There is an elephant in the room and everyone is walking around it without mentioning it is there. It is so obvious but no one is admitting they see it as if to see it meant being responsible for its care, feeding and cleaning. David Ray Griffin is at least willing to notice that there is a space in the room without people. He is willing to ask why there are people everywhere but in the elephant shaped space in the middle of the room. He brings amazing information to the people in the room. He is describing the elephant but not naming the elephant. He stops just short of being stuck with the responsibility for the elephant. Or, perhaps he is afraid of the elephant and does not want to provoke this dangerous killer. That is a discussion for page three.
Griffen asks some very important questions and provides very important answers.
United States
English: Osama bin Laden interviewed for Daily Pak...
United StatesThe most important question is "How?" The United States likes to remind everyone that they are the number one power in the world. They claim to be the best, the one everyone should emulate. If their claims are true, 911 could not have happened. On September 12, 2001 the US claimed that there was no way they could have known about the event before hand (their intelligence did not have that information) but within hours their intelligence had the identities of 19 terrorists complete with pictures who went to and departed from four different airports yet if the media is accurate, only one of them had their picture taken in security cameras from the time they arrived at the airport until they boarded. How? How did 18 guys miss every single camera in every single airport? How could those planes bring down the World Trade Center's twin towers and at least one building that were not hit by planes? How could the president "dawdle" at the school with the country under attack? How could he stay on schedule and give a scheduled press report in a scheduled place and not fear being a target of attack unless he knew he was not in any danger? Cheney and Rice were being rushed to an underground bunker and Bush joked about the reading level of the kids. This is not the behavior of any sane person. This is not the standard operating behavior of any secret service agent in the world protecting a president. How did the White House think no one would know they lied about the president leaving immediately upon being informed when there was taped evidence to the contrary? Griffen writes on page 61: Apparently, say critics, the White House was so confident that none of its lies about 9/11 would be challenged by the media that it felt safe telling this one even though it is flatly contradicted by Sammon's pro-Bush book and by the video tape produced that day, which, as Wood and Thompson put it, "shows these statements are lies - unless 'a matter of seconds' means over 700 seconds!"
Another "How" question is how US intelligence can fail to know in advance there would be trouble when the FBI told Ashcroft to stay off commercial flights? And How are we supposed to believe no one knew about the event in advance when such an "extremely high volume of "put options" were purchased for the stock of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter which occupied 22 stories of the World Trade Center, and for United and American Airlines, the two airlines used in the attacks"? (p. 71). And HOW is it no one has ever identified who made those purchases that resulted in a gain of at least 10 million dollars in profit? How are we supposed to believe Osama bin Laden is the enemy of the United States when the US put a huge reward for his capture, but was treated by an American doctor and visited by the CIA while in the hospital in UAE? (p.76). Finally, how can a whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds, get fired (p. 82) and the incompetent intelligence officers in the CIA, FBI, and NSA get promoted in a government that is innocent? (p. 122).
The videos for this class were in some ways more devastating than the actual events. The attack on the WTC were horrifying, but when you realize that there is more evidence to suggest it was planned and carried out with US cooperation is paralyzing. Reading that the plane that crashed into the pentagon does not have the same impact as seeing the number of security cameras that were functioning as the plane crashed into the pentagon and not one frame of film from any of those cameras has been released. There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from this: the government REALLY does not want anyone to know what was on those tapes. If it was a hijacked airplane flown by an Arab Muslim Extremist, wouldn't the government WANT the people to see it so they could more easily get the support of the people for the War against Terror? The videos are helpful in seeing for ourselves the differences between the official statements and the reality. These are not simple misunderstandings. They are deliberate deceptions. Why would the government deliberately deceive the people if the official version of events were true? If the official version of events is not true, then what is? For most Americans what is true is unthinkable. They can not allow themselves to even think or allow the thought to cross their mind. To do so would be to doubt every belief they have. What is shown and said in the videos makes much more sense than the government explanation for things. The government version of events do not make any sense. The government is counting on people being afraid to listen to the truth. It is much easier to be afraid of Muslims than your own government. This administration is shown as heroes in the videos, with Bush flying in the fighter plane and wearing the outfit, and standing in front of the victory sign. One of the videos shows Bush as a good cheerleader but not a good leader. He is good with photo-ops.
The video about the end of suburbia was also very shocking. How many Americans remember the oil embargo in 1973 and what that meant? The people did not have enough oil and they responded by demanding energy efficient cars, homes, and alternative energy, but as soon as the oil started flowing again the alternative energy sources died out. Now, according the video, there is another oil shortage and this time it is not man's decision to cut the flow of oil that is the problem, it is the lack of oil to flow. Who decided that when the oil was clearly coming to an end the Americans need energy hungry vehicles so that they could use up the gas even faster than before? It is too shocking that the people here are so ignorant or uncaring about their actions.
Once again, there are experts talking about the issues of 9/11 and the implications and consequences, talking about how the American people need to stand up and fight to get their country back to what it should be, and how the Bush administration lies and deceives and on and on, and they still do not see the elephant in the room. They are starting from the position that the government version of events is wrong but they maintain the assumption that the government is right - that it was the Arabs who were Muslim extremists who carried out the attack. They assume that the government is simply changing course and it is worrisome. What about criminal? What about treasonous? Why is it so impossible for the American people to comprehend that the meaning behind these videos is that the government has committed treason against the American people. Even if the government did not plan and carry out the terrorist event, they knew about it or helped cover up for who really did it. Whatever really happened, the US government has lied to its people about it and have therefore betrayed the American people. The videos show how clearly they lied and they continue to lie. If Clinton can be impeached because he lied about sex, then what is appropriate for an administration that lies about what they did, and why it is necessary to send Americans into two wars and plans more?
Griffen put so many important pieces of information in this book. But he left out the obvious. WHO. Who could have pulled off so coordinated and sophisticated attack? Who had the access to codes that allowed this plan to succeed? Who had the authority to pull off such a plan? It took concentrated coordination and planning. This is not something that the Arabs are known for. It took the highest level of influence. This is not something the Arabs are known for. There are only two possible groups who could have pulled this off, and both needed the cooperation of the American government. It was the US government with the cooperation of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Military leaders, or Israel. Who does the US rely on for its intelligence? The CIA, FBI and NSA? Or Mossad? Who has the most influence on the US government? Who has the most access in the Pentagon? Former Congressmen Paul Findley found out and told the American people in 1985 in They Dare to Speak Out. He quotes a diplomat who gave him the following example of how much control Israeli spies in the Pentagon have:
I received a call from a friend of mine in the Jewish community who wanted to warn me, as a friend, that all details of a lengthy document on Middle East Policy that I had just dispatched overseas were 'out'." The document was classified "top secret," the diplomat recalls. "I didn't believe what he said, so my friend read me every word of it over the phone" (Findley 140).
When the Israelis wanted ammunition the Pentagon said they did not have, they got a message from Israel: "Yes you do. There are 15,000 round in the Marine Corps supply depot in Hawaii." Pianka recalls, "We looked in Hawaii and, sure enough, there they were. The Israelis had found a U.S. supply of ...we couldn't find ourselves" (Findley 141). Another statement: "There is a much higher level of espionage by Israel against our government than has ever been publicly admitted" (Findley 143). For example: the Israeli's see the Pentagon as their "stop and shop". They placed an order and the person submitting the order received a memo. He says:
'One of these items is so classified you have no right to know that it even exists.' I was instructed to destroy all copies of the request and all references to the particular code numbers. I didn't know what it was. It was some kind of electronic jamming equipment, top secret. Somehow the Israelis knew about it and acquired its precise specifications, cost and top secret code number. This meant they had penetrated our research and development labs, our most sensitive facilities (Findley 143).
Admiral Thomas Moorer tells about an incident when the Israelis asked for aircraft that the US had only one quadroon. He told the Israelis no, and if they did give them to Israel Congress would "raise hell with us." (p. 161). Findley says: Moorer looks at me with a steady piercing gaze that must have kept a generation of ensigns trembling in their boots: 'And do you know what he said? Gur told me, "you get us the airplanes; I'll take care of Congress.'" Moorer pauses, then adds, "And he did" (Findley 161). Moorer added: "If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what goes on" (p. 161). When you know this, and read Griffen, page 86: FBI Director Mueller, however, later claimed: "We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible." "Yet many of the names and photos are known to be wrong," says Thompson. "Perhaps embarrassing facts would come out if we knew their real names." And, "...many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left was left deliberately - for the FBI to chase" (Griffen 86). This is long standing standard operating procedure for Israel - frame the Arabs for atrocities they commit (Levon Affair for example). The "How" questions are good, but it is the "WHO" that is the elephant no one will admit is obviously in the room. Griffen's book does more than most to bring the ignored or hidden version of events into the light of day. He has shown with great detail and a wide variety of credible sources that the events of 911 could not have happened the way the government said. He does not claim to know what happened. He is at least honest.