The prima facie case remains unrefuted.

“If raising disturbing questions about the official account would be seen as both unpatriotic and sacrilegious, it is not surprising that, as both Rena Golden and Dan Rather admit, the mainline press in America has not raised these questions. It is also not surprising that right-wing and even middle-of-the-road commentators on political affairs have not raised serious questions about the official account. It is not even surprising that some of them – including Jean Bethke Elshtain, a professor of social and political ethics –have declared that the accusation of official complicity is beyond the pale of reasonable debate, so that any arguments on its behalf can simply be ignored. Elshtain, calling the suggestion that American officials, including the President, were complicit in the attacks “preposterous”, adds: “This sort of inflammatory madness exists outside the boundary of political debate” and therefore does not even “deserve a hearing”. From this perspective, it is not necessary to examine the evidence put forward by critics of the official account, even though some of these critics are fellow intellectuals teaching in neighboring universities – such as two well-respected Canadian academics, economist Michel Chossudovsky and social philosopher John McMurtry [see below for relevant links]. Although Elshtain points out that “if we get our description of events wrong, our analyses and our ethics will be wrong too”, she evidently thinks it unnecessary to consider the possibility that the official description about the events of 9/11 might be wrong. Although this attitude is unfortunate, especially when it is expressed within the intellectual community, it is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is that America’s leftist critics of US policy, who are seldom worried about being called unpatriotic or sacrilegious, have for the most part not explored, at least in public discourse, the possibility of official complicity.”

“If a significant portion of the evidence summarized here holds up, the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 succeeded because of official complicity would become virtually inescapable.”

From the Introduction to "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin
------------

“In his introduction to "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11", David Ray Griffin makes a distinction critical in the field of 9/11 between cumulative and deductive arguments. The exhibits in this chapter show cumulatively that 9/11 was an inside job. Only one exhibit needs to be proven true (beyond a reasonable doubt) for the “Inside Job” theory to be strengthened, or even proved (the “Smoking Gun”). If more than one holds up, the case for an Inside Job becomes even more substantive. If a clear majority hold up, the argument for Inside Job becomes nearly invincible.

What if, on the other hand, one exhibit (or one part of one exhibit) fails to hold up? Does this mean all of the others are undermined or rendered null and void? Not at all. It simply means that particular exhibit can be set aside for further scrutiny, or turn out to be entirely wrong. This holds true for more than one exhibit. All exhibits need to be examined on their own merits. Each bona fide exhibit on its own supports the cumulative evidence of an inside job on 9/11. To maintain the credibility of the official 9/11 story, all the evidence that follows must be proven wrong. …

Supporters of the official story … must employ deductive reasoning to maintain the official story of 9/11. In deductive reasoning, each step in the argument depends upon the truth of the previous step…. In deductive reasoning, the whole chain can fail if one link fails.”

[Noel Twyman writes in his book "Bloody Treason"] “that he was forced to accept the reality that ‘no evidence … in any complex crime is of absolute certainty. Doubts can be raised about any piece of evidence ‘if one is willing to search long enough’. In fact, this is the method of courtroom lawyers; their job is to create doubts in the minds of jurors or of a judge. They will go so far as to ‘manufacture doubt out of thin air’.

Toronto lawyer Peter Rosenthal says ‘The two main criteria for admissibility of evidence are that it be reliable and shed light on the ultimate issue. The decision on the ultimate issue must be based on the totality of the reliable and relevant evidence.’ In other words, the cumulative evidence.”

From "Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11", by Barrie Zwicker

-- -- --

“… what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? …. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.”

“Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued role of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush Administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike.”

“When suspects in a criminal case keep changing their story, we assume that they must be trying to conceal the truth. But an even more serious problem with the Commission’s new story [the third change in its description of the NORAD/FAA response] is that many of its elements are contradicted by credible evidence or are otherwise implausible.”

“In a criminal trial, once the prosecution has presented its initial case, the defense asks the judge for a dismissal on the grounds that a prima facie case for guilt has not been presented. However, if the judge declares such a case has been made, then the defense must rebut the various elements in the prosecution’s case. The defense cannot simply offer another theory while ignoring the prosecution’s case. If the defense fails to offer a convincing rebuttal, the prima facie case is presumed to be conclusive.”

“The 9/11 Commission, under the direction of Bush Administration insider Phillip Zelikow, had the opportunity to rebut the prima facie case against the Bush administration. But as the above illustrations of both omissions and distortions show, it completely failed to do so. As a result, the prima facie case that the Bush Administration orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 remains unrefuted. The publication of the 9/11 Commission Report should, accordingly, be recognized as a decisive event: the moment at which the prima facie case against the Bush administration became a conclusive case.”

“Burns Weston, a professor of law, has said that the ‘disparity between official 9/11 ‘spin’ and independently researched 9/11 fact [is] so glaring as to suggest the possibility of a constitutional crisis unlike anything our country had ever known’.”

“… It is only when we realize that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out and covered up for the sake of America’s global domination project that we can, as I have suggested elsewhere, fully grasp the extent to which this project is propelled by fanaticism based on a deeply perverted value system.”

“We love being the sole remaining superpower in the world and we want so much to remain that way that we are willing to put at risk the basic health of our economy and well-being of our people to do so.” -- Senator Robert Byrd

From "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action", by David Ray Griffin
---

“9/11 is a controversial and unfashionable topic, like the JFK assassination, and for the same reason. To ask questions about 9/11 risks raising questions about the legitimacy of our government. Above all, it raises questions about the radical restrictions of basic freedoms that have been introduced since September 2001.

The more status someone has in this society, the harder it is for them to listen to suggestions that there is something illegitimate about the power structure in which they have that status.

Thus the paradox that ordinary people are more likely to disbelieve the official theories, or of JFK, than are people with higher education and greater access to information.”

“… There is a pattern to the misrepresentations… In fact, the 9/11 Report is carefully written and carefully foot-noted. There is a consistent pattern of the misrepresentations, and the pattern that I am looking at is the consistent down-playing or trivialization of the role that Dick Cheney played that day.”

“It is pretty clear that all the most important orders that day … were issued … from a single source … the source was the PEOC in the bunker underneath the White House where Dick Cheney was presiding.”

There is a negative template, or pattern of recurring suppression…: “the details thus suppressed can be seen as indications or clues as to the important information that is being suppressed.”

Peter Dale Scott, from his forthcoming book: "The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America"

Video of an hour-long presentation at http://www.911blogger.com/node/8771

---

“The law says a person is presumed innocent until found guilty. But it should be realized that this concept is applicable only in a courtroom. As individuals, we have the right to form our own judgment at any point we become convinced….”

--Noel Twyman, "Bloody Treason"