Guns and Butter Interviews Paul Zarembka, Editor of ‘The Hidden History of 9/11’


Paul Zarembka will be interviewed today on his excellent 9/11 book, The Hidden History of 9/11. The one-hour broadcast will aired on Bonnie Faulkner’s KPFA program ‘Guns and Butter: The Economics of Politics’, where she has given considerable attention to 9-11 on her program for many years.

The interview can be heard at 4 p.m. Eastern/1 p.m. Pacific, available at

Your host, Bonnie Faulkner, will be peeling back the layers of the events that unfolded on 9/11 with her guest Paul Zarembka. Paul, an avid researcher and author of “The Hidden History of 911,” challenges the official narrative and suggests that the roots of America’s downfall may have begun with the Kennedy assassination.

Bonnie Faulkner of Guns & Butter interviews Paul Zarembka

Click HERE for Transcript

Bonnie Faulkner [00:00:22]:
This is Guns and Butter. I’m Bonnie Faulkner. Today on Guns and Butter, Paul Zaremka. Today’s show, the hidden history of 911. Paul Zaremka is professor of economics at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He is author of Toward a Theory of Economic Development and editor of Frontiers in Econometrics. Paul Zarembka is also coeditor of essays in modern capital theory. Editor since 1977 of research in political economy, this series of 24 annual volumes addresses economic and political issues from the perspective of the social classes involved.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:01:17]:
The hidden history of eleventh and 1 first appeared in 2,006 as part of the research in political economy series. Newly republished in paperback with updates from the authors, the hidden history of 911 is a compendium of articles by different researchers into various aspects of the September 11th attacks, including sections on the hijackers, who were they, the morning of eleventh, and the context of eleventh and Meaning for the Future. Today, we discuss several of the chapters in-depth. Welcome.

Paul Zarembka [00:01:55]:
Thank you.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:01:57]:
The book you have edited and written a chapter for, The Hidden History of eleventh, first was published in hardcover in 2006, I believe, but was quite expensive and unavailable to most people. But last year, your book has now been published in softcover of the hidden history of eleventh is comprised of, different chapters on different subjects relating to eleventh by different authors, and you yourself have authored one of the chapters.

Paul Zarembka [00:02:25]:
That’s right. That’s right. And and only, it’s important to know that, only half of the book is about eleventh itself, and half of the book is basically about background, one way or another about eleventh type issues.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:02:38]:
Right. And I wanna get into those in some depth. Hopefully, we can, cover a lot of that today.

Paul Zarembka [00:02:43]:

Bonnie Faulkner [00:02:44]:
Why don’t we start with your chapter, which is called initiation of the eleventh operation with evidence of insider trading beforehand? You write about 3 topics, the planes and hijackings, the targets, and insider trading. With regard to the planes and hijackings, what did your research reveal?

Paul Zarembka [00:03:06]:
Basically, I mean, this this may be a little bit surprising, but, basically, I came to a conclusion that planes took off as described by the eleventh commission report or anybody else. I mean, they did take off. There was not an issue of no planes that some people talk about. The planes did take off, and I I I don’t have any evidence that they didn’t take the paths that we know about. I did sustain the fact that there was interference in the cockpits of some sort, but I always refer to the alleged hijackers. I mean, is somebody interfering with the planes would be called a hijacker, but the individuals the identity of individuals makes them, for me, alleged. I have no idea who they were.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:03:47]:
Well, regarding hitting the targets, which is the second section is on the targets, you examine 3 different scenarios, actual suicide pilots aiming the planes into the targets, or secondly, homing devices that home the planes into the targets, like commercial pilots following homing beacons or where the planes are automatically controlled by computerized guidance systems, and and crews are rendered helpless to change the result. And thirdly, the possibility of substituting commercial planes with pilotless drones. So these are all various scenarios that have been researched and and written about. What is your feeling about these theory possible scenarios?

Paul Zarembka [00:04:27]:
That that’s a good question. I I first of all, the 911 commission report didn’t consider any possibility but the first one. And the fact that the planes could have been guided by some kind of homing device, is something that’s actually familiar to all of us. We just don’t know it. I mean, when most commercial planes land today, they land on some kind of, glide path, which is determined by a beaconing device from the airport. So if you kind of just change the beaconing device, obviously, you’re trying to cause a problem. But if you change the beaconing device to the World Trade Centers, for example, you can have the same result as landing a plane. And if the 911 commission report had been at all responsible, it would have addressed that that possibility equally with the other possibility that there was live human beings who guided the plane into the targets.

Paul Zarembka [00:05:14]:
My problem with and I’m not taking a 100% stand on the issue, but my problem with the idea that that there was people in the cockpit who actually crashed the planes in the building. I mean, that requires a steel human determination, requires, skilled piloting. None of the alleged pilots had the had the skills for it. But even more than that, if I were planning such an, such a, major, terroristic event, I would not rely upon the the human element in that. I would use some electronic devices. Now there was a third possibility that you mentioned. That is the, the drone possibility. I don’t think there’s enough evidence.

Paul Zarembka [00:05:53]:
There’s some interesting things that we it’s just too far in advance for us to discuss it today. There’s some suggestion there’s could have been something there, but it’s it’s pretty murky. So I I don’t really give it too much credence.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:06:06]:
Well, in terms of the homing device, the beacon, could you talk a little bit more, technically how that works? Where would the beacon originate, and who would be in a in a position to change the beacon?

Paul Zarembka [00:06:18]:
The best evidence that I’ve seen about where the beacon could have been is in is in World Trade Center 7. Not 12, but in World Trade Center 7. I mean, there’s some authors who have provided a very clear mapping of where the planes could have come in on the same beacon path, And then when they hit the north or the south tower, actually banked into the tower in the way in which they, in fact, are photographed as having gone into the towers. Now it’s not straight in, but but at an angle. So the answer to your question, basically, is the beaming would have been in or could have been in World Trade Center 7. And who did it? Well, that’s that’s the whole that’s the whole ballgame. There is another possibility, and the other possibility is it was electronically controlled completely. But, and and there was no beaming.

Paul Zarembka [00:07:07]:
You had an automatic pilot, control the planes into the towers. I wanna make a, a couple of comments about that, and that is that even if the planes even if there had been some hijacking or some kind of intervention in the in the cockpit, If either one of those things had happened, whatever the the pilots did or the alleged hijackers did, it wouldn’t make any difference at all to the outcome. And so it it it has no impact on on who did it, on who the on who the alleged hijackers were because they might have been set up to do it to sort of create a story, but it didn’t change the outcome. The outcome was determined by something else, namely beaconing or automatic control of of the planes. The fact of automatic control of planes or beacon is I mean, it’s well known. I I said automatic, but I kind of meld that into beaconing. And it’s not the same, but it’s the same sort of idea that you’re controlling the plane by electronic means.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:08:03]:
Right. And if that were the case, then it wouldn’t matter what was going on inside the plane that they would have control.

Paul Zarembka [00:08:09]:

Bonnie Faulkner [00:08:09]:
Exactly. Right. Do you have any do you have any, well, obviously, I guess you haven’t reached a conclusion. But what would you do you have any preference on this?

Paul Zarembka [00:08:17]:
I have a bias that it was some kind of electronic control.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:08:21]:

Paul Zarembka [00:08:21]:
But I’m not asserting it. I mean, I’m just that’s my bias. I mean, this is a major terrorist operation against at least 4 targets. And you I just don’t think you wanna rely upon human beings, being told what they’re supposed to do, and actually completing the exercise. I mean, I I just think that’s it’s too important to get it done right to rely upon just this, quote, steeled set of human beings doing what they’re supposed to do.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:08:52]:
Well, exactly. This was very, very complex

Paul Zarembka [00:08:54]:

Bonnie Faulkner [00:08:55]:
And sophisticated operation.

Paul Zarembka [00:08:57]:
And furthermore, they don’t have the abilities to do it. I mean, none of the plan none of the alleged pilots had the ability.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:09:02]:
Right. Right. And just an aside, when you were talking about, beaconing possibly coming out of World Trade Center 7, which collapsed, later in the day, I guess I did read in the book somewhere where someone was, talking about how if, in fact, that were the case, if a beaconing beam were coming from World Trade Center 7, then that would explain, as you mentioned, why the planes were an angle when they hit the towers rather than straight in. Right.

Paul Zarembka [00:09:29]:
And it also explained why it might be useful to have that building come down. Or Exactly. The devices would be in there. Although, let me just say that that wouldn’t be sufficient reason, because you could also imagine whatever device was in there was, you know, taken out of the building very quickly by whomever put it in there. So it’s not a sufficient explanation that they had to take down building 7 because it had evidence, because they could have taken out the evidence.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:09:53]:
Right. Right. Well, I’ve read, elsewhere that there were, of of course, quite quite a lot going on in that building

Paul Zarembka [00:09:58]:
Yes. On a

Bonnie Faulkner [00:09:59]:
lot of fronts. Right.

Paul Zarembka [00:10:00]:
Yes. There was a lot. Securities and Exchange Commission, Secret Service, CIA, a lot of evidence about even the Enron the Enron case, if I’m not mistaken.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:10:09]:
Yes. And I think also maybe Global Crossing. Remember that corporation? Right.

Paul Zarembka [00:10:13]:
I knew somebody. I’ve met somebody who actually worked for the Securities and Exchange Commission, but in Washington DC, and said they closed case after case after case because they did not have any duplicate records of of of the evidence that they needed to try these cases. So so many cases were closed after eleventh because there was no duplication anywhere else in the world of of the files.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:10:36]:
Oh, that’s very interesting because that all had to do with huge financial fraud.

Paul Zarembka [00:10:41]:
Mhmm. Yes.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:10:42]:
And then we watch what’s going on today.

Paul Zarembka [00:10:44]:
Yeah. Yes.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:10:46]:
You did some very detailed statistical analysis of put options in the days preceding September 11th. Could you explain what a put option is and then talk about your analysis and conclusions about insider trading before September 11th, which obviously would show foreknowledge of the attacks by financial speculators and institutions. So maybe start with just in case somebody out there doesn’t know what a put option is.

Paul Zarembka [00:11:17]:
Well, a lot of people don’t know what put options are, but there’s several ways in which you can take advantage of insider information and therefore engage in insider trading. Insider trading means I know something about a company and therefore where where its stock might go that the general public doesn’t know. If you do that, that’s illegal. You’re not supposed to be able to do that. You’re not supposed to take advantage of inside information to play against a a stock in either direction, either an upward or downward direction. A put option has a right to sell a stock at a specifically negotiated or contractual price over a specific period of time. If you don’t do it in the period of time of the contract, then you lose your right. But if you do it within the contract period, you get an already established price.

Paul Zarembka [00:12:06]:
Like, for example, suppose you have a choice of different, what they call, strike prices. So suppose strike price is $30 and the price goes down of the stock goes down to 18 within the time period of your contract, which might be 1 month, it might be 3 years. Okay? If it goes down to 18 in that time, then you can buy the stock at whatever day you’re doing this, and at the same time, sell it through this put option. The option you have to buy the stock at 18, but sell it at 30. You make $12 minus whatever the the cost of the put option was. And I’ve just now described almost exactly what was happening for both American Airlines and United Airlines before eleventh. Their stocks were just about $30, and a week later, they were just about $18.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:13:00]:
So then the strike price is the price that you have the you have the ability to sell it at. That’s right. So if you if you buy the put option or or if you I I mean, I guess you you’re calling it selling it. I don’t know that you’re buying anything on the front end. That’s always confused me.

Paul Zarembka [00:13:17]:
You’re buying you’re buying well, that’s actually a little bit of an important point. You’re buying the option to sell. Yes. Okay. The little bit of a confusion is that if I bought the option to sell, I can also sell my option to sell. Okay. That’s the reason why I mentioned that is because when people start looking at the data, they look at the transactions in put options, not simply the purchases of put options. And the transactions could include some selling of the right just to sell.

Paul Zarembka [00:13:57]:
It’s a little bit confusing. But if you wanna have clean data, you need to clean that up.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:14:01]:
Well, yes. And that, reminds me of the analysis that you’ve done. It’s very, complex in your chapter. I can see that you did a lot of work on that, a lot of mathematical work.

Paul Zarembka [00:14:14]:
Right. Right.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:14:14]:
And then you did an analysis of everybody else’s analysis of the put options. Right. And what kind of conclusions did you come to?

Paul Zarembka [00:14:21]:
Well, I I yeah. I’m glad you asked me that question because there frankly, I think there’s exaggeration out there, but there’s still evidence. There’s still evidence of insider trading, and yet there’s exaggeration. The exaggeration, I think, is along the following lines. People are watching the financial transactions right after 911. Eleventh, I mean, in normal business financial publications, we’re getting the data and seeing what they thought was really large levels of insider trading often through put options, but there are other ways which I discussed in the chapter. But mainly, we’ll discuss put options, not only on American and United Airlines, but other airlines also, and also, like insurance companies, which were based in the World Trade Center. And some people were saying even the most exaggerated claim was that theory could have been $15,000,000,000 of money earned on the put options or and other financial transactions.

Paul Zarembka [00:15:16]:
Now that would be a huge level of insider trading, and some people said it was the greatest level of insider trading you ever seen in the world before. Okay? I mean, there was really very strong statements being made. Now this is my feeling about why they why theory was why I don’t see the evidence for that level. Okay? But I think what was going on is that people who were writing this thought immediately that Osama bin Laden did the whole operation. Just follow this money, the insider trading money. You’ll get to Osama bin Laden, and you’ll prove that Osama bin Laden was the agent that that engaged in in eleventh. About exactly, more or less, 1 month after eleventh, all that discussion just stopped. Okay? My sense is that somebody told them, or got the word out that it’s not gonna lead Osama Bin Laden.

Paul Zarembka [00:16:08]:

Bonnie Faulkner [00:16:12]:
I’m speaking with author and professor of economics, Paul Zarembka. Today’s show, the hidden history of 911. I’m Bonnie Faulkner. This is Guns and Butter. What did you find about what what did you find out about the put option?

Paul Zarembka [00:16:32]:
Okay. The most important thing is that there’s a it’s a professor named who’s at the University of Illinois at Champaign Urbana who, for reasons that I don’t exactly know, was given confidential data. And remember I described this issue before about you had bought a put option. You might sell it. Okay? And the data that’s publicly available doesn’t make the distinction, but he was able to get data which does make the distinction. I think the Securities and Exchange Commission actually wanted to know whether statistical analysis could identify insider trading or not and provided him data that he can’t give to anybody else, okay, which would test for the possibility of insider trading ahead of time. I’m not sure exactly why they made this deal with him, but they did. Okay? It’s a normal research problem.

Paul Zarembka [00:17:22]:
What’s really significant is that he published his article in the same year that the eleventh Commission reports. And and it’s in the Journal of Business, a highly respected financial publication coming out of the University of Chicago. Nobody criticizes the quality, the the the standards that’s provided by that publication. And I could describe he used perhaps many of your listeners don’t know, and even what regression analysis is. But, for those that do, he used he used a simple form of regression analysis, but then also a more complicated form of regression analysis. And to come to the conclusion that he found almost a 99% probability that for American Airlines stock, it was not a random event. In other words, there was insider trading going on. From United Airlines, I mean, I think it was, like, 86% probability.

Paul Zarembka [00:18:12]:
It’s not a 100% certain. Okay? But if you put those 2 together and then you’d look at other stocks, the whole picture suggests that the probability of insider trading is overwhelmingly likely I mean, like, 99.9% probability. A statistical analysis is never a 100% of anything. There could be a reason why something happens that is completely a outlier, but that’s that’s what probability is. What’s the probability of that occurring? And it’s very, very unlikely. So the bottom line is that, it’s highly probable. The insider trading took place, but it’s at least by the calculations I did, maybe we’re talking a $100,000,000. I mean, it’s still money.

Paul Zarembka [00:18:56]:
Okay? We’re talking maybe $100,000,000. We’re not talking $15,000,000,000.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:19:01]:
I even have a a friend that, was working at the Pacific Exchange here in San Francisco, and I met him years after 911. And he said in the days before 911 at the Pacific Exchange here, they were talking about these huge puts.

Paul Zarembka [00:19:15]:
Oh, yeah? Well, that’s interesting.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:19:16]:
It is interesting, isn’t it?

Paul Zarembka [00:19:18]:
Those particular airline stocks are

Bonnie Faulkner [00:19:19]:
I I believe so. Yes. Yes. That he would that that was, people were talking about that because it was unusual.

Paul Zarembka [00:19:25]:

Bonnie Faulkner [00:19:26]:
So, you know, every now and then, you you meet somebody who happened to be somewhere at some point and and notice certain things.

Paul Zarembka [00:19:32]:
Right. And, by the way, it should be mentioned here that, a person at the Chicago Board of Trade who knows, I mean, point blanks that it’s easy to identify exactly who makes those trades. It’s I mean, they know the Social Security numbers and the whole information even if it’s offshore. They even know it in real time, at least if it’s domestic. If it’s offshore, they might have a little bit longer time to get to the information, but they know who did it.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:19:57]:
Yes. Of course.

Paul Zarembka [00:19:58]:
So the 9 11 commission report says that these people who were doing it could not have been Al Qaeda operatives point blank. They said that they were not Al Qaeda operatives. Okay? And therefore, presumably, therefore, they could not be doing it on an insider basis, but that’s that’s a circular argument. I mean, they’re supposed to be figuring out who did it, not presuming the conclusion, namely Al Qaeda.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:20:22]:
Is there anything else that we should talk about, in your chapter in the book that we haven’t covered that you’d like to mention?

Paul Zarembka [00:20:29]:
I’d like to throw out one of my comments that I make in the chapter, and that is about identifying, who was on the planes. First of all, the government never looked at DNA evidence for the alleged hijackers. Even some of the hijackers’ families offered DNA evidence. The government refused to even accept it, and yet they do claim DNA evidence for many of the passengers on the plane or people on the ground. In other words, in the World Trade Center situation, the person who works the forensics of it, it’s a it’s a civilian, actually, a professor, I think, from New York University, who’s also the civilian person in person in charge of it in New York City, they identified not everybody. They maybe identified 60% of the remains, but there was no even attempt to check out the names of these alleged hijackers, and the same is true for all the other two planes. So there is no DNA even attempted for the alleged hijackers. Okay? And yet, for example, in in 2 of the planes, this plane is not in the World Trade Center.

Paul Zarembka [00:21:36]:
I mean, they identified basically everybody else on the plane. So why couldn’t they try to identify the the alleged hijackers? That’s that’s pretty amazing. Okay? The other thing I wanna mention is just so people know that the government never released the American Airlines United Airlines manifest of who was on the plane. So you don’t have a direct statement from the airlines of the names of those individuals that is I always say alleged hijackers because there was news coverage from, example, LA Times, The Independent in England, BBC, a Saudi newspaper that eleventh of the alleged hijackers said that they are alive after eleventh. And it’s not a simple question of a transliteration of a name. You you described the name. You provided their picture. You provided maybe as a terrorist and and a hijacker? And they’re alive after eleventh, so it makes no sense.

Paul Zarembka [00:22:46]:
Okay. At a minimum, the eleventh commission report has a serious investigation with theory investigated all eleventh of those cases that were mentioned and find out if it was true or not. But they didn’t do anything at all. The 911 commission report just assumes the names of the hijackers, which, by the way, the list did change. The list through the 1st day, they found out one of the people on their list was already dead at Europe earlier. They changed that name and 3 other names, and then they had a list, like, in day 2 or day 3. That list stayed fixed, never interrogated in any publicly available way. I mean, whatever they did inside the agency, the FBI, I don’t know.

Paul Zarembka [00:23:27]:
But the eleventh commission report didn’t even ask any questions. They just said, you know, we’re not talking about. Did it. Okay. And then then how did he do it? Not whether his passport had been stolen at some indication, and and he wasn’t even on the plane. I mean, none none of that kind of stuff. And then that leads to the issue about, well, what evidence do you have to the people on the plane? Take Atta. Atta was in Portland, Maine, supposedly flying from Portland, Maine to Boston to catch this this flight.

Paul Zarembka [00:23:54]:
He drove from Boston to go to Portland then wants to fly back to make sure he catches the Boston flight to Los Angeles. Okay. Why would you do that? I mean, it’s silly to do that. Okay? But you do have video evidence that’s pretty convincing that he was in Portland, Maine Airport because you have his picture. You have the time stamp of of the video and, you know, what you’re supposed theory theory is no airport video being provided which links any of the names to the individuals. I mean, they might do that. In another case, in Dallas, they give the a video of, I think, 2 of the alleged hijackers. They have videos of them coming into security, but without a date, without any description at all on the security camera.

Paul Zarembka [00:24:49]:
So it could have been done it could have even been done at a different airport. Then the shadow they have a picture of the shadowing of the cars supposedly at that airport, supposedly on that day, but the shadowing doesn’t correspond to, like, half hour after sunrise. So it it’s not credible at all. Now that leads to the first chapter of the book.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:25:10]:
And, part 1 is hijackers, who were they? That consists of one article, what we now know about the alleged eleventh hijackers by Jay Kolar, a film scholar who brings his expertise to bear on the photo and video evidence presented by the US government to substantiate its account. He finds numerous serious problems with the video evidence for the hijackers purportedly taken at airport boarding gates by security cameras, concluding that, quote, no evidence exists that any of the hijackers ever boarded the planes that crashed on eleventh. What you’ve begun to describe.

Paul Zarembka [00:25:52]:
Right. Let me comment. His chapter is probably the most difficult chapter in the book, and, unfortunately, it has to start the book. I mean, I took a long time figuring out which order of the chapters, but I started with the hijackers because that’s basically the start of the public consciousness about it, is these people were the people who did it. The first question that comes to the public mind about who did it. I mean, it is a difficult chapter because he’s describing evidence, for example, for doubles. Now it’s somebody portraying to be somebody else, but not being that person, and how that can be used to set up a person for being on the plane when they, in fact, were not on the plane.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:26:32]:
And he concludes that the confessional video of Osama bin Laden taking responsibility for the attacks is a forgery.

Paul Zarembka [00:26:41]:
Yes. He does. Right. He’s an expert, as you said. He’s a film expert. I mean, he he doesn’t look at the films the way people like myself do. Okay. Well, he immediately sort of interrogates what he’s looking at.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:26:52]:
Now you also mentioned doubles. And in this, chapter, what we now know about the alleged 911 hijackers by Jay Kolar, contradictions in the official account of their activities prior to the attack show that doubles were used to build up false legends for them.

Paul Zarembka [00:27:09]:

Bonnie Faulkner [00:27:10]:
And I theory, specifically, Ziad Jarrah is the striking example, and then there are a lot of photographs of the first page of your book.

Paul Zarembka [00:27:17]:
That’s right. That’s the the advantage of the soft cover, which comes out of 7 stories press in New York City, because we were able to put in these pictures of this one alleged hijacker, Jarrah, who was it lives pilot of the plane who crashed in Pennsylvania.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:27:31]:
Now from the pictures of Ziad Jarrah, all the different identification pictures, you can see that they’re different people.

Paul Zarembka [00:27:37]:
That’s right. And and the key is that all but one of those are actually government issued photos of him. I mean, it’s not it’s not just random photos of somebody. It’s government passports or driver’s license or something like that, and they’re not the same people. There’s at least at least 3 people

Bonnie Faulkner [00:27:53]:
there. Another chapter in the history of eleventh is David McGregor’s September 11th as Machiavellian state terror. He sees terror as, quote, a critical aspect of a theory of the state, one that applies to most state formations, not just to a particular regime or to certain intelligence agencies or to the presence of factions within the state. When Machiavelli developed his politics of government, he did so looking not only at the Italian city states of his period but also at the Roman era as chronicled by Livy and others. In short, he was constructing a general view of how states operate. Terror is not simply a tactic in political struggles, but an irreversible aspect of government. And that means all governments. Right? We’re not being particular here.

Paul Zarembka [00:28:45]:
That’s right. Right. That’s really important. I mean, what David MacGregor is trying to convey to people is that the United States government, whatever else it is, it claims to be a democracy. And so whatever it is, okay, it is not exceptional. And that can include the US government. If we go a step further, people more or less know the name Machiavelli. They know that the government tries to do things sometimes, which it claims that somebody else other than itself is doing in order to get sympathy for its position from its own people.

Paul Zarembka [00:29:29]:
So that would be a Machiavellian operation. Okay? And a terrorist, Machiavellian operation is just going at from the point of view of doing it a terrorist act. Okay? So Machiavellian state terrorism is a new concept. I mean, I don’t know if anybody’s actually used that word together before, like David MacGregor does, but he’s trying to alert us to the fact that Machiavelli is part of a well established theory, if you want, of, how the state works, which can include the United States state, and that it, like other states, may, not necessarily, may engage in terroristic activities as part of a Machiavelli operation.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:30:09]:
And that that wouldn’t be specific to any one government that I I guess, according to Machiavelli, this is how power operates in government.

Paul Zarembka [00:30:16]:
Yes. Right. So don’t just think that the Soviets do it, or the Russians do it, or the Chinese do it. I mean, we can do it ourselves. Okay. But just have it in your understanding of how the world works that it may be the case in a specific instance. So, for example, we do know that the United States, in collaboration with many Western European governments, actually did engage in alleged right wing terrorist activities. For example, bombing in Bologna, Italy, several years ago.

Paul Zarembka [00:30:46]:
We do know for sure that it was a Machiavellian state operation trying to blame the left when it was in fact done by right wing forces.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:30:55]:

Paul Zarembka [00:30:55]:
Connected to the government.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:30:57]:
The strategy of tension. Right. I guess operation Gladio, I think they call it.

Paul Zarembka [00:31:00]:
That’s exactly right.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:31:01]:
Yeah. Just stay behind. I’m speaking with author and professor of economics, Paul Zarembka. Today’s show, the hidden history of 911. I’m Bonnie Faulkner. This is Guns and Butter.

Paul Zarembka [00:31:22]:
What’s happening in New York City as we speak is that there’s a petition which has been circulated, which is asking the citizens of New York City to vote on the possibility of having a new, totally independent and independently financed, not a government financed independent investigation of 911. I mean, that’s the city in which it should happen. Right? Because the most of the activity of eleventh happened in New York City. So they’ve now gotten 50 to 60,000 signatures, which is enough to get it on the ballot of the November election if if the city council permits it to go on the ballot. If it doesn’t immediately permit it to go on the ballot, then they can have 45,000 signatures, which will still get it on the ballot. But by the citizens’ mandate, not nothing to do with what the city council does. In other words, they are close to the possibility of actually having on the November ballot in New York City, in which case then it becomes, I guess, a majority vote. Do the citizens want a new independent investigation of 911? Not a government sanctioned one, but by citizens sanctioned investigation.

Paul Zarembka [00:32:28]:
I think it’s a very important thing because I can have whatever opinion I want. Anybody else can have their opinion about eleventh, but I don’t wanna go around saying I have the whole truth about this whole thing and and not care about whether other people begin to understand it or not. Part of the understanding is having a serious subpoena powered investigation of eleventh done by people who you can genuinely respect.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:32:54]:
If this ballot measure, is this for the city of New York or for the state of New York? City. The city. Now this ballot measure is called

Paul Zarembka [00:33:04]:
NYC CAN. NYC CAN. Right. And there’s a website precisely that w w w nyccan, c a n. They have submitted it to the city council as of last Wednesday. It just it is new news. I mean, this is last week it was submitted.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:33:19]:
Now are they still gonna, collect more signatures, just in case, some people get eliminated. Right?

Paul Zarembka [00:33:25]:
Or because the city council doesn’t approve it, and they and they need to have the 45,000 signatures instead of the 30,000 signatures. Okay? So the both of those. So they collect signatures through something like the last week of August.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:33:39]:
So it’s still going on. I want people to know that. So this is very important. And even though people here in California can’t vote on this, they need a lot of support, and it’s very important to get the word out.

Paul Zarembka [00:33:49]:
They’re asking for $25 from anybody who’s listening to help this process move forward.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:33:53]:
And this would establish an independent, commission with subpoena power. Right?

Paul Zarembka [00:33:57]:
And that subpoena power is really important. For example, on my issue of insider trading, I would subpoena Buzzy Kronegard, who worked at the 3rd level person in the CIA on eleventh, but had previously worked with Bankers Trust and Deutsche Bank as their chief of international operations. I can’t remember which bank right now because they were taking over each other and stuff like that. But he was working as this vice president for international operations, which had a lot to do with money laundering and stuff like that. So he would be the 1st guy I would want a subpoena. By the way, Deutsche Bank was the bank also that did execute any of the put options before eleventh. So, yeah, I don’t know. You know? It’s kinda So

Bonnie Faulkner [00:34:40]:
we do know that.

Paul Zarembka [00:34:41]:
Yeah. I guess we do know that.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:34:43]:
Now in the same chapter, David McGregor, discusses the establishment left. That is the establishment left here in the United States and their political position on the events of September 11th that the attacks were essentially blowback. That is an understandable response of the weak to the powerful. I wanted to to read a quote out of that book. He says respected left commentators have embraced a radicalized version of the White House eleventh account of September 11th. Claiming that the attacks are payback for globalization exposes the left to charges of supporting terrorism. Even while denying stereotyped views of Islam, the left hardly doubts Bin Laden’s cartoonish parody of Muslims as angry and violent. So he sees a very big contradiction and problem with how the political left in the country is addressing the attacks of September 11th.

Paul Zarembka [00:35:49]:
Yes. He does. Right. He is absolutely correct that there’s been a lot of what we call gatekeeping on the part of the left. I mean, the left is a very broad category, but I’m gonna stay broad for the moment because it is broad in this case that there’s a lot of delimitation of the discussion about eleventh into going no further than that, like, you described the blowback. Okay? On the other hand, if you go to the other side of the political perspective and go to the libertarians, the libertarians, generally speaking, have a great distaste for government. So, frankly, they have done some of the best work, not only them, but a lot of them have done some very good work on 911. And I think because they have a such a distaste for government, they don’t believe anything from the from the get go.

Paul Zarembka [00:36:34]:
Now the left, and I include myself, I don’t have a distaste for government as such. In fact, I have more of a distaste for capitalists than capitalism and for huge amounts of money, which then control the government then government as such. Okay? And I think that’s that’s kinda common in people on the left. I mean, they for example, they might wanna talk about single payer health care, which has to be run by the government, a government of some sort. Okay? So I think that if you say the US government could have been involved or had an insider operation against its own people on 911, you’re putting a really deep knife into I mean, really deep knife into the US government and therefore kind of government as such. And I think that the important component of the left doesn’t wanna go there because they wanna hold back the idea that the government has some good aspect. It has good governments and bad governments, and we’re in a situation of a bad government under Bush, and we wanna correct it to a better government. And if you really went to eleventh as an inside operation, then you’re really putting a knife too deep into government as such.

Paul Zarembka [00:37:45]:
That’s my opinion.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:37:46]:
The evidence is overwhelming.

Paul Zarembka [00:37:48]:
Right. Theory research really has been and some of it’s remarkable. I mean, I can’t get into it today. People are really serious about it. Okay? And some of the condemnations on these so called gatekeepers, I mean, it’s just absolutely unacceptable. It’s not I don’t dump on people who don’t agree with me, but some of these left people dump on people like me in in a kind of vulgar way, to tell you the truth.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:38:21]:
In military drills on eleventh, Don Jacobs, and he’s also known as 4 arrows.

Paul Zarembka [00:38:27]:

Bonnie Faulkner [00:38:27]:
Four arrows.

Paul Zarembka [00:38:28]:
He has native American background.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:38:29]:
Yeah. So he’s 4 arrows or Don Jacobs, examines many different war games that were scheduled or actually taking place during the attacks. He identifies the following drills in operation that day, vigilant guardian, vigilant warrior, northern vigilance, northern guardian, tripod 2, amalgam Virgo, timely alert 2, and an exercise at the National Reconnaissance Office simulating the crash of a plane into the NRO headquarters building itself. Quote, besides the general confusion, the NRO exercise also involved an emergency evacuation drill running in the morning of eleventh. As a result, many key people who are responsible for watching images from numerous satellites were not even at their stations when the first plane struck its target. NRO spokesman Art Cobold told United Press International, quote, it was just a coincidence. It was an emergency response exercise. It was just a strange coincidence.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:39:40]:
Well, that’s not the only strange coincidence, was there, during these drills?

Paul Zarembka [00:39:44]:
Well, actually, there’s another very strange coincidence that I don’t think theory mentions there, and that is that there was a Red Cross facility set up a couple miles away, something like that. And these people for, like, for a month, if you were a survivor, you got very good food at any time you wanted, which in fact is a great thing. Okay? But the interesting thing was it was set up before eleventh. Okay? It was already it was it was another one of those things that quote, seems to be a coincidence.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:40:12]:
But what do you mean set up, like, the night before or something?

Paul Zarembka [00:40:15]:
Well, maybe the food hadn’t arrived yet. I don’t know about that. But the the preparation for, what you would do in an emergency had been set up before. Day before, not I don’t mean weeks before. I mean, like like these other coincidences.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:40:29]:
Right. Right.

Paul Zarembka [00:40:30]:
Because it it’s supposed to be an exercise which became real. Yeah.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:40:34]:
Oh, I see. So the food setup would have been part of the exercise.

Paul Zarembka [00:40:37]:
Would have been part it would have been an exercise. What what would you do if there were disaster in New York City? Okay. You set up this Red Cross facility for people, but that exercise was also separate shortly before eleventh.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:40:48]:
Oh, I see. So that the food went live too.

Paul Zarembka [00:40:50]:
Yes. There is one important thing I could say about this chapter that the copilot of the plane that Wellstone went down on was an acquaintance of Musaouie of the Musawi trial, which occurred in 2005, 2006. Very strange coincidence. I mean, is it you know, we I don’t know what to do with that, but it’s theory strange coincidence.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:41:14]:
Another chapter in, Hidden History of eleventh is terrorism and statecraft, Al Qaeda and Western covert operations after the Cold War. Na’fees Ahmed writes that the late Robin Cook, former British foreign secretary from 1990 7 to 2,001 and leader of the House of Commons from 2,001 to 2,003, revealed one day after the London Metro bombings that the term Al Qaeda referred to a database contained in a computer file listing the, quote, 1,000 of Mujahadeen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Nafeez Ahmed goes on to say that Al Qaeda denoted a list of individuals related to a specific category of US covert military intelligence operations. So the question seems to be not whether Al Qaeda exists, but what is Al Qaeda?

Paul Zarembka [00:42:13]:
Exactly. Right. What I’m gonna say now, it may be a little bit difficult to execute in your own mind. Maybe not. I don’t know. If Al Qaeda is a data bank of of names that have been of individuals who are either directly or indirectly connected to the CA, I don’t say only directly because some individuals may not even be aware of their connection. But if the if the structure has basically been set up by Western intelligence CIA specifically, but not necessarily only the CIA. If that’s the case, then try to do the following exercise when you’re hearing the news about Al Qaeda.

Paul Zarembka [00:42:46]:
Okay? If you hear a news item tonight about Al Qaeda, try and say Western intelligence or substitute the word CIA. Okay? It gives you a totally different perspective on the world than if you don’t do that. I mean, that is kind of the message he’s encouraging you to to to work through. I will say that I’m not an expert. Really, each author is following their own expertise. Ahmed wrote one of the first two studies of eleventh, and he’s been doing this for quite a while.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:43:19]:
I’m speaking with author and professor of economics, Paul Zarembka. Today’s show, the hidden history of 911. I’m Bonnie Faulkner. This is Guns and Butter. He says that the CIA never envisioned that the operational scope of its terrorist database would be restricted to Afghanistan. Al Qaeda activity thus pertain to a new doctrine of covert destabilization to be implemented in new theaters of operations strategically close to Russian and Chinese influence, namely Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Caucus, and Central Asia. You know, we now even hear about Al Qaeda in Iraq. Mhmm.

Paul Zarembka [00:44:00]:
Yeah. But let me let me go a step further. We may be beginning to hear about Al Qaeda in the United States. I mean, I come from Buffalo, New York. Okay? The Lackawanna 6, okay, which were prosecuted and put in jail. Okay? Those people were somehow connected to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and trained by them. Okay? So I’m warning people in some ways, you know, to when you hear about it, Al Qaeda operation in the United States, don’t think that it may be somebody over there. It may be somebody right here.

Paul Zarembka [00:44:32]:
I mean, the director of it would be somebody here, not there. That’s what I mean.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:44:36]:
Now which were these 6? They were arrested where?

Paul Zarembka [00:44:38]:
In Lackawanna, New York, which is this old x complicity just immediately south of Buffalo, New York, which is where I come from.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:44:48]:
And that was somewhat similar to, another group of guys that were arrested in Florida a couple of years ago. Right?

Paul Zarembka [00:44:54]:
And another set of people who were arrested in in Toronto near Toronto.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:44:58]:
Yes. Right? Exactly. Right.

Paul Zarembka [00:45:00]:
By the way, I’m not even sure it went to trial. It may have been a plea bargain. I think it was a plea bargain.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:45:06]:
One other quote from his chapter. Turkish intelligence specialists agree that there is no such organization as Al Qaeda. Rather, Al Qaeda is the name of a secret service operation. The concept fighting terror is the background of the low intensity warfare conducted in the monopolar world order. The subject of this strategy of tension is named as Al Qaeda.

Paul Zarembka [00:45:32]:
Mhmm. It’s kind

Bonnie Faulkner [00:45:34]:
of a difficult concept to get, but

Paul Zarembka [00:45:36]:
It is difficult, and that’s why it’s actually quite useful to hear that quote. Just realize that the fact that that may be the theory reality of what’s going on, and it’s gonna continue to be the case. Okay? I mean, president Obama, when he was in the Cairo, I mean, he came down against people like me, I mean, very hard. I mean, it’s also not just me. It’s also people in the in the Arabic world, which have a lot of suspicion about the United States government and what really happened on 911. I mean, he was talking to a a large group of people, and he said that what happened on eleventh United States was attacked by Al Qaeda, and it is a fact. Point blank.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:46:14]:
Now another chapter in part 2, the morning of 9 eleventh, is by doctor David Ray Griffin, and that chapter is called the destruction of the World Trade Center, why the official account cannot be true. And in the past, I did actually, an entire hour long show with him on that paper that he wrote. But, specifically, he brings up a lot of points theory much about the demolitions.

Paul Zarembka [00:46:40]:
That’s right. Okay. But it’s really important because you obviously have listeners who are coming and going. So it’s really important for people to know that there was not just 2 towers that came down on eleventh, but 3 towers that came down on 911. And you almost never see pictures of the 3rd building, which is 47 story building, which came down at 5:20 in the afternoon on that Tuesday afternoon. Building 7 did collapse in a 2 and a half second period of time, even though it didn’t have as extensive damage as buildings that were around World Trade Center 1 and 2, and no playing hit it.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:47:16]:
Well, there are other, really good chapters in the book that we haven’t covered, but I’d, like to mention them. There’s, Making History, the compromised eleventh Commission by Brian Sachs.

Paul Zarembka [00:47:29]:
Right. Which is discussing not so much what the commission did, but who was appointed to the commission, which is the diametrically opposite case of this NYC can coalition for accountability now, which wants a genuinely independent investigation. These are government operatives that were appointed.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:47:49]:
Right. And that’s what Brian Sacks shows in this That’s right. In this chapter. Right. Then there is also Islamophobia and the War on Terror, the continuing pretext for US theory conquest, and that’s by Diana Ralph.

Paul Zarembka [00:48:04]:
Right. That’s right. She’s at the University of Ottawa. And, basically, her argument is and this, it’s kinda subtle, but well, at least part of the argument is that the whole process of creating Islamophobia started back in in the Likud government, in Israel. And I think she says around 1990. Okay? And then it was kind of exported or maybe say imported exported from theory, imported to into the United States into the NeoCon structure. Structure. She’s not saying by this that Israel did it.

Paul Zarembka [00:48:34]:
I mean but she’s saying that the the ideological structure of Islamophobia came out of Israeli practices in an earlier period. I will also wanna mention that since we’re going over things that we don’t have time to cover, that in the softcover edition, the the second edition of the book, we do have updates, for those people who wrote chapters and thought there was an update, which was necessary. I was one of those. Okay? And the updates are very important. And I don’t mean extremely important, but, I mean, there’s a lot of new information that comes out, and we are able to to embellish our story in a positive way. I mean, not in a negative way to add a new evidence. For example, the Moussaoui trial hadn’t taken place when I wrote my chapter. Okay? Afterwards, it had taken place, and they provided evidence about, for example, the use of cell phones on the planes that that were in the air.

Paul Zarembka [00:49:27]:
Okay? The comment I would make is that people like myself who were trying to investigate 911 in an earlier period were noticing that there was alleged use of cell phones at that were unbelievable. 30,000 feet, 20,000 feet. They’re unbelievable that planes that that you couldn’t even do it. I mean, I myself made some efforts to make connections at those altitudes. I couldn’t make connections at those altitudes. So how could you claim that people on flight 93, for example, were making cell phone calls from their planes? When the Musawi trial came out, it said that the government now the FBI provides, whether it was a cell phone or an earphone being used from all the flights, but particularly in flight 93, and they claim that every case was a AirPhone except the last 2, which were the ones closest to the ground, and they were self. And that’s what they say. Whether it’s right or not, I mean, that’s what they say.

Paul Zarembka [00:50:23]:
Okay? I, myself, when the prior stories were about I investigated every one of the cases of prior reports of use of cell phones, and some of them was just like one article mentioning it. And it could have been the reporter making an error. It could have been that the the person who received the call made an error or whatever. But there’s one case where the contradiction is stark. Okay? And that’s Dina Burnett is the wife of Tom Burnett. She wrote a book about her experiences on that day before the MOSAI trial came out. Burnett is one of the people who who made, supposedly, I mean, calls from the Flight United 93. She says it in her book point blank.

Paul Zarembka [00:51:07]:
It was a cell phone because I looked in my in my own phone and saw the number that was Tom’s cell phone number. Okay? So it could not have been an air phone. She said she got 4 calls. She gave the time and when the calls came, she she suggested that all 4 were, from the same phone, from Tom’s cell phone. Okay? The government says it was AirPhone in the missile trial. There’s a direct contradiction between what somebody says in writing and what the government says in the trial. Direct contradiction. But the the fact is that Tom Burnett was at too high in elevation at that point to be able to use a cell phone.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:51:42]:
And in this regard, we’re talking about flight 93 that either crashed or was shot down in Pennsylvania, and it’s oftentimes referred to as the cell phone flight.

Paul Zarembka [00:51:53]:
Right. And and that’s where the most movies have been made of, and 2 or 3 movies have been made of that flight.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:51:58]:
That’s right. That’s right.

Paul Zarembka [00:51:59]:
The so called heroes and all that kind of stuff.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:52:01]:
I also wanted to mention that you have an update from Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories. And, actually, Kevin Ryan didn’t have a chapter in the original book, but he does give an update. What’s that about?

Paul Zarembka [00:52:14]:
Well, basically, there’s a online publication called Counterpunch, which has been very much against at least the editors have been very much against people who are looking for the truth about 911. And one of the people that they published in that had a, I think, a 3 part article, 3 and it was over 3 issues, criticizing basically some of the eleventh people, and Kevin Ryan is is answering him. Okay? But what I think is really important is that many times, people like myself who are involved in trying to understand what really happened in eleventh are quite happy to talk to anyone who wants to have a genuine, reasonable dialogue for both sides of the issue, and we’ll try and get to the truth. Okay? But you find over and over again that, the people who are supporting the government story I mean, basically, just say I support the government theory, but don’t wanna go in dialogue with us about the evidence. And this guy has a case like that. Kevin Ryan will give his statement, but the author he’s criticizing won’t respond to Kevin Ryan. So it’s sort of like, they’re just trying to ignore people like myself and Kevin Ryan.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:53:24]:
Well, so that’s interesting. That sounds like an important update. So then Kevin Ryan is is is then attempting and probably succeeding in debunking this writer for Counterpunch.

Paul Zarembka [00:53:32]:
Yes. That’s exactly right.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:53:34]:
Now the other two things that you have in the book, you end the book with something written by Bertrand Russell. I’d like you to to talk about that, and then its counterpoint at the beginning of your book by doctor David Ray Griffin.

Paul Zarembka [00:53:48]:
Yeah. It’s a kind of a coincidence. Actually, David MacGregor pointed me to Bertrand Russell’s 16 points criticizing the Warren Commission on the Kennedy assassination, and I had never read it before. And it was brilliant. I mean, it it came out actually a couple of weeks before the Warren Commission actually was officially released. It was a brilliant statement on the part of Bertrand Russell about the weaknesses of the Warren Commission. So happened that David Ray Griffin wrote, and he didn’t even I know that he didn’t know about the Russell’s thing. He wrote 16, objections to the the eleventh commission report.

Paul Zarembka [00:54:22]:
So the beginning of the book opens with with these questions about the eleventh Commission Theory, and it has an appendix at the end about the the Bertram Russell, but showing you how history is repeating itself in a certain sense. I really think that perhaps the Kennedy assassination was an opening salvo in in a whole process of degeneration of the American state. By the way, when I say degeneration of the American state, starting with the Kennedy assassination, I don’t wanna glorify anything that happened before that. I didn’t mean it that way. I just meant that we reached a new level of do you wanna put it that way? A way in which we take care of the powers that be in the United States by opening a road to assassination and terrorism.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:55:07]:
Well, Paul, it’s been wonderful to have you on. Is there anything else you’d like, people to know about, the hidden history of 911?

Paul Zarembka [00:55:13]:
If you don’t mind, I would just make one other comment, and that is it’s difficult to get too involved in 911 because there’s lots of stuff out there. I I’m proud of my book. I mean, the book I edited. And, we all work together. It was not an individualistic project. I think this is one book you could read about eleventh and and move into activism from there. Okay? We now need to move toward things like what’s happening in New York City or something like that into activism, and I think this book gives you the basis to do that.

Bonnie Faulkner [00:55:42]:
Well, Paul Zaremka, thank you very much.

Paul Zarembka [00:55:44]:
Thank you very much for having me, Bonnie.

UPDATE 7/23/09

Cover of The Hidden History of 9/11

How much insider trading occurred in the days leading up to 9/11? How compromised is the evidence against alleged hijackers because of serious authentication problems with a key Dulles Airport videotape? To what extent does the testimony of more than five hundred firefighters differ from official reports of what happened at the World Trade Center buildings that day? How inseparably connected are Western covert operations to al-Qaeda? How is Islamophobia used to sustain US imperialism?

Paul Zarembka is a professor of economics at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Since 1977, he has been the general editor for Research in Political Economy. He has authored Toward a Theory of Economic Development, edited Frontiers in Econometrics, and co-edited Essays in Modern Capital Theory.

More on The Hidden History of 9/11:

Watch Paul confront Phillip Zelikow , author of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Photo of Paul Zarembka, editor

Edited by Paul Zarembka

From publisher

Information tends to flow centripetally, from the margins to the center, and not vice versa, in the same way as sensations travel from our finger tips to our brain and central nervous system. Paul Zarembka’s Hidden History of 9-11 , doesn’t subscribe to any one conspiracy theory, but it argues, persuasively, that familiarity with the fault lines of the official story opens a reader to a fundamental and necessary awareness. We may never know the full story of 9-11, in the same way that we may never know the full story of the Kennedy assassinations, but the awareness that we do have following these events provides us at the very least with a healthy skepticism and a willingness to entertain the possibility of there being counter-narratives that cannot be dismissed.

How much insider trading occurred in the days leading up to 9-11? How compromised is the evidence against the hijackers? Why were there no military interceptors? To what extent does the testimony of more than five hundred firefighters differ from the official reports of what happened at the World Trade Center buildings that day? How inseparably connected are Western covert operations to al-Qaeda? How is Islamophobia used to sustain American imperialism? What was the 9-11 Commission?

With contributions from Nafeez Mossaddeq Ahmed, Four Arrows, David Ray Griffin, Jay Kolar, David MacGregor, Diana Ralph, Kevin Ryan, and Bryan Sacks, this path breaking work examines 9-11 and its background, showing how much remains unknown and where further investigation and debate is needed.

Hidden History is a benchmark in 9-11 research; a serious reference volume that does not peddle vacuous theory, but instead offers up facts to be considered, and places 9-11 within a historical and social context that differs radically from the Official Story.” — Guerila News Network

“Paul Zarembka is a professor of economics at the State University of New York at Buffalo. In this new book on the seminal events of September 11, 2001 and the ensuing “War On Terror.” he has shown courage, skill and leadership in pulling together the careful research of many writers. This book should be summer reading for political scientists, journalists and anyone concerned about the disastrous path America is taking.” — Salmon Valley Observer

Paperback, 400 pages, 6×9″, $14.96 (On sale presently for $7.48)

Editor PAUL ZAREMBKA is a professor of economics at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He has been the general editor for Research in Political Economy since 1977, and is the author of Toward a Theory of Economic Development, editor of Frontiers in Econometrics, and co-editor of Essays in Modern Capital Theory.

SOURCEJuly 22, 2009: Guns and Butter
Previous articleNew paper at The Journal of 9/11 Studies by Prof. Graeme MacQueen
Next articleProfessor Peter Dale Scott Endorses NYCCAN

Since 2004, 911Truth.Org has educated the public about the suppressed realities of the September 11 attacks.

We worked with the 9/11 Families to pressure the Bush administration to convene an investigation into the deadliest attacks on US soil since Pearl Harbor. We attended many of the commission hearings and questioned commissioners and bird-dogged elected officials to get answers to the Unanswered Questions that remain so to this day.

We reported the contradictions, lies and omissions on the public record. 911Truth.Org staff have given hundreds of interviews on radio and mainstream network TV.

We cover a wide range of 9/11-related issues in publishing academic papers, original research, and opinion pieces.

We wish to thank our donors who have kept us on the web since 2004! We appreciate your continued support!

We continue to update the website to make the nearly 3000 articles easier to find, read and share. Thanks for visiting us!