The Case Against Bush-Cheney

 

This is largely a synopsis of Chapter 5 ("Bush Administration Responsibility for 9/11: From a Prima Facie to a Conclusive Case") of David Ray Griffin's Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006).  Further discussion can be found in Griffin's two earlier books, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Northampton, MA: Interlink, 2004) and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Northampton, MA: Interlink, 2005), and numerous articles, speeches, and interviews archived at sites such as 911truth.org, 911blogger.com, Scholarsfor911truth.org, and Veterans for 9/11 Truth.

 

The case against Bush-Cheney for "high crimes and misdemeanors" in addition to 9/11 is made here by former U.S. Attorney-General Ramsey Clark.  Impeachment sites.

 

 

Conflicts of interests on 9/11 Commission

 

  1. At least half of the staff had potential conflicts of interests.  Most flagrantly, the executive director, Zelikow, had worked with Condoleezza Rice on the NSC in Bush Sr.'s administration, coauthored a book with her, was on GWB's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and was the principal author of the NSS 2002, which was the seminal document for the Bush-Cheney foreign policy after 9/11.

 

The World Trade Center

 

  1. There is substantial, many say overwhelming, evidence that the Towers collapsed not because of the impact of planes but because of pre-planted explosives that effectuated a controlled demolition.  Dozens of testimonies indicated that explosives were involved.  The building collapses evince at least ten charac­teristics of controlled demolitions, including the fact that Building 7 was not hit by anything at all.  Some officials evidently had foreknowledge of the collapses.  The steel from the buildings was collected and shipped off to China, an act which constitutes a criminal offense in itself (destruction of evidence at a crime scene) before it could be properly examined for evidence of explosives.

 

The 9/11 Report did not deal with any of these questions.  It alleged that the plane impacts caused the floors to "pancake."  This does not explain the disappearance of the 47 massive steel columns in the core of each tower, but the Report asserted that "the interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft."  This is false, and a clear example of distortion of the facts by the official government-appointed commission.  The Report did not mention the collapse of Building 7 at all.

 

  1. The planting of the explosives would have required control over the security system of the WTC.  The security system was under the control of a company headed by President Bush's cousin, Wirt Walker III, and the president's brother Marvin was on the board of directors.  The 9/11 Commission did not deal with this issue at all.

 

The Pentagon

 

  1. The plane--if it was a plane--hit the wing of the Pentagon most difficult to hit and least likely to cause extensive damage.  Neither the damage to the building nor the debris was what one would expect from the impact of a Boeing 757.  This evidence was immediately confiscated and hidden away, and several videos from security cameras were likewise confiscated by the FBI and held in secret, although they could probably answer the question of what it was that actually hit the building.  The 9/11 Commission did not deal with any of these questions, and did not even mention the existence of the videos confiscated by the FBI.

 

  1. There is strong evidence based on the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta and Richard Clarke, chairman of the Counter-terrorism Security Group on the United States National Security Council, to the 9/11 Commission that Cheney ordered the military NOT to shoot down the plane (or missile) that hit the Pentagon, that he ordered the military to shoot down Flight 93, and that he lied about his activities on Sept. 11.  The 9/11 Commission asserted, contrary to all testimony, that Cheney arrived at the Presiden­tial Emergency Operations Center under the White House too late to have issued these orders.

 

The Hijackers

 

  1. The alleged hijackers did not behave like devout Muslims before the attacks, their names are not on the flight manifests, some of them have been reported by reliable news media to be still alive, and the evidence found in Atta's luggage has the appearance of being planted.  The 9/11 Commission did not investigate any of these points.

 

  1. The flying instructor of Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of Flight 77, which is supposed to have hit the Pentagon, has testified that Hanjour did not have anywhere near the skills to perform this extraordinary flying feat. 

 

Insider Trading

 

  1. Extraordinarily large purchases of "put options" (bets that the stocks will go down) from Sept. 8-10 on United and American airlines--and only on these airlines--and also on Morgan Stanley Dean Witter (which occupied 22 storeys of the WTC) resulted in tens of millions of dollars of profit after 9/11, indicating likely foreknowledge on the part of the investors.  The 9/11 Commission dismissed this possibility with a classical example of "begging the question," with the following illogic:  1) only al-Qaeda had foreknowledge of the attacks; 2) the investors had no (discernible) ties with al-Qaeda; 3) therefore the investors had no foreknowledge of the attacks.  This begs the question, obviously, of whether anyone other than al-Qaeda had foreknowledge of the attacks.

 

The behavior of George Bush on 9/11

 

  1. The behavior of the president Bush and the Secret Service agents in Florida on Sept. 11 exhibited extraordinary dereliction of duty in not reacting according to normal emergency procedures during a presumed attack, behavior which gives rise to the strong suspicion that they had foreknowledge of the attacks and knew that they were not in danger.  The 9/11 Commission did not deal with this question at all.

 

The military failure on 9/11

 

  1. The failure of the U.S. military to intercept any of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11 totally demolishes the credibility of the multi-billion-dollar air defense system of the United States.  The presumed fact that 19 Arabs with boxcutters were able to simultaneously and successfully attack the heart of the commercial and defense centers of this country with no effective defensive response from the armed forces should have called for the complete reconstruction of the U.S. defense establishment, but instead of that, there was not a single reprimand of anyone in a position of responsibility.  The military has now been shown to have lied repeatedly, from 2001 to 2004, about the details of its response, rather, non-response on 9/11.  The latest and presumably final story is that due to the incredible incompetence of the FAA, the military did not learn about the hijackings in time to make any interceptions.  This story was accepted by the 9/11 Commission without any questioning of its inherent implausibility, its conflict with prior testimony, or the possibility of fraudulent testimony and evidence, given the proven fact that previous testimony by military officials was also false.
1