print logo

Responding to Questions on 9/11

 Victoria Street Newz (Canada) 27 May 2019

(Originally published: 11/2009) Gordon Pollard responds to questions which followed the publication of his controversial series, 9/11 One of Histories greatest frauds. The four part article alleged that what seemed at first to be a shocking act of international terrorism was actually a monumental fraud perpetrated by high-level U.S. officials to provide an excuse for invading Iraq and Afghanistan and looting the energy resources of the Middle East and Central Asia.  - By Gordon Pollard

1.  Why have you spent so much time and energy trying to find out what happened on September 11th, 2001?  Why do you think 9/11 is such an important issue?

I believe 9/11 is one of the most important and most morally compelling issues of our time.  The questions about 9/11 go far beyond who murdered 3,000 people and destroyed four airplanes and three skyscrapers that day (though obviously those questions are themselves extremely important).

It has now become shockingly clear that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated primarily to provide an excuse for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which have resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed.

In addition, as a direct result of the 9/11 fraud, in many countries hundreds of billions of dollars which could have, and should have, gone to social spending have been diverted instead to huge increases in military spending and to pouring money into the bourgeoning "homeland security" industry that has been built on the bogus foundation of 9/11.

Most importantly, 9/11 was a pivotal development in world affairs - one of the keys to understanding current geo-political realities.  For example, it isn't possible to fully understand the situation in Afghanistan without knowing that the 9/11 "attacks" were a fraud and that the U.S. had already decided long before 9/11 to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban regime.  There is, in fact, not one shred of credible evidence connecting Afghanistan in any way to the events of September 11th, 2001.

2.  Do you think articles on 9/11 are really relevant in a paper like Victoria Street Newz, which focuses mainly on poverty and homelessness? </b>

Yes, I think it is very appropriate for a paper like Victoria Street Newz to publish articles on 9/11 for three main reasons.

First, as already mentioned, as a result of the 9/11 fraud, hundreds of billions of dollars which should have been devoted to socially beneficial spending have been used instead for massive increases in spending on the military and on so-called "homeland security."

Secondly, what happened on 9/11 is an issue of great importance to all citizens, including those who are living in poverty or on the street.  The fact that citizens might be poor or homeless doesn't mean they aren't interested in what is going on in the world.  On the contrary, I have personally found the poor and afflicted are often more concerned and knowledgeable about world affairs than are the rich and comfortable.

Thirdly, alternative papers like Victoria Street Newz play an invaluable role in society by dealing with issues that establishment publications consider too "hot" to touch.  By encouraging public discussion about 9/11, Street Newz publisher Janine Bandcroft is doing what publishers of papers like the "New York Times" and "Washington Post" should be doing, but which they quite frankly (pardon the expression) don't have the balls to do.

3.  Why do you think the mainstream media continue to support the official version of 9/11 unflinchingly and refuse to even consider compelling evidence which has been presented by credible 9/11 researchers such as Professor David Ray Griffin?

Unfortunately, the mainstream media, especially in the U.S. and Canada, have now been taken over almost totally by giant corporations, most of which have a huge vested interest in keeping the U.S. war machine rolling merrily along.  For example, NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the world's largest arms manufacturers.  It is sad but not really surprising therefore that none of the major media outlets have dared to "rock the boat" on 9/11.  The corporate media are, in fact, in the same "boat" as Dick Cheney and his friends, so they obviously don't want that "boat" to be torpedoed.

Moreover, to give the devil his due, Dick Cheney brilliantly "sand-bagged" the mainstream media, getting them at the fever pitch of "anti-terrorist" hysteria to buy into the official story of 9/11 totally and irrevocably.  I have no doubt many in the major news organizations later realized they had been conned but by then they had publicly trumpeted the official story so many times they were past the point-of-no-return and felt they had little choice but to continue with the charade.  That is why, on the issue of 9/11, most news organizations are continuing to compliment the stark naked emperor on his sartorial finery.

As for why the mainstream media have imposed an almost total blackout on 9/11 researchers like David Ray Griffin, it is not because they think these critics are wrong but because they know they are right.  The mainstream media are now fully aware that the official version of 9/11 is indefensible on any rational basis.  That is why they are so terrified by the prospect of the public becoming involved in a serious, large-scale debate about 9/11.

4.  Why do you think some political analysts who are generally regarded as leftist or progressive, such as Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein, have embraced the official version of 9/11 and have sometimes even dismissed 9/11 critics with contempt? </b>

First, I think some lefties simply haven't done their homework.  It takes a great deal of time and effort to seriously analyze the 9/11 Commission Report and carefully examine all of the available 9/11 evidence.  Instead of doing that, some "analysts" on both the left and right have simply assumed - as I must confess I did initially - that even Dick Cheney and company wouldn't do anything so terribly evil as orchestrate the 9/11 "attacks."

Secondly, there is the "wounded pride" factor.  To put it bluntly, Cheney and his cohorts successfully hoodwinked many of the academic and journalistic luminaries who have long considered themselves well-nigh infallible.  I think some of these ego-deflated victims just can't bring themselves to admit - at least not publicly - that Cheney pulled the wood over their eyes.

Thirdly, there is the "respectability" factor, which I think largely explains why such "respectable radicals" as Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein don't want to associate themselves with the critics of 9/11, who have been so viciously demonized as "crazy" and "unpatriotic" by the U.S. power elite that even a lot of lefties are very nervous about being identified with them.

5.  Do you think Barack Obama was in any way involved in the 9/11 "attacks" or knew anything about them in advance? </b>

No, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that had Barack Obama heard anything about the events planned for 9/11d, he would have willingly risked his political career or even sacrificed his own life to try to prevent those events from taking place.

6.  Do you think President Obama is now fully aware of what happened on 9/11 and, if so, why do you think he is not revealing the truth to the American people?

Yes, I think there is no question that President Obama and all senior U.S. officials are now well aware of what really happened on 9/11 but, for a number of reasons, are withholding that information from the public.  President Obama obviously knows that four of his predecessors were assassinated and he surely can't be unaware that he might well join the ranks of Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John Kennedy were he to insist on prying open the Pandora's Box of 9/11.

Also Obama knows most Americans, unfortunately, still buy into the you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us myth that was deeply imprinted on their minds on 9/11.  One of the surest ways for an American politician to commit political suicide is to publicly challenge the official version of 9/11.  For example, when former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney started asking embarrassing questions about 9/11 and pointing out that the official story makes no sense, the mainstream media relentlessly depicted her as "looney" and "soft on terrorism" and she lost her Congressional seat.

But I think the most important factor of all is that Obama and his advisers fear that if they were to reveal the truth about 9/11, it could cause a great political and social upheaval that might even tear apart the very fabric of American society.  They believe -- as Jack Nicholson famously put it in the film "A Few Good Men" - that Mrs. Milwaukee, Mr. Tallahassee, Grampa Sacramento, Aunt Albuquerque etc. just "can't handle the truth."

It seems to me there is a striking parallel between the dilemma Obama faces with 9/11 and the one President Franklin Roosevelt faced with the "Smedley Butler affair" 75 years ago.  In the summer of 1934 the popular, charismatic General Smedley Butler was secretly approached by several titans of U.S. capitalism (including the Rockefellers, the Mellons and the DuPonts) with a plan to overthrow Roosevelt and set up a quasi-fascist government headed by Butler.  That plan might have even succeeded had Butler not chosen to go before a committee of the House of Representatives and publicly blow the whistle on the conspirators.  Thankfully, when fascism came knocking, Butler had the courage and integrity to slam the door in its face.  When Roosevelt learned about this plot, he was understandably shocked and infuriated.  Nonetheless, he decided not to prosecute those who had been involved in planning the coup because he feared doing so would further rip apart an already deeply divided nation.  I think Obama probably feels much the same way about 9/11.

7.  Do you think that since the 9/11 "attacks" were apparently a fraud, terrorism isn't a serious issue and Canadians shouldn't be concerned about it?

No, terrorism is a serious issue and Canadians should be concerned about it - but it is also extremely important that we make a clear distinction between genuine terrorism and the bogus "terrorism" of 9/11.  Like all Canadians, I was horrified by the terrorist bombing attack on Air India Flight 182 on June 23rd, 1985, which took the lives of 280 Canadian citizens, including about two dozen children.  Clearly, reasonable and sensible steps must be taken to try to prevent real terrorist acts of that kind.

But what happened on 9/11 was a totally different matter.  The so-called "terrorist attacks" that day were completely bogus.  Those "attacks" were orchestrated by high-level U.S. authorities to whip up a frenzy of "anti-terrorist" (i.e. anti-Muslim and anti-Arab) hysteria as a means of gaining public support for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

Most importantly, we should keep things in perspective and remember that by far the biggest threat to humanity is not terrorism but poverty.  According to UNICEF, 9.2 million children under five died in the Third World last year, not as a result of terrorism, but from hunger and disease.

8.  Many "magical" things seemed to happen on 9/11 such as buildings collapsing in defiance of the laws of physics and a huge jetliner plunging into a building but leaving just a fairly small hold in one of its walls.  Wasn't there also a lot of "magic" when John Kennedy was assassinated 46 years ago? </b>

Yes, there was exactly the same kind of "magic."  Those of us old enough to have been around on November 22nd, 1963, will remember, for example, the "magic rifle" and "magic bullet" supposedly used by the alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.  The "magic rifle" said to have been found at the murder scene was initially described as a 7.65 mm German Mauser, but later at the Dallas police station it "magically" changed into a 6.5 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carano according to

Oswald.  The "magic bullet" was the one which the Warren Commission Report on the assassination claimed hit both Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally who was in the motorcade with Kennedy.  Later the bullet "magically" turned up in pristine condition on a stretcher in a corridor at the hospital to which Kennedy had been taken.  We, the ever-gullible great unwashed, were assured by the authorities that the "magic bullet" had definitely been fired from the "magic rifle," so Oswald must be guilty.

There is an especially eerie parallel between the discovery of the "magic rifle" and "magic bullet" and the discovery on 9/11 of the "magic passport" belonging to alleged hijacker Satam Al-Suqami, which, the authorities claim, survived the fiery crash of American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower and was "found" in remarkably good condition amid the rubble after the tower collapsed.

Frankly, both the Warren Report on the Kennedy assassination and the Kean-Zelikow Report on 9/11 are full of the kind of "magic" that J.K Rowling would have considered too far-fetched to include in any of her Harry Potter novels.

9.  Do you think there are parallels, as some have suggested, between 9/11 and other historical events that have been described as "false-flag operations" such as the burning of the Reichstag in Nazi Germany in 1933? </b>

Yes, most independent researchers now believe 9/11 was a "false-flag operation," and there is a chilling parallel between what happened in Germany 76 years ago and what happened in the United States on September 11th, 2001.

When the German Reichstag was gutted by fire on February 27th, 1933, Adolph Hitler's Nazis immediately accused a Dutch Communist named Marinus van der Lubbe of arson and high treason, and he was beheaded.  Hitler used this incident to stir up anti-Communist hysteria and eliminate many of his political opponents.  However, most experts on the Third Reich such as historian William L. Shirer believe that "beyond reasonable doubt it was the Nazis who planned the arson and carried it out for their own political ends."

Similarly, in the case of 9/11, as Barrie Zwicker notes in Towers of Deception, "Within two hours, the 'attacks' on America were being portrayed as the work of 'terrorists': one evil man, Osama bin Laden, and a small group of co-conspirators, the 2001 equivalents of the 1933 communists."  The U.S. authorities wasted no time in using these "attacks" as an excuse to whip up "anti-terrorist" hysteria and crack down on opponents at home and abroad.

10. Since the war in Afghanistan seems to be based on a fraudulent foundation, do you think we should condemn the soldiers from Canada and other NATO countries who have been sent to fight there? </b>

No, we certainly shouldn't condemn them.  They are, in a very real sense, victims of the 9/11 fraud just as much as the Afghanis who have been killed or maimed.  I think most of the young Canadian men and women who are being used as cannon fodder in Afghanistan are courageous and well-intentioned.  That makes it all the more tragic and heart-rending that so many of them have been killed or wounded.  It is truly pathetic to witness such misguided patriotism.

11.  If the U.S. government has been lying about 9/11, as seems to be the case, does this mean we should never believe anything governments tell us because they always lie? </b>

No, it doesn't.  But it means we should always be skeptical about everything we hear from governments.  Sometimes governments tell us the truth but often they don't.  Some government documents are factual but others are fraudulent.  That has been the reality with governments everywhere in the world throughout history.

In that sense, the 9/11 fraud was not unique.  It was unusual only in that it was carried out on such a large scale and in such a bold, dramatic manner.  Smaller-scale "9/11s" - frauds and deceptions of various kinds - are carried out all the time by governments all over the world.

Unfortunately, lies are part of the fabric of our society.  As America's most perceptive social commentator, Homer Simpson, told his wife in a recent episode of The Simpsons:  "Our marriage may be based on lies, Marge, but so are a lot of other good things - like religion and American history."

Indeed, here in British Columbia, lying by governments has become so common that it is now widely regarded as a routine part of the political process.  In the election campaign last spring, practically everyone realized Gordon Campbell wasn't telling the truth about the budget deficit, the B.C. Rail deal, health services etc. but that had little effect on the election outcome.  Telling voters now that B.C. premiers lie is like telling them that birds fly or fish swim.

12.  While it does appear that the 9/11 "attacks" were a fraud, they happened eight years ago, so wouldn't it be better now to put that issue aside and move on?  Don't you agree with President Obama who said in his speech at Cairo University in June that it is time for the world "to seek a new beginning"?</b>

I fully agree with President Obama that we should "seek a new beginning" in the sense that we should try to overcome the problems and conflicts of the past in a spirit of peace, justice, compromise and reconciliation.  But I don't believe that is possible unless we deal honestly with what has happened in the past.

As Archbishop Desmond Tutu noted when he helped set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that probed the horrible apartheid era in South Africa, there can never be genuine reconciliation unless we are willing to face the truth about the past.

That is one of the main reasons why I feel it is so important to face the truth about what really happened on September 11th, 2001.  I believe it simply isn't possible for tomorrow's hopes and dreams to be built on a foundation of yesterday's lies.

Gordon Pollard, who is a native of Victoria, has a MA in History from Columbia University in New York City and a BA in History and English from the University of Victoria.  After working for 10 years as a journalist in B.C., Alberta, and Ontario, Gordon spent 20 years teaching English and History in Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka.Gordon's 9/11 Fraud series is online in the archives at  For more information, and/or to connect with 9/11 Truth groups across Canada, visit

recently added