 The core group here at 911Courage.org is continuing to discuss leafletting opportunities. We are deep in the research phase of an imminent legal activity and request that all who are interested to please connect to the regular meeting conference calls or contact David directly. Details posted below or at 'Events' to the left.
Because Prof. Naftali is thought to be the author of the Kean Commission's final report, and Philip Zelikow is also a UVA professor, this could have national ramifications with help from all of you.
Taking the concluding sentence of the report to heart, "We look forward to a national debate on the merits of what we have recommended, and we will participate vigorously in that debate.", our challenge to Professor Timothy Naftali together with correspondence between Prof. Naftali and David is available at 'read more':
UVA History Professor Misleads Public on NPR Radio Show
University of Virginia History Professor Timothy Naftali was interviewed on NPR, 'Morning Edition' August 9th 2006 - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5629332. During the interview he states, "there's always, in history, one or two data points that are not as explainable as the rest." Professor Naftali, allow me to introduce you to Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of over 25 books and Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Theology and Religion from the Claremont School of Theology. Professor Griffin enumerates 115 different omissions and distortions by the Kean Commission. Professor Naftali was a consultant to that commission. Professor Philip Zelikow, a name familiar to many on the UVA campus, was the executive director of the commission, even though he had written a book with Condoleeza Rice, the top official to testify publicly under oath.
We seek UVA students who would like to have polite civil dialogue with Prof. Naftali.
Contact David Slesinger, dslesinger@alum.mit.edu, or call 240-221-3293
"The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie", by Dr. David Ray Griffin, Sunday, May 22, 2005 - http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404 :
- 6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
- 8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed - an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
- 11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
- 14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the WTC was going to collapse (30-31).
- 15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
- 23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
- 53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).
- 85. The omission of Secy. of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
- 109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
- 110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
- 111. The claim - made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them - that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Prof. Naftali,
Thank you so much for suggesting I send my concerns by email.
Let me review who I am and who I am not. I am a citizen who has followed the 911 issue since within the first year, and has recently developed 911courage.org and concomitant protests. I spoke on Gandhian nonviolence at both the 7/05 Emergency Truth Convergence in DC and at 911Revealing the Truth, this past June in Chicago.
I am not a scholar (can't sit still) but have a genuine affection for collegial interchange. I only have a bachelorr's degree, but I can guarantee I will always be attentive to lessening your discomfort at having to address the hard questions about 911. If you are willing to engage with me at any level, I am willing to take you to lunch and prove that I can be good company.
Let me add that I have a dear friend from undergraduate years who I have often treated as a guru who takes your side on 911. He told me before we agreed not to be in touch during my civil disobedience period that he once reviewed the JFK assassination in depth. His conclusion was that the Warren Commission defenders eventually addressed every major issue except the auditory evidence.
Any effort to defend or resuscitate the Kean Commission will have to at least seek your advice. If you need clearance from those you respect to proceed, that's fine. It's either you or someone else. If you tell me that people you respect want me to deal with someone else, I'm open to it if that person will shoulder enough of our challenge to make it worth the effort I'm hoping you'd consider an email dialogue with Dr Griffin. If you need to review his work, on paper or on video, you can satisfy any concerns about his collegiality.
The 40 plus percentage result from the size of our support is closer to reality than the more recent 36 % poll because the newer poll had a qualifier of links to the Middle East. How big a percentage do we need before we are deemed worthy of being taken seriously?
My proposal for us is for me to come to UVA's campus, hand out flyers (you can have a chance to tweak the flyer if we can actually agree) and find students who will request politely that you answer harder questions than you usually address. I would prefer to be able to say that you are a daring and courageous person who is willing to engage the students I find; as long as they remain collegial, and it doesn't take an unreasonable amount of your time. We'd probably have to break it up over a semester or two. The students, in turn, would be allowed to videotape and release what we capture without editing.
This would be a beautiful gift of a place in history to the students at the university designed by the master of Monticello himself.
Sincerely,
David Slesinger
* * *
Dear Mr. Slesinger,
Thanks for sending an email.
I take the study of conspiracies seriously but have found, as your undergraduate friend did, that most dissolve under intense review. NPR asked me to comment on the nature of conspiracy thinking in American history not on Loose Change per se. Although I am persuaded that the 9/11 commission got the outlines of the main story right, I don't consider myself an expert on the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 (I actually know more about those surrounding Pearl Harbor). In short, there are better debating partners for you.
I do not suggest that you are wrong to ask questions about historical judgments. All historians do, all the time. And I don't believe that only scholars with Ph.D.s can get under the skin of the past. So, good luck.
Best wishes,
Tim Naftali |
