre Call to Arms Against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk for Alluding to Gaps in the 9/11 Official Story | My Catbird Seat - January 27, 2011

    […] [1] Richard Falk. “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.” http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/ […]

  24. Why the Fuss? Bizarre Call to Arms Against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk for Alluding to Gaps in the 9/11 Official Story | Hot to Spot - January 27, 2011

    […] Woodworth. Notes[1] Richard Falk. “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.” http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/%5B2%5D “U.N. Chief Urged to Fire Official for Promoting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” […]

  25. The Progressive Mind » Why the Fuss? The Call to Arms against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk for Alluding to Gaps in the 9/11 Official Story | FPJ - January 27, 2011

    […] [1] Richard Falk. “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.” http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/ […]

  26. Spiritual Change :: UN representative, retired Princeton professor is ” a serial offender with zero credibility”, has to be removed on account of ” despicable” comments on 9/11 :: January :: 2011 - January 28, 2011

    […] Richard Falk: Citizen Pilgrimage […]

  27. Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance | Republic Resource - January 28, 2011

    […] Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance Posted on January 28, 2011 by republicresource Richard Falk […]

  28. Why the Fuss? The Call to Arms against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk for Alluding to Gaps in the 9/11 Official Story | COTO Report - January 28, 2011

    […] 2011, UN Special Envoy to Palestine Richard Falk posted on his personal blog an article entitled “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.”[1]  Dr. Falk made a tangential point in his blog-post that governments too often abuse their […]

  29. Why the Fuss? | SHOAH - January 29, 2011

    […] [1] Richard Falk. “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.”http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/ […]

  30. Leave no room for interpretation « The Current Chorus - January 29, 2011

    […] got into trouble for blogging this (emphases, my […]

  31. ¿Quién es Richard A. Falk? | Lonely Shouters - January 29, 2011

    […] (cita extraída del blog de Falk) […]

  32. In Support of Richard Falk « Norcaltruth - January 29, 2011

    […] is what Richard Falk had said: “What fuels suspicions of [the 9-11] conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward […]

  33. In Support of Richard Falk | Dprogram.net - January 30, 2011

    […] as a “scholar of high integrity” whose book on the subject was “authoritative”.This is what Richard Falk had said:“What fuels suspicions of [the 9-11] conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward […]

  34. US Anger Over UN Official’s 9/11 Comments | Anthony Amore on Art + Security - February 1, 2011

    […] in the official explanations,” given by conspiracy theorists like David Ray Griffin, Falk said in a recent blog post. “What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie […]

  35. UN Human Rights Official Claims 9-11 Was US Plot | Liberating Memes - February 1, 2011

    […] 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 […]

  36. The UK Telegraph reacts to the Richard Falk case: “UN Human Rights Official Claims 9-11 Was US Plot” — Conspiracy Theory - Conspiracy Theories - Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction - February 1, 2011

    […] 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: […]

  37. Começa o Linchamento do ex-professor de direito da Princeton University que Denunciou a Farsa do 11 de Setembro Portal Cwb - February 2, 2011

    […] mexeu em um ninho de marimbondos. O post no blog de Richard Falk (de 11 de Janeiro) pode ser lido aqui. O trecho que causou toda esta controvérsia está no quinto parágrafo. Apesar da gravidade de sua […]

  38. Top UN Officials Have Public Meltdown over Call for New 9/11 Investigation : Infowars Ireland - February 6, 2011

    […] on the Human Rights Council, was blasted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon for suggesting in his January 11 blog entry that there was a cover-up regarding some aspects of the official account of 9/11. Falk mentioned […]

  39. 9/11: alto commissario Onu Richard Falk accusa governo Usa - Pagina 31 - Politica in Rete Forum - February 7, 2011

    […] Arms against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk for Alluding to Gaps in the 9/11 Official Story | FPJ [2] Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance [3] U.N. Chief Urged to Fire Official for Promoting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory – UN Watch [4] NGO […]

  40. Top UN Officials Have Public Meltdown over Call for New 9/11 Investigation | Truth Is Scary - February 8, 2011

    […] on the Human Rights Council, was blasted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon for suggesting in his January 11 blog entry that there was a cover-up regarding some aspects of the official account of 9/11. Falk mentioned […]

  41. Dark Side of Ban Ki-moon & UN as They Condemn Richard Falk For Views on 9/11 » The Original N-D-N's Blog - February 9, 2011

    […] away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. (Richard Falk, January 11, […]

  42. Dark Side of Ban Ki-moon & UN as They Condemn Richard Falk For Views on 9/11 | OneWorldScam - February 9, 2011

    […] away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. (Richard Falk, January 11, […]

  43. Dark Side of Ban Ki-moon & UN as They Condemn Richard Falk For Views on 9/11 » The Original N-D-N's Blog2 - February 9, 2011

    […] away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. (Richard Falk, January 11, […]

  44. Journalismus im Krieg gegen den Terrorismus. « Erinnerungsforum - February 10, 2011

    […] Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance RICHARD FALKhttp://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/ […]

  45. Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory « 9/11 Reports - February 10, 2011

    […] the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false.” As Richard Falk characterized it 1/11/11, the “official version of the [9/11] events [is] an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by […]

  46. Verlängerung des „Patriot Act“ « Erinnerungsforum - February 11, 2011

    […] Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance RICHARD FALKhttp://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/ […]

  47. Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory by Erik Larson | Liberating Memes - February 11, 2011

    […] the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false.” As Richard Falk characterized it 1/11/11, the “official version of the [9/11] events [is] an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by […]

  48. ONU e Israel Comecam o Linchamento do Oficial que Denunciou a Farsa do 11/09 « Prevalecerá a Verdade! - February 11, 2011

    […] post de Richard Falk (de 11 de Janeiro) pode ser lido aqui. O trecho que causou toda esta controversia esta no quinto […]

  49. Michael Wolsey's Blog on Visibility 9-11, the Longest-running Podcast of 9/11 News & Information, Interviews, and Activism & Outreach for the Truth About the Terror Attacks of September 11th, 2001 » Blog Archive » Critique of Davi - February 11, 2011

    […] the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false.” As Richard Falk characterized it 1/11/11, the “official version of the [9/11] events [is] an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by […]

  50. UN Human Rights Official Under Fire For Describing 9/11 As a Cover Up « Illusion of Power - February 12, 2011

    […] law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights made the comments in a blog post last week, noting that the mainstream media is “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about […]

  51. Updated: Richard Falk Is Right on 9/11—Will Obama and Friends Forsake Falk for Telling the Truth : Veterans Today - March 2, 2011

    […] demanding that Falk step down from his UN position and saying, “In my view, Mr. Falk’s latest commentary [a paragraph on the media and 9/11] is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he […]

  52. Why the Fuss? Bizarre Call to Arms Against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk for Alluding to Gaps in the 9/11 Official Story : Veterans Today - March 2, 2011

    […] [1] Richard Falk. “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.” http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/ […]

  53. Al-Jazeera Hosted Am erican Academics at “Opulent” Forum | a12iggymom's Blog - March 18, 2011

    […] Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, was compelled to issue a statement after he wrote a blog post on the topic. Rice cited evidence that Falk “endorses the slurs of conspiracy theorists who […]

  54. The de-structuring of America? « warrenpeace - April 3, 2011

    […] Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, was compelled to issue a statement after he wrote a blog post on the topic. Rice cited evidence that Falk “endorses the slurs of conspiracy theorists who […]

  55. UN Human Rights Official Under Fire For Describing 9/11 As A Cover Up » Musicians for Freedom - June 28, 2011

    […] international law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights made the comments in a blog post last week, noting that the mainstream media is “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about […]

  56. MuzzleWatch » The railroading of Richard Falk - July 11, 2011

    […] a significant number of Americans already believe– that the US government might have been less than fully forthcoming about the events surrounding […]

  57. UN Human Rights Official Under Fire For Describing 9/11 As A Cover Up | Decrypted Matrix - February 22, 2012

    […] international law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights made the comments in a blog post last week, noting that the mainstream media is “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about […]

  58. Le documentaire « The Elephant in the Room » sur le « 9/11 Truth Movement » enfin disponible en version française « MediaBeNews - March 4, 2012

    […] syndical australien pour une enquête sur le 11-Septembre | le 12.01.11 | par Eli Rika sur ae911truth le […]

  59. ONU e Israel Começam o Linchamento do Oficial que Denunciou a Farsa do 11 de Setembro « Vítor Alberto Klein'$ Blog - June 19, 2012

    […] post no blog de Richard Falk (de 11 de Janeiro) pode ser lido aqui. O trecho que causou toda esta controvérsia está no […]

  60. Why the Fuss? The Call to Arms against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk for Alluding to Gaps in the 9/11 Official Story | - September 28, 2012

    […] [1] Richard Falk. “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.” http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/ […]

  61. So when are we going to shut the mosques down? — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami - April 25, 2013

    […] Falk has form. He’s also peddled the conspiracy theory that the September 11 attacks were an insid… […]

  62. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY MUST FIRE PROFESSOR FALK | Tony Attanasio Blog - May 5, 2013

    […] Falk wrote in his blog that “awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations” fuel suspicions that […]

  63. Updated: Richard Falk Is Right on 9/11—Will Obama and Friends Forsake Falk for Telling the Truth | Uprootedpalestinians's Blog - July 3, 2013

    […] Rice, demanding that Falk step down from his UN position and saying, “In my view, Mr. Falk’s latest commentary [a paragraph on the media and 9/11] is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he […]

  64. Why the Fuss? Bizarre Call to Arms Against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk for Alluding to Gaps in the 9/11 Official Story | Uprootedpalestinians's Blog - July 7, 2013

    […] Woodworth.Notes[1] Richard Falk. “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.” http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/%5B2%5D “U.N. Chief Urged to Fire Official for Promoting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” […]

  65. Stand With Us protests coming Falk lecture at SDSU - San Diego Jewish World - April 2, 2014

    […] [6] Richard Falk, “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance,” January 11, 2011, at http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/ […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 10,157 other followers

%d bloggers like this: