SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER: 9/11 Commission report is a lie


Richard Moore

Original source URL:


9/11 Commission report is a lie
Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Writing about a speech by one of the members of the 9/11 Commission, P-I 
columnist Joel Connelly claimed: "Each of us needs to understand why we are 
doing what we are doing." ("Sept. 11 show the flaws with protocol," May 8)

Indeed! The problem is that the "why" we have been told appears to be a complete

Connelly seems to assume that because the 9/11 Commission was bipartisan that we
should accept its conclusions and recommendations. But is that true? Is the 
commission's story credible?

The commission's conclusions and recommendations should be totally rejected. Its
story is full of lies, distortions and omissions of fact. Following are two of 
the more than 40 reasons why the official story about what happened on 9/11 is 

First, who were the hijackers? We do not know. None of those named appear on any
of the passenger lists released by the airlines. Most important, six of the men 
named by the government are still alive and have never even been to the United 
States. We know that because European media (as reported by The Associated 
Press, the London Telegraph and the BBC) have interviewed them. It is not a 
matter of mistaken identity not being noticed or someone using a false passport.
The commission insists that the people they named were the hijackers but that 
claim is demonstrably false.

If that most basic claim is false, and the information was available to the 
commission (which it was), and the commission still claims that it has given us 
"a full account" of what happened that day based on "exacting research," it's 
clear that the members are lying. In his book, "The 9/11 Commission Report: 
Omissions and Distortions," Dr. David Ray Griffin documents all that and 
concludes the whole report is one long lie.

Second, in the months after 9/11 all of the surviving New York City Fire 
Department personnel who were on the scene were interviewed. Those oral 
histories were recorded and withheld from the public until Aug. 15, 2005. Only 
after losing in court three times did the city of New York finally release them.
All 503 are now posted on The New York Times Web site. Why did the city fight so
hard to keep them from the public?

It turns out those oral histories reveal details about what was happening in the
World Trade Center buildings that are completely inconsistent with the tale told
by the commission. Dozens of firefighters and medics reported hearing, seeing 
and feeling explosives going off in the buildings that collapsed. Why were there
explosives, very powerful explosives by all accounts, going off in the 
buildings? More disturbing, why was the pattern of those explosives identical in
some important ways with the pattern used in a planned implosion (or controlled 
demolition of a building)?

In spite of Connelly's faith in what commission members say, the report seems to
be an obvious cover-up. The question that we all need to ask is: What is the 
commission covering up? Was 9/11, in fact, an inside job?

Richard Curtis, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Seattle 
University and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth;

© 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Escaping the Matrix website
cyberjournal website  
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives      
  cyberjournal forum  
  Achieving real democracy
  for readers of ETM  
  Community Empowerment
  Blogger made easy