The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden

by Anthony Summers

  62 Nelson: “Aircraft parts and the Precautionary Principle,” www.​physics911.​net, bio. at www.​patriots​question911.​com.

  63 Latas: bio. at www.​latasgroup.​com, int. of Jeff Latas for Pilots for 9/11 Truth, audio on www.​youtube.​com; the Flight Data Recorder from Flight 77 was recovered from the ruined section of the Pentagon, in decipherable condition. The voice recorder, though also recovered, was reportedly so badly damaged as to be of no use (corr. NTSB’s Ted Lopatkiewicz, 2010, “Specialist’s Factual Report of Investigation Digital Flight Data Recorder, NTSB no. DCA01MA064,” 1/31/02, www.​ntsb.​gov)

  64 Davis: www.​patriots​question911.​com

  65 Kwiatkowski: eds. David Ray Griffin & Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 and American Empire, Northampton, MA: Olive Branch, 2007, 28–

  66 Citizen Investigation Team: www.​citizeninve​stigationteam.​com.

  CHAPTER 11

  1 200, etc.: FAQ, 8/30/06, http://​wtc.​nist.​gov

  2 NIST/FEMA conclusions/“no corroborating”: Executive Summary, “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” FEMA, Washington, D.C., 2002, & Executive Summary, “Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers,” NIST, Washington, D.C., 9/05

  3 “pancaked”/bowing: FAQ, 8/30/06

  4 Mackey: “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation,” 5/08, corr. Ryan Mackey, 2009, 2010

  5 “baloney”/“violates”: cited in Mackey, 137–, 147

  6 “are so numerous”: ibid., 2

  7 “breaking”: David Ray Griffin, Debunking, 157, Mackey, 25

  8 “would be very”: Griffin, Debunking, 248–, 181–

  9 no good evidence/“particularly”/“high-temperature”: Mackey, 82–, 86

  10 Jones’s four samples: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et al., “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (April 3, 2009): 7–31, www.​bentham.​org

  11 fellow scientists: corr. Ryan Mackey, 2010, “Active Thermitic Material Claimed in Ground Zero Dust May Not Be Thermitic at All,” 4/13/09, http://​undisettembre.​blogspot.​com, “Steven Jones,” article at www.​ae911truth.​info

  12 university website: Steven Jones, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?,” http://​web.​archive.​org; Journal: Steven Jones, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?,” www.​journalof​911studies.​com

  13 coeditor/“peer-reviewed”: “Home” page, http://​www.​journalof​911studies.​com

  14 “masquerade”: Mackey, 13, 40, Mackey corr. 2010, but see Dr. Jones’s riposte to such criticism in “An Open Letter to Dr. Steven Jones by James Bennett, with Replies by Steven Jones,” www.​journalof​911studies.​com. When Jones’s and his colleagues’ most recent take on thermite was published in 2009, in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, the person whose name appeared on the masthead as “editor” promptly disassociated herself from the publication. The article, said Marie-Paule Pileni, a highly distinguished French scientist, had been printed without her knowledge. She characterized the periodical itself as “sheer nonsense … I do not want my name associated with this kind of stuff” (“sheer nonsense”: “Chefredaktor skrider efter kontroversiel artikel om 9/11,” videnskab.dk, 4/28/09, excerpts translated from the Danish by Marianne Gurnee, 2010, corr. Marie-Paul Pileni, 2010).

  15 “heard”: WSJ, 4/8/02

  16 “individual floors”: Bussey cited in Cathy Trost & Alicia Shepard, Running Toward Danger, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002, 87

  17 “It just descended”: Judyth Sylvester & Suzanne Hoffman, Women Journalists at Ground Zero, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002, 19—in his article “Explosive Testimony,” www.​911truth.​org, Griffin rendered the text’s word “implosion” as “explosion.”

  18 Romero: Albuquerque Journal, 9/11/01, 9/21/01. Undeterred, skeptics resorted to innuendo. One coupled Romero’s retraction to a “rumor” that he had “since found preferment from the federal government.” Griffin has written that Romero had been “a very successful lobbyist for Pentagon contracts.” “Saying that the government got to me,” Romero has said, “is the farthest thing from the truth.” In his initial comment, he would insist, he had “only said that that’s what it looked like” (“rumor”: Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11: Synthetic Terror, Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive, 2005, 225; “very successful”: Griffin, Debunking, 255; “Saying that”/“looked”: eds. Dunbar & Reagan, 49)

  19 “Then we”: int. John Sudnik, TF, 11/7/01

  20 “First I”: int. Timothy Julian, TF, 12/26/01

  21 “There was”: int. Frank Cruthers, TF, 10/31/01

  22 “The lowest”: int. Brian Dixon, TF, 10/25/01.

  23 Griffin seized: Griffin, “Explosive Testimony.” In his quote of Journal reporter Bussey, Griffin omitted the reporter’s description of the initial sounds he heard as having been “metallic.” He also left out a sentence in which the reporter, amending what he had at first assumed about the use of planted explosives, added, “In fact, the building was imploding down.” Griffin attributed the quote starting “individual floors …” to “another Wall Street Journal reporter”—as distinct from Bussey. In fact, the source makes clear, Bussey is the source of both quotes used (Griffin, “Explosive Testimony” & see source for “individual floors,” above).

  24 formal interviews: published online by the NYT at http://​graphics8.​nytimes.​com. Griffin cited Professor Graeme MacQueen, who did study all 503 Fire Department statements, as finding that 118 of them—some 23 percent of the group—“appear to have perceived, or thought they perceived, explosions that brought down the towers.” Our reading of the actual study suggests it is flawed. For example, MacQueen acknowledged having excluded from his analysis “a host of similes and metaphors referring to freight trains, jet planes and the like.” Significantly, he has glossed over the fact that—even under his own criteria—the majority of the 503 witnesses do not claim to have heard explosions. The authors note, too, that MacQueen’s analysis wrongly suggests—and he makes a point of this—that “fire chiefs on the scene thought the collapse of the towers was impossible.” As the authors have noted, the possibility of partial collapse was discussed by fire chiefs early on, see Ch. 6 (Griffin, Debunking, 76, Graeme MacQueen, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers,” 8/21/06, www.​journalof911​studies.​com).

  25 bangs: e.g., int. Julio Marrero, TF, 10/25/01

  26 thunder: e.g., int. Mark Stone, TF, 10/12/01, int. Eric Hansen, TF, 10/10/01, int. Jody Bell, TF, 12/15/01

  27 rumbling: e.g., int. Patricia Ondrovic, TF, 10/11/01, int. Scott Holowach, TF, 10/18/01, int. John Delendick, TF, 12/6/01, int. John Picarello, TF, 12/6/01, int. Anthony DeMaio, TF, 1/28/02

  28 trainlike: e.g., int. Louis Giaconelli, TF, 12/6/01, int. Paul Curran, TF, 12/18/01, int. Mark Ruppert, TF, 12/4/01, int. Joseph Fortis, TF, 11/9/01, int. Dominick Muschello, TF, 12/6/01

  29 “You heard”: int. Salvatore Torcivia cited in DiMarco, 188

  30 “relaying”: Mackey, 75

  31 Griffin on Kingdome: Griffin, Debunking, 188, & see U.S. News & World Report, 6/22/03, www.​controlled-​demolition.​com/​seattle-​kingdome

  32 “produced no”: Mackey, 94

  33 “for alternative”: Executive Summary, NIST, xxxviii.

  34 “Achilles’ Heel”/“smoking gun”: Griffin, Mysterious, xi; see pp. 97–99

  35 first known/“a mystery”: NYT, 11/29/01.

  36 “fire-induced”: “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Federal Building & Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, D.C., 11/08, ES-3, xxxvi. Author Griffin wrote off that finding as “scientific fraud,” claiming that the institute’s experts ignored numerous items of physical evidence, fabri
cated and falsified evidence, and ignored a recommendation that their documentation should be peer-reviewed. Evidence ignored, the professor asserted, included in particular the evidence in dust of thermitic material—Griffin thought the “most likely explanation” was that WTC 7, like the Twin Towers, was brought down by explosives (“scientific fraud,” etc.: Griffin, Mysterious, 245–; “most likely”: ibid., xii).

  37 “When it fell”: int. Frank Fellini, TF, 12/3/01

  38 Hayden: Firehouse, 4/02, Smith, 31–, 159–, int. Ray Goldback, TF, 10/24/01, int. Richard Banaciski, TF, 12/6/01, int. Robert Sohmer, TF, 1/17/02, int. Frank Cruthers, TF, 10/31/01.

  39 Nigro: int. Daniel Nigro, TF, 10/24/01, “Chief of Department FDNY (ret.) Daniel Nigro Addresses Conspiracy Theories,” http://​guide.​googlepages.​com/​danielnigro. Brent Blanchard, a senior writer on ImplosionWorld, an online magazine for the demolition industry, has written, “Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would likely have been detected by seismographs monitoring ground vibration.… To our knowledge, no such telltale ‘spike’ or vibratory anomaly was recorded.… Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 P.M. on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet.… We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.” Readers who wish to delve deeper could consult Blanchard’s paper; Ryan Mackey’s paper, at p. 112–; the BBC documentary film The Conspiracy Files: 9/11—The Third Tower, July 6, 2008; and of course Dr. Griffin’s book The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7. (Brent Blanchard, “A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint,” www.​implosionworld.​com).

  40 photos: credited to Corporal Jason Ingersoll, USMC; Goldberg et al., 159, 245n30, & see photo section, photos also at http://​911research.​wtc7.​net

  41 18 feet/“How could”: David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Gloucestershire, U.K.: Arris, 2005, 34

  42 wingspan/tail: Goldberg et al., 17fn

  43 “fits”: Griffin, Omissions, 38.

  44 Eyewitnesses: e.g., see p. 44. Many more such witnesses are on record.

  45 evidence/opinions: Paul Mlakar et al., “The Pentagon Building Performance Report,” Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1/03, 1–

  46 removed/FBI warehouse: ibid., 24, Libération, 3/30/02, “Arlington County After-Action Report,” www.​co.​arlington.​va.​us/​fire/​edu/​about/​pdf/​after_​report.​pdf, Annex C, 53–

  47 report concluded: Mlakar et al., 58

  48 “hogwash”/“To look”: corr. Mete Sozen, 2010

  49 Empire State: “B-25 Empire State Building Collision,” www.​aerospaceweb.​org, “Ask the Pilot,” Salon, 5/19/06

  50 photos: Goldberg et al., photo section

  51 “planted”: Griffin, Debunking, 265.

  52 “Don’t be taken in”: “New Study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing Hit the Pentagon, Global Research, 6/24/07. Fetzer was impressed by the suggestion from James Hanson, a retired attorney, who claimed that he had traced the debris that was found at the Pentagon to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in Colombia in 1995! (ibid. & Idaho Observer, 2/8/05)

  53 aircraft remains: “Photos of Flt 77 Wreckage Inside the Pentagon,” by Sarah Roberts, www.​rense.​com (referred to the authors by Sarandis Papadopoulos, an editor of Pentagon 9/11, whom Roberts consulted), “Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation,” www.​aerospace.​org, “Airplane Fragment in Patriotic Box,” exhibit description, http://​american​history.​si.​edu, Libération, 3/30/02.

  54 Carter: address at Coalition on Political Assassinations conference, 2002. The ashes given to May’s fiancé are interred in Maryland.

  55 Flight 77 crew remains: Submission by Toni Knisley, American Airlines flight service administration manager, National September 11 Memorial & Museum, http://​ns11make​history.​appspot.​com, Burlingame bio. at www.​arlington​cemetery.​net. Forensic work on the Pentagon victims was done by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Dover, Delaware. Remains of five individuals also found at the crash scene, and believed to be those of the hijackers, were eventually handed over to the FBI (Goldberg et al., 183, 178).

  56 remains identified: Goldberg et al., 177–, 183, 204, “Attack on the Pentagon,” www.​arlington​cemetery.​net

  57 photos: Exhibits P200042, P200045, P200047, P200048, U.S. v. Zacarias Moussaoui, www.​vaed.​uscourts.​gov

  58 “A stillness”: Goldberg et al., 195

  59 “the bodies”/“For all we know”: Griffin, Debunking, 268–.

  60 “cell phone calls”: “Operation Pearl,” 8/03, www.​serendipity.​li. Wireless and cell phone industry sources have said cell phone calls from planes were possible—even from high altitudes—at the time of 9/11, though connections were sporadic (e.g., NYT, 9/14/01, “Final Contact,” 11/1/01, www.​connected​planet.​com, eds. Dunbar & Reagan, 83–, David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories, London: Jonathan Cape, 2009, 224).

  61 seatback not cell phone: In May’s case, the skeptics’ claims grew out of early news reports that the attendant used her cell phone to call home—the record shows she did not. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, for his part, made it clear in a Fox News interview after 9/11 that he simply did not know what sort of phone his wife had used to call. The records now available show that only seatback phone calls, or attempted calls, were made from Flight 77.

  The skeptics have claimed flatly that American Airlines 757s “were not equipped with seatback phones.” Though the airline had apparently decided to discontinue seatback phone service prior to 9/11, analysis indicates that such phones were still in use on some flights as late as March 2002. That they were still in use on 9/11 is evident from the phone records alone.

  The skeptics have also claimed that the reports of passengers’ calls from Flight 93—see Ch. 7—are suspect. Griffin even suggests that Todd Beamer’s long call to operator Lisa Jefferson did not occur. Beamer’s call, however, is listed in the telephone company records now available. As in the case of Flight 77, early reports of “cell phone calls” made from Flight 93 sowed confusion. Deena Burnett, widow of Flight 93 passenger Tom Burnett, told the FBI that her husband made a series of three to five calls home on his cell phone. The records show that Burnett made three calls on a seatback phone. There is no way of knowing whether Mrs. Burnett simply misremembered the exact number of calls she got from her husband, or whether he did use his cell phone to make some of the calls. The records show that many Flight 93 calls, initially described as being by cell phone, in fact originated from seatback phones (early news: Las Vegas Review Journal, 9/13/01; made it clear: Olson, Fox News, 9/14/01; only seatback phone: DOJ “Briefing on Cell and Phone Calls from AA77,” 5/20/04, in “Flight 93 Calls” folder [inc. details on other flights], B12, T7, CF, & Moschella to Marcus [& attachments], 4/26/04, in “Flight 11 Calls folder—Calls from AA11, AA77, UA175, & UA93, ATT Wireless & GTE Airphones,” B13, T7, CF; “were not equipped”: Griffin, Debunking, 266–; discontinue/analysis: “Airline Grounds In-Flight Phone Service,” 2/6/02, www.​news.​cnet.​com, Business Week, 9/30/02, AA spokesman John Hotard cited at “American Airlines Flight 77 Calls,” www.​911myths.​com; suspect: e.g., Griffin, Debunking, 86–, 292–; Griffin re. Beamer: “The Ultimate 9/11 Truth Showdown,” 10/6/08, www.​alternet.​org; Burnett: FBI 302 of int. Deena Burnett, 9/11/01, INTELWIRE, Moschella to Marcus [& attachments], 4/26/04, records show: MFR 04020029, 5/13/04, CF, FBI 302 of int. Mark Rugg, 7/1/02, “Key 302s,” B19, T7, CF).

  62 “have had a little”: “Comments on the Pentagon Strike,” www.​cassiopaea.​org

  63 “transformers”/“morphing”: Griffin, Debunking, 89, 86

  64 “Either Ted”/“is based on”: “The Ultimate 9/11 Truth Showdown, www.​alternet.�
�org

  65 scattered in three: Exhibit P200318, U.S. v. Zacarias Moussaoui.

  66 “It took”: transcript, Larry King Weekend, CNN, 1/6/02; Mrs. Olson is indeed interred in Door County, at Ellison Bay Cemetery. Had Dr. Griffin cared to check, he could have established this long before he made his most recent suggestion, in 2008, that she might be alive. (Ellison Bay Cemetery: int. Mayor’s Office, Liberty Grove, WI, Barbara K. Olson listing, www.​findagrave.​com).

  67 “cannot ignore”: Griffin, Debunking, 266, & see Griffin, New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, Moreton-in-March, U.K.: Arris, 2009, 28

  68 “overwhelming”/“an inside”: Griffin, Debunking, 1, 309, & see Griffin & Scott, Empire, 12

  69 “a prima facie”: Griffin, New Pearl Harbor, 2009, 131.

  70 Project: “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” Washington, D.C.: Project for the New American Century, Sept. 2000, 10, 4, 51, “Statement of Principles,” www.​newamerican​century.​org.

  71 “the Pearl Harbor”: WP, 1/27/02; This part of the passage echoed almost word for word testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1999. The then–executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Andrew Krepinevich, spoke of the difficulties in transforming the U.S. military, “in the absence of a strong external shock to the United States—a latter-day ‘Pearl Harbor’ of sorts” (testimony of Andrew Krepinevich, 3/5/99).

  72 in public: Sammon, 205, 316

  73 “Who benefits?”: Griffin & Scott, Empire, 103

  74 precedents: e.g., Zwicker, multiple refs. to false flag ops., & Griffin in ed. Ian Woods, 9/11, Vol. 2, Ontario: Global Outlook, 2006, 15

  75 Roosevelt: Zwicker, 273, & see “FDR Knew Pearl Harbor Was Coming,” New York Press, 6/14/01.

  76 false flag/pounced: “11 September 2001—Another Operation Northwoods?,” 9/17/01, www.​blythe.​org, & see “Operation 911: No Suicide Pilots,” 10/6/01, www.​public-​action.​com. The reference was to Operation Northwoods, which was revealed in the book Body of Secrets by the author James Bamford (NY: Doubleday, 2001—see 82–, 300–).