|Home||The Joint Inquiry||The Problem||The Saudis?||Other Players?||About|
Letter to Les Jamieson
|On August 18, 2015, we of the "28-Pages Misdirection" group sent a letter to Les Jamieson, expressing concern with what we felt was a marked tendency of his hr14.org website to reinforce the Official Conspiracy Theory of 19 "hijackers," and by doing so to implicitly support the subsequent anti-Muslim fallout of 9/11. We requested that certain changes be made to the website to distance it further from the Official Conspiracy Theory. Les sent us his well-considered response on August 26, but declined to make the changes.|
We, your undersigned colleagues in the search for truth, support all efforts to release all information, classified or not, relating to the events of September 11, 2001. While we do not oppose the declassification of the 28 pages from the 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry, we have serious concerns about the hr14.org website and its omission of any facts documented by the 9/11 Truth Movement over the last 14 years.
While all of us support in principle the efforts to obtain the release of the 28 redacted pages contained in the Joint Inquiry report, we do not know what information of substance, if any, will be revealed with their release. We believe that it is misleading, at best, to imply that it will lead to an investigation and the ultimate disclosure of the real 9/11 perpetrators and their activities.
We are concerned that the message displayed on the HR14 campaign website does not support the facts as the 9/11 Truth Movement has come to understand them. Instead, it assumes the official story is true, with the slight twist that the Saudis were culpable because they financed the putative hijackers. In addition, the site ignores all the hard evidence that debunks the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT). To cite just two examples: a number of alleged hijackers, Saudi or otherwise, have been located and were well and alive when contacted subsequent to the events of 9/11; and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has made an incontrovertible case that three World Trade Center buildings were destroyed as the result of controlled demolitions.
As you know from past correspondence, published and recognized leaders of the 9/11 truth movement, such as Kevin Ryan and Michel Chossudovsky, have raised serious questions about the purpose and intent of the 28-pages release campaign. Moreover, the Joint Inquiry Report was a flawed, incomplete, cover-up investigation in the first place. In addition, there is no guarantee that if and when the 28 pages are released, they will be the authentic, full and unredacted 28 pages, and that they will not have been written specifically for the purpose of deflecting blame away from the actual perpetrators.
By way of analogy, suppose someone claimed that certain classified documents could prove that known patsy Lee Harvey Oswald was secretly financed by the Soviet Union, and that this would conclusively reveal who was truly behind JFK's assassination. Would anyone among the serious researchers uncritically accept this information? Would they not label such a claim a red herring, which undermines the fruit of years of painstaking research?
By the same logic, whereas we all agree it is critical to expose the real 9/11 perpetrators, since the 9/11 Truth Movement has forcefully established that 19 alleged hijackers could not have been responsible for the complete destruction of 3 of New York's tallest skyscrapers (not to mention the Pentagon event), why should the question of who financially supported these known (by definition, falsely blamed) patsies be considered so momentous?
Do we not then have good reason to question the purpose of the website's message which falsely assumes that revealing Saudi financial support will finally, conclusively, reveal who perpetrated 9/11? It flies in the face of everything the 9/11 Truth community has struggled for years to publicly demonstrate!We do not make such serious assertions lightly. Several of us have carefully scrutinized the hr14.org website and have unexceptionally discovered what can only be called a regurgitation of the OCT. (Our detailed analysis is available upon your request.) We therefore regard hr14.org as, at best, a hindrance to the aims of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which, on the basis of hard evidence, has solidly debunked the false narrative that your website appears to openly advocate.
We would also like to ask you how the statements of people with clear but undisclosed conflicts of interest can be featured on your website as though they were somehow heroic? Porter Goss and Bob Graham have well established CIA connections, and litigants in a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, such as Terry Strada (whose case and opportunity for financial award hinges on essential confirmation of the OCT), can hardly be considered disinterested on this question either!
The current popularity of the 28 pages issue provides a unique opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement to educate our Congress and the public about the evidence we have gathered over the last fourteen years. We are dismayed that you have ignored this research on your website, and instead have included only content which actively and uncritically promulgates the OCT.
We are requesting some specific changes to the website as a sign of good faith: the inclusion of additional facts such as those mentioned below, and the removal of all statements by parties with known conflicts of interest (such as the three mentioned above). The specific evidence (with relevant url links for each point which we would be happy to provide) we request be added to the website includes the following:
We look forward to a positive response from you to these specific requests. If we have not received your e-mailed commitment by Tuesday, 25 August to act by a date certain on these specific requests, we will honor our moral obligation to bring these concerns to the larger 9/11 truth community.Please 'Reply All' with your response.