Supplemental Blog on Arizona Shootings

27 Jan

In Response to Harsh Criticism of 9/11 Blog Comments by the UN Secretary General and the U.S. Ambassador to the UN


Because my blog prompted by the Arizona shootings has attracted many comments pro and con, and more recently has been the object of a more selective public attack on me personally, I thought it appropriate to post a supplementary blog with the purpose of clarifying my actual position and re-focusing attention on the plight and suffering of the Palestinian people being held in captivity. In the background, are crucial issues of free speech, fairness in public discourse, and responsible media treatment of sensitive and controversial affairs of state.


Both the UN Secretary General and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations harshly criticized some remarks in my personal blog that mentioned the 9/11 attacks. They referred to the views expressed there as ‘despicable and deeply offensive,’ ‘noxious, ‘inflammatory,’ and ‘preposterous.’ Their comments were apparently made in response to a letter written to the UN Secretary General by the head of UN Monitor, a Geneva-based highly partisan NGO, that called misleading attention to this passage in the blog. Ambassador Rice called for my dismissal from my unpaid post as an independent Special Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council with a mandate to report upon the Israeli observance of “human rights in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.”


For anyone who read the blog post in its entirely it should be plain that the reference to the 9/11 issues is both restrained and tangential. What is stressed in the blog is the importance of carefully examining evidence before drawing conclusions about political and legal responsibility for highly sensitive public acts, and the importance for the serenity of the society of achieving closure in a responsible manner. I never endorsed doubts about the official version of 9/11 beyond indicating what anyone who has objectively examined the controversy knows– that there remain certain gaps in the official explanation that give rise to an array of conspiratorial explanations, and that the 9/11 Commission unfortunately did not put these concerns to rest. My plea was intended to encourage addressing these gaps in a credible manner, nothing more, nothing less. I certainly meant no disrespect toward the collective memory of 9/11 in the country and elsewhere. On the contrary, my intention was to encourage an investigation that might finally achieve closure with respect to doubts that remain prevalent among important sectors of the public, including among some 9/11 families.


What seems apparent from this incident, which is itself disturbing, is that any acknowledgement of doubt about the validity of the official version of the 9/11 events, while enjoying the legal protection of free speech, is denied the political and moral protection that are essential if an atmosphere of free speech worthy of a democracy is to be maintained. When high officials can brand someone who raises some doubts in the most cautious language as ‘an enemy of the people,’ then there are either things to hide or a defensive fury that is out of all proportion to the provocation. To seek further inquiry into the unanswered questions about 9/11 is surely not an unreasonable position


What is dismaying to me is that neither the office of the Secretary General nor the U.S. Mission to the United Nation made any effort to contact me to seek clarification of my remarks on these issues that are not connected with my UN role prior to making their insulting criticisms damaging to my reputation. I would think that as a representative of the UN and a citizen of the United States, I am at least entitled to this minimal courtesy, and more substantially, that whatever criticisms are made are based on what I said rather than on a manifestly inflammatory letter written by the UN Monitor, that has made a habit of publicly attacking me in consistently irresponsible and untruthful ways, presumably with the intention of diverting attention from my criticisms of Israel’s occupation policies in the Palestinian territories. It is always more tempting to shoot the messenger than heed the message. A similar tactic, what I call ‘the politics of deflection’ was deployed over a year ago in a shabby attempt to discredit the distinguished South African jurist, Richard Goldstone, a person of impeccable credentials as an international public servant. The intention was again to avoid a proper focus upon the devastating findings and recommendations of the Goldstone Report submitted to the United Nations after conducing a scrupulous inquiry into the allegations of violation of law associated with the Israeli attacks on Gaza between December 27, 2008 and January 18, 2009.


I remain determined to report as fully and honestly as possible about the massive human rights violations confronting Palestinians who have now lived without rights under occupation for more than 43 years, and to do my best not to let such personal attacks impair my capacity to carry out the assignment that I was invited to perform by the UN.

What the United States Government, the Secretary-General and the media should be focused on is the ongoing, widespread and systematic violation of Palestinians’ human rights by Israel. Only since the beginning of 2011, at least four Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli forces and more than 33 others have been injured. This is in addition to the expansion of settlements, home demolitions, forced evictions and displacement of Palestinian families, revocation of residency permits and forced transfers, particularly devastating in East Jerusalem, detention and mistreatment of over 6000 Palestinians, including children, as well as the illegal blockade of Gaza. My forthcoming report to the Human Rights Council addresses these and other severe ongoing violations of Palestinian rights by Israel.



102 Responses to “Supplemental Blog on Arizona Shootings”

  1. andrerabanea January 27, 2011 at 4:05 pm #

    This post was the best! now i want to know what they will gonna say!

  2. Claudia Damon January 27, 2011 at 4:06 pm #

    As I read the reply posts to your original blog entry, I hoped more and more as I read more and more of the replies that you would post anew. Thank you for doing this. I hope all readers of your blog will read what you say mindfully, will hear what you are saying, will take care to understand what you say so clearly before responding to what they want to believe you said, and will respond respectfully rather than with name-calling and the like. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, but a thoughtfully articulated opinion deserves a thoughtfully articulated response. It’s not only fair–it is civil discourse. We do continue to live in a civil society….

  3. Ray Joseph Cormier January 27, 2011 at 4:06 pm #

    I’m with you on this, Professor.

  4. Painter January 27, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    The major problem I have found in talking about 9/11 is that most people simply refuse to examine the evidence. Or, as in your case, they attack the messenger.

    It is understandable – but not acceptable – that people prefer to ignore those things that disturb a comfortable view of reality. It is hard for anybody to question deeply held beliefs – even when all evidence clearly shows that belief to be mistaken.

    I am grateful that you are speaking out. I would like to think that this will help us begin an honest and civil discussion of the facts of 9/11 and find out what really happened, why it happened, and who did it.

  5. goldie klugman January 27, 2011 at 7:23 pm #

    The media is full of criticism of Israel; don’t you see it? Why is it those condemning the occupation keep saying they are not allowed to speak? Why do you think Goldstone doesn’t have supporters because he also has those who condemn him? Can you tell me with a straight face that you don’t know that pro-Israeli articles aren’t accepted in academic journals?

    • skulb February 9, 2011 at 10:14 am #

      This is manifestly false to such a degree that one gets the impression that you`re living on another planet. In Norway, where I reside, any criticism of Israel, however mild, is immediately denounced as anti-semitism, strangling any meaningful public debate.

      On the other hand wildly exaggerated claims that “all arabs are terrorists”, and that Israel is the only civilized country in the Middle East, because they`re “democratic”, can be read in virtually every single article on the subject. One representative in the Storting even managed to say in public that she was “concerned” that so many Norwegians were on the “wrong” side of the Palestinian conflict, because they protested Israeli bombing of civilians.

      This doesn`t look the slightest bit like your anti-Israeli bias you`re describing, which presumably exists only inside your head.

      To Mr Falk I wanted to wish good luck with standing up for freedom of speech, sadly under siege, all over the world, from totalitarians in various camouflages. In my view their reactions to these mild statements indicates possible guilt of some kind. I would have been far more polemic, so perhaps it`s for the best I don`t hold public office:)

      • Richard Falk February 9, 2011 at 5:31 pm #

        Thanks for this thoughtful, yet disturbing, comment. We are not living in democratic societies
        if it requires ‘courage’ to seek the truth or to voice unpopular opinions on the Palestine/Israel

  6. mal January 27, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

    Prof Falk,

    I have not such a combination of vilification and silliness since the Joan Peters affair.

    Living in the United States, one becomes accustomed to a certain level on inanity in the political culture, but this is over the top even for America; even for the purveyors of bigotry and militarism for whom you are Satan-incarnate.

    I hope truly you are more amused than incensed. But I doubt that I can muster your equanimity and grace in response to this program of demonization that would make a dictator blush.

    Be well.

    With the highest regards,

    Michael Leon
    Managing Editor, Veterans Today

  7. Salpy Eskidjian January 28, 2011 at 12:17 am #

    Excellently articulated as always. I look forward to your report to the Human Rights Council and the deliberations. I am sorry I will miss seeing you in GVE and hearing you in person. Good luck!

  8. niqnaq January 28, 2011 at 2:24 am #

    I noticed one interesting response to your original post, from a certain John F Lob. It said: “Asking questions then developing a conspiracy hypothesis because there is no answer or the answer is not what you expected is disingenuous.” It’s worth decoding this. ‘Disingenuous’ means ‘falsely or hypocritically ingenuous,’ and ‘ingenuous’ means ‘free from dissimulation,’ so what this boils down to is that people who ask questions and then develop a conspiracy hypothesis because they are not satified with the answers offered are being in some way dishonest. But this really isn’t true. There are some people who fairly leap to hypothesize a particular sort of conspiracy that fits their own preconceptions, but most people who find the official explanations implausible simply try to list the implausibilities and then deduce possible explanations of what really, logically, must have happened. At one stage, the more empirical discussions of the subject online were swamped by what appear to have been agents provocateurs, out to discredit the entire process of asking questions by making it appear that either all those who asked them were motivated by a pre-existing hatred for the US, or that merely asking questions was providing an opening for such people. This latter is a very dangerous argument: that even the most open-minded of us should be prevented from asking questions that might provide fodder for extremists.

    • skulb February 9, 2011 at 10:27 am #

      This is an incredibly convoluted and confusing way to approach this issue I think. when people start making elaborate argumentation like this I must admit that I jump to the conclusion that they want to avoid a sensitive conclusion by hiding behind verbiage.

      If you start with logic instead of instead of psychology it gets much simpler than this: If A is not the case then something else must be; if B is the conclusion derived from A then it, similarly, does not exist either, and must be diescarded for a better one.

      So; if 19 evil terrorists hijacked 4 planes, caused three buildings to collapse and managed to hit the Pentagon, then a certain response might be called for, such as trying to find the ones responsible.
      On the other hand, if the available evidence doesn`t support the premise of 19 evil hijackers, then something else must have caused the observed events; even if it`s as trivial as ,say, reducing the number of hijackers.

      I happen to believe the discrepancy is rather more fundamental than this however, as you can probably imagine. But this doesn`t change the basics of the approach, and it doesn`t make me an extremist either. The truth is the truth, even when it`s uncomfortable.

      • Webby February 10, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

        “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as if it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.”
        – George Orwell

    • feisty spider May 31, 2011 at 5:31 am #

      the fabulous power of QUESTIONS… and the ensuing TERROR when the questions can’t be answered… the gap betwixt innocent confusion and knowing deceit… in the family it’s called ABUSE. in a country, between constituents & their elected representatives, it’s called TYRANNY. but we don’t dare use that word here.

  9. danielsimpson January 28, 2011 at 3:45 am #

    It’s worth recalling this article perhaps – it seems not much has changed in the meantime:

    The plain, sad reality—I report this following four full days studying the work—is that The 9/11 Commission Report, despite the vast quantity of labor behind it, is a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers that infantilize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation.

  10. pamela January 28, 2011 at 4:43 am #

    Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper. It seems all political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. Has anyone noticed people can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome?

    Uncle George commented once, “The nationalist, the patriot tends to not only disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” It does seem to be true, I’m afraid.

    All the political language seems to be too often designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. It more and more appears that during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. In our age there is certainly no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

    I’ve noticed, it is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime clamor to claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning; perhaps some of this is why every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac. It hasn’t missed my observations over the years either, that war against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.

    The idea really came to me the day I got my new false teeth…The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun.

    I told my grandchildren the other day, “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever”.

    The older I get, I am convinced mankind is not likely to salvage civilization unless he can evolve a system of good and evil which is independent of heaven and hell. When all is said and done, I suppose, it is as Uncle Orwell said, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

    Many thanks to George & Orwell for what I learned in 1984,and they knew in 1948, Ziocons are on the loose.

    • pamela January 28, 2011 at 5:45 am #

      For the content of my previous comment my thanks go to Eric Arthur Blair. Blair was at one time a writer in the interesting stable of early twentieth century writers for ‘Wellington House’. Wellington House, an early organized propaganda effort of the British was aimed at influencing mass U.S. opinion; and (hopefully) attracting the U.S. into joining the British effort as an ally, or in the least keeping the U.S. neutral.

      Blair’s ‘truisms’ ( I compiled and reorganized into a satirical order that makes some sense) are most oft (individually) attributed to Eric under his pen name, “George Orwell” .

      Perhaps, Blair was a prophet of sorts.

      Controlling information flow to and from a nemesis, as the British did when they cut the submarine cables to Germany at the outset of the the war in 1914, creates a climate to take charge of what targeted groups hear and don’t hear, therefore assisting the masses in forming a band-wagon of ‘common belief’, not necessarily upon fact but instead often times upon unverifiable information.

      Today, in the U.S. ( and the ‘Western world’) many of the major news media organizations quickly sing the same song (as if on cue), so it is of important interest to ask, “Why” does this happen?

      How is it that American elders (over 80 years of age), such as Helen Thomas and Richard Falk are attacked so quickly and so viciously by purportedly independent news media organizations for (Thomas or Falk) expressing their opinions?

      It would seem such collectively-styled and collectively-timed timed attacks may best occur when the vastness of media corporate control (at the top) resides with one, a few, or several individuals of a common-mindset and agenda,k in this instance and essence is extremely opposed to Thomas’ or Falk’s opinions being heard, or worse, considered credible by the masses.

      Mathematician/Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) had some interesting takes on approaching the process of developing opinion. He commented, “It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.” As it “cannot be true that contradictory notions can apply to the same fact. Thus reconcilement of these contrary concepts must be sought in a more searching analysis of the meaning of the terms in which they are phrased.”

      Since, “The present is all that you have; and unless in this present you can find general principles which interpret the present as including a representation of the whole community of existents, you cannot move a step beyond your little patch of immediacy.”

      In the end, “It is a curious delusion that the rock upon which our beliefs can be founded is an historical investigation. You can only interpret the past in terms of the present.”

      • pamela January 28, 2011 at 7:10 am #

        To make a correction, Blair was influenced by the Wellington House writers, he was not one of them.

      • Buckworth Jackson January 28, 2011 at 9:35 am #

        Thank you for your thoughts on Blair/Orwell. I was so happy when my daughter made my grandkids read “1984” and “Animal Farm”.

        How anyone can look at the front of the Pentagon and think a full sized jet liner had crashed there?
        (In the course and scope of my previous employment, I’ve seen the after-math of a jet liner crash (Aero-Mexico- Southern California)
        There were body parts everywhere, not to mention parts of the airliner itself.
        Yet were are to believe that a building ‘swallowed’ everything?
        That may work in a Stephen King novel, but not in real life.

  11. Painter January 28, 2011 at 9:20 am #

    Dear Richard,

    Please consider this an email to you and not a “reply.”

    I noticed that my reply has not been published and I must say that I am disappointed and would like to think that it is merely an oversight.

    Is it because my question about “who did it on 9/11” was too controversial? If so, I apologize but would like to say that since there has never been a real investigation into 9/11 it is a legitimate question as we generally don’t declare guilt without proof.

    Dr David Ray Griffin wrote an excellent article about the lack of proof that the “so-called hijackers” were on those airplanes. And numerous well-respected scientists all over the world have confirmed that the science cannot support the official explanation that gigantic steel structures somehow fell down like a house of cards….because of kerosene fires that cannot ever burn hot enough to accomplish this feat.

    And then what about Building #7? It wasn’t struck by any airplane. And the media is disinclined to mention this 47 story skyscraper that went down at freefall acceleration on 9/11.

    I do think that who did it and how is a perfectly legitimate question. Why hold back?

    I have long been a activist in the Peace Movement. And I am flabbergasted that we fail to look at and expose the basic lies that allow and encourage wars.

    9/11 appears to be the biggest lie of all. I applaud every single act of courage it takes to expose these lies.

    As a visible “messenger” you were attacked at a global level. I shudder to think that what this may be like.

    I’m basically a nobody – but speaking out to even question the truth of 9/11 – has cost me members of my family, my reputation in my community, and has seriously hurt my business.

    But I cannot live with myself unless I do it.


    Karin W.
    painterwells at gmail dot com

  12. Paul V. Sheridan January 28, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    Professor Falk:

    You need not remain “restrained and tangential” when dealing with the following fundamental, but sometimes neglected fact:

    Thee alleged Arabic conspirator (that people such as Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon et al. forcefully claim was directly responsible for the events of September 11, 2001 in my hometown of New York City) has never so-much as received a parking ticket for such. Osama bin Laden, the so-called “mastermind of 911” has never been indicted, prosecuted or convicted for ANY aspect of 911. When questioned about that fact, and the fact that the subject of 911 is not to be found ANYWHERE on the FBI’s “MOST WANTED TERRORIST” poster, their head of PR Mr. Rex Tomb openly admitted:

    “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

    That status has not changed as of the diatribe you endured while merely being “restrained and tangential.” Please see:

    Click to access OBLNoHardEvidence-Ithaca_Journal.pdf

    Please continue to remind Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon et al., of this fundamental fact.

  13. Linda Frank January 28, 2011 at 12:01 pm #

    Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

    I had to run a search for “9-11” on the Zogby site to pull up the page

    See also “100 US luminaries sign ‘911 Truth Statement,’ petition NY AG Spitzer to open criminal probe”
    (“…many family members of those who died on 9/11 were present, the mainstream media paid them no attention.”)

  14. Joanna Zilsel January 28, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

    My note to Ambassador Rice, sent to: [Many thanks, Linda, for updating me!]

    Dear Ms. Rice,

    I am writing with regard to your statement about Richard Falk, calling for his dismissal as Special Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council. Please know that I am a woman of Jewish heritage who lost family members to the Nazi Holocaust. I lived in Israel for almost 3 years as a young child, and visited Gaza in March 2009–a few months after Israel’s brutal attack there–as a member of an international peace delegation. I have been informed and inspired by Richard Falk for many years, and consider him to be a man of impeccable integrity and tremendous courage. His blog statements about 9/11 can hardly be construed as ‘despicable and deeply offensive,’ ‘noxious, ‘inflammatory,’ or ‘preposterous’ as you have suggested. With clarity and restraint he put forth views that–as you must be aware–are shared by many thousands of Americans, and possibly millions around the world. How can you, as the US Ambassador to the United Nations, respond to his calls for further investigation of this horrendous tragedy with the demand that he be dismissed? How is this compatible with democratic principles?

    I hope that you will have the opportunity to reflect deeply on the matter and publicly rescind your earlier position.

    Thank you for your consideration.


    Joanna Zilsel (dual US/Canadian citizen, residing in Canada)

    “This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation’s self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls ‘enemy’, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.” Martin Luther King Jr.

    • Richard Falk January 28, 2011 at 2:09 pm #

      Thanks, Joanna, for these gracious and supportive words on my behalf, which I am most grateful.

    • Ray Joseph Cormier February 1, 2011 at 8:29 am #

      Joanna, thank you for this example. Following it I just sent this message to Ambassador Rice.

      Dear Ambassador Rice,

      Thanks to you and the Secretary General I learned about Professor Falk for the first time and have expressed my support for him on his Blog. Frankly, I can’t understand why the Secretary General would involve himself publicly in U.S. internal affairs, giving Richard Falk a higher profile than he had.

      He has found new support for his UN mission and world view. It will generate an even greater interest in him and his mission if he is fired from his U.N. position.

      As to 9/11 conspiracy theories, I posted this comment among others in his Blog.

      (my comment on 9/11 conspiracy posted below, correcting for the typos)


      Ray Joseph Cormier

    • Robert Leffel March 21, 2011 at 8:24 pm #

      I’m wondering why did you find it necessary to bring up your heritage here. What does it have to do with the topic Can you argue your point on its own merit without being aided by this “as a Jew” argument?

  15. Norm Depalma January 28, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    Please Richard,
    Stay the course. Continue the fight. Do not be silenced!

    • Richard Falk January 28, 2011 at 2:05 pm #

      Thanks, Norm, I will do my best. It is an important struggle.

  16. Ray Joseph Cormier January 28, 2011 at 3:05 pm #

    Paul V wrote, “You need not remain “restrained and tangential.”

    This has opened the way to remove restraint and report on this “tangential” & co-incidental period of my life 20 years before 9/11 that is recorded in the major daily newspapers of the time, long before the Internet.

    They were once online in my personal Facebook Album for all to see, but contrary to Facebook’s own stated purpose and principles, they disabled my account.

    Not only did they disable it, the deleted every word of my testimony to God and this world in every discussion I ever had on various subjects in different groups.

    They deleted the only place on line, the public could see all the pre-Internet Mainline newspaper reports chronicling my personal Voyage of Faith in Christ and Almighty God, from The Kansas City Times in The Spirit of ’76, and coast to coast in CanaDa spread over many years.

    That was almost a year ago, and they have never replied to my 3 requests to know on what grounds that have done that? I can live without Facebook.

    In 1981 I was moved in my Spirit to hitch hike from Canada’s National Capital District to Whitehorse in the Yukon to “symbolically” draw attention to the Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19/11,

    “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he does judge and make war.”

    In doing that at that time I had no idea or foresight or premonition between Revelation 19/11 and 9/11 twenty years later.

    The Whitehorse Star and other major dailies coast to coast record the mission as a marker in time. If we don’t know where we have come from, how can we know where we’re going?

    I was as stunned as everybody on 9/11 working for a courier company making deliveries, listening to the radio and watching TV where there was one on the route.

    I did say to everybody that Day, “This is the end of the world as we have known it.”

    That has proved to be True as we have know it since. We are all being held hostage to the War on Terrorism.

    On September 13, 1976, page 3A, with the header, ´Prophet Chooses Park For Vigil´ The Kansas City Times recorded and reported on my visit to the City and the Republican National Convention. They report, in addition to other specifics, I was serving notice The Writing is on the Wall.

    “He came to town for the Republican National Convention and will stay until the election in November to do God’s bidding: To tell the world, from Kansas City, that this Country has been found wanting and it’s days are numbered”…………………………He gestured toward a gleaming church dome. “The gold dome is the symbol of Babylon,” he said.

    I would say that public record states in my view, America is the Biblical economic/political/military Imperial Power of Babylon in out times.

    The concept of Babylon is carried over from the Old Testament to the New Testament or Common Era until The Revelation in Time.

    Now that 35 years have transpired, America and the world are only now beginning see the vision take shape in this world, and the challenges now before us all, either together or apart.

    Believe it or not, that was on topic of 9/11 conspiracies, but accepting my view of America as being the Biblical Babylon of our time in the context of a tightening economic straight jacket, Read Revelation 18.

    In my view it circumstantially describes what happened on 9/11.

    Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire:(we all saw the fire) for strong is the Lord God who judges her.

    And the kings of the earth,(Pope, Princes, Presidents, Prime Ministers, CEOs, The Very Rich) who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, (the smoke from the smouldering ruins was only put out in April 2002)

    Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. (The buildings came down in one hour)

    The following part kicked in 7 years after 9/11 with the financial meltdown/economic Pearl Harbour-tsunami in the Fall of 2008.

    And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buys their merchandise any more:
    The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
    And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

    There is no doubt many questions remain about 9/11, but one thing is sure, there is much more going on behind the scenes than 1st meets the eye.

    For those who have followed this far, while I wrote this for everybody, it is especially for the Professor. You may appreciate having the life I live, I can relate to the aloneness you must feel at times. You are not alone, and your cause is Just. God is with you.

    Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
    Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
    Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
    Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
    Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
    Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
    Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
    Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

    • Ray Joseph Cormier January 29, 2011 at 10:37 am #

      7. Steve St. Laurent. “Visiting ‘prophet’ no average preacher”, Calgary Herald, 18 July 1981, A11.
      8. Cathy Lord “Visions compelled search for God”, Edmonton Journal, 25 July 1981, G13.
      9. Leslie Cole “Self-proclaimed prophet: Showmanship not his style”, Whitehorse Star, 26 August 1981, pg 3.
      10. Nicholas Read “‘Divine gifts’ inspire ex-executive to tramp the land with a message”, Vancouver Sun, 3 October 1981
      11. Maclean’s, 31 August 1981, People Section.

  17. Warren Bruce January 28, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

    I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and considerate, yet honest and direct approach to situations you care about. I find it a stretch to view your reference to 9-11 as anything other than an illustration, and I find the general response startling.

    Polarization is never as useful as simple illumination.

    • Richard Falk January 28, 2011 at 10:39 pm #

      Thanks, Warren, for your supportive words, especially sharing your conviction that overheated language polarizes without any benefit to society.

  18. Anne Fuller January 28, 2011 at 9:44 pm #

    Where can I find the orginal blog that led to all this critcism?

    • Richard Falk January 28, 2011 at 10:36 pm #

      On the prior blog entitled “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.”

  19. John Kearney January 28, 2011 at 11:24 pm #

    Prof. Falk — I am a big fan of yours and appreciate your hard work for disenfranchised peoples.

    But I have to disagree when you write: “For anyone who read the blog post in its entirety it should be plain that the reference to the 9/11 issues is both restrained and tangential.” Tangential perhaps, but not restrained — your 9/11 passage really leaves yourself wide open to claims that you’re either a 9/11 Truther or are sympathetic to such thinking.

    David Ray Griffin may be a man of integrity as you write, but he gives great succor to 9/11 Truthers. My sense is he’s a 9/11 Truther, though he may disagree on technical grounds. Even if Griffin’s critics have unfairly defamed him, his writing could still suggest strongly that the “U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.”

    The quotation in that last sentence is taken from when you write: “I do not endorse the theory that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.” If you really want to avoid being misunderstood on such a volatile issue, that’s the sentence that needed to be in the original blog post. Then perhaps it would have been restrained. But when you cite approvingly someone who appears to suggest the theory you “do not endorse,” then you’re opening yourself up to calumny.

    In soccer, they call this an “own goal.”

    • skulb February 9, 2011 at 10:47 am #

      Are we to infer from this statement that you are in favor of 9/11 lies? Isn`t it in everybody`s interest to learn the truth, whatever it is?
      I mean, how can anybody look at WTC 7 collapsing and not immediately start questioning the establishment in the US, and by extension the media which hasn`t so much as mentioned the subject for 9 years and counting? If that makes me a Truther then fine, but hurling this invective around doesn`t automatically discredit me and others with questions wrong or dangerous extremists.

      To quote Einstein:
      “Condemntation without investigation is the height of ignorance”

      Investigate WTC 7.

  20. Syd Walker January 29, 2011 at 4:26 am #

    Bravo Professor Falk for your longstanding hard work on behalf of the Palestinian cause – and for your more recent willingness to stand up for intellectual integrity over the issue of 9-11, which cries out for genuine and honest investigation.

    Ban Ki-Moon’s comments were quite appalling. They do him and the position he holds no credit. He’s UN Secretary General, not the Delphic oracle.

    • Richard Falk January 29, 2011 at 9:50 am #

      Thanks for this encouraging and supportive comment, which is much appreciated..

  21. kiwicris January 29, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    Sir, you have stirred up a real hornets nest with your , what I would call, non conspiritorial comments on 911. It just goes to show how touchy the P.T.B. and the Lame Stream media are when it comes to critisising the USGovt version of events that day. It is beyond dispute that huge gaps abound in the official narrative and the media have completely ignored these discrepancies and villify anyone, especially someone of repute such as yourself, who “dares” to challenge the status quo. Well done Prof. Falk

    Chris in Ch-Ch, N.Z.

  22. LYNETTE January 29, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    Professor Falk,
    You are a very, very special being; a messenger of truth, love and light.It is so refreshing to have discovered a unique rare, emissary for humanity.

    Please don’t stop, don’t back down.This is our time.

  23. notexactlyhuman January 30, 2011 at 2:05 am #

    Well, sir, it certainly appears you’ve rubbed the power elite in a sensitive region. Fortunately, their self-righteous ballyhooing produced a headline that caught my attention, otherwise I might never have known who you are and of the commendable work you have done and continue to do on behalf of the citizens on this battered earth. Keep chipping away at the illusion; sooner or later it will crack, if it hasn’t already.

    • Richard Falk January 30, 2011 at 11:21 am #

      Thanks for such a supportive comment, which is a much appreciated antidote to the pressures that have been mounted against me.

      • notexactlyhuman February 1, 2011 at 3:51 am #

        Hope, good sir.

        “While this battle has been won, many have not. The fact that this is the second time in 6 months that academic freedom has come under attack at Brooklyn College only further emphasizes the opposition faced by those who dedicate their studies to deconstructing the complex, and controversial, politics of the Middle East.”

      • Richard Falk February 1, 2011 at 6:59 am #

        This victory is important, but the largest struggle to protect academic freedom needs to be waged with greater commitment. It is not only cases of this sort where employment is directly challenged due to unpopular views, but it is the intimidating effects on the wider academic community if vulnerable faculty and graduate students fear such effects of critical thinking on controversial issues.

      • notexactlyhuman February 2, 2011 at 10:03 am #

        You are correct, sir.

        All morning I have monitored my television for news of what is happening in the Middle East and Europe, but there came next no mention beyond a brief, irritating transaction between a racist Pat Buchanan and the other similarly dimwitted panelists of the McLuaghlin Group. During what is perhaps the most expansive awakening ever witnessed in human history . . . nothing. Instead, I heard that ice is slick, winter wind is cold, the economy is on the mend, and that Charlie Sheen has a drug problem. This is by design, and it is depressing. The wheels of the illusion continue to spin, perpetually lulling a sheltered public into a mundane ritual existence while the agents of greed piss in its open grave. No struggles being waged against institutionalized propaganda on teevee, and teevee is America’s greatest informational institution.

        Anyway, here are a few things that may be of interest to you:

        A brief transcript of a young woman’s struggle to exit Tahrir Square, which I followed live this morning. She is reportedly now safe, though these few messages tell a heart wrenching tale.

        For good news, Sibel Edmonds has won a small victory on behalf of truth.

        Take care,

      • Richard Falk February 2, 2011 at 4:39 pm #

        Thanks for this supportive interpretation of what is unfolding here and in the Arab world.

  24. Canada Dave January 30, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    Having just found this site through the publicity surrounding the Arizona blog I thank you Richard for taking the stand which led me here.

    In regards to your blog I find it very frightening that your comments have caused such a stir. Are we not allowed to openly question if we are in a position from which people are looking for answers to complex issues? The questions you raised are not new and they are not suggestive of any conspiracy or covert action but the fact remains this incident was not properly investigated and some people want to know why.

    My own feelings are that the government or agencies of such knew something was going to happen, they were OK with this as it would advance their agenda. When it did happen they were completely blown away by the success of the operation.Unfortunately if this or any of the other theories as to what happened that day were proven the fallout would likely make the US ungovernable as the citizens may loose complete confidence in their government. Imagine a country with citizens better armed than most armies in the world going through what is happening in Egypt.

    The truth may be desirable for us on the progressive side but I would suggest be careful what we wish for.

    For now thanks for the great writing and don’t let them get you down.

    • Richard Falk January 30, 2011 at 11:20 am #

      I am grateful for your encouraging comment, and agree with your underlying assessment.

  25. David Sugar January 30, 2011 at 10:41 am #

    Moral courage to me includes the courage to speak truths when those who are powerful would wish to silence your voice. This to me is an essential quality for any human rights reporter. I have not had the good fortune to meet you, but as I choose to work on issues of international relations with respect to the occupied peoples and nation of Lakota I am aware of perhaps a few of the challenges you must face in your own work. I do look forward to seeing more of your work on behalf of human rights and dignity for all peoples in Palestine.

    • Richard Falk January 30, 2011 at 11:18 am #

      thanks, David, for this supportive comment. I have also worked in the past on behalf of native peoples in various settings, and just yesterday saw an extraordinary documentary film entitled WE ARE STILL HERE, directed by Anne Makepeace.

  26. Colin Wright January 31, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    It’s an obscure and tangential point, but I’ve always objected to the phrase ‘human rights violations.’ It came into being about thirty five years ago, and has been obscuring debate ever since.

    It has a certain aura of objectivity — I’ll give it that. However, it is of course a spurious objectivity. The phrase is just as susceptible to abuse as any other.

    On the other hand, it misses something that is implied by the frank use of a term like ‘oppression.’ ‘Oppression’ suggests that there is a fundamental institutional problem — things are going to have to be reordered if the oppression and the acts manifesting it are going to cease. And that is usually the case. A profound change is almost always necessary to end oppression.

    Not so with ‘human rights violations.’ That suggests the perpetrators are doing something like speeding, or failing to signal before making a turn. A few adjustments in behavior, and the problem will go away. As anyone who considers almost any situation where ‘human rights violations’ chronically occur, that’s not very likely.

    In a way, to use a term like ‘human rights violations’ is to play the oppressor’s game. It implies that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the underlying situation, that given a few traffic cops, something like Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza can continue indefinitely without anything wrong happening.

    And that’s not the case. If you used a word like ‘oppression,’ you would lose that aura of objectivity and restraint, but you would be confronting the essence of the problem. You can’t stop ‘human rights violations’ and let the perpetrator keep driving — nor is it particularly useful to keep writing tickets.

    • Another Watcher February 3, 2011 at 8:57 pm #

      Good point Colin. re: oppression v. human rights violations. Language is everything and oppression is certainly what seems to be happening. I wish I knew more about the real reasons for the whole Israli-Palestinian problem. (obviously money, but more detail.) Do you have a link on the blog where you help the woefully uninformed to get up to speed?
      Thanks for speaking out so coherently.
      P.S. Just for the record, I don’t think I know a single person who believes the 9/11 ‘official’ story.

    • A. Watcher February 3, 2011 at 9:15 pm #

      Thank you Dr. Falk! You have real courage!

      Typical that everyone would get all in a flap about 9/11. I mean, what a spectacle! No one will EVER forget it regardless of how or why or who did it and it certainly has diverted attention away from just about every erosion of our civil liberties in the meantime (except the right to CONSUME, of course) But what is more interesting to me is your work on Israel and Palestine…I would like to know more about the real reasons for the situation there. I am woefully ignorant but the whole thing smacks of hypocrisy. Any links would be appreciated.

    • nawi February 4, 2011 at 2:42 am #

      good point re: oppression vs. HR violations. Other terms that similarly account for the historical and genealogical context to ‘HR violations’ are ‘slow death’ and ‘structural violence’ (see Murdocca, 2010 on the Kashechewan First Nations community in Canada).

      • Richard Falk February 4, 2011 at 8:22 am #

        Thanks for this insightful observation, and linkage.

      • Ray Joseph Cormier February 4, 2011 at 8:48 am #

        Statement by Abba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister, June 14, 1967.

        “Wars are not always begun by shots. They are often begun by action and the action which really created the state of war in an acute sense was the imposition of the blockade. To try to murder somebody by strangulation is just as much attempted murder as if you tried to murder him by a shot, and therefore the act of strangulation was the first violent, physical act which had its part in the sequence.”

        But that was Then when the Jews were the victim and this is Now.

    • skulb February 9, 2011 at 11:02 am #

      The Nuremberg trials defined human rights quite well though, if the various governments of the world would only start applying the defined principles. Interestingly they do not include limiting or oppressing opinions we don`t like or which offends us, such as “conspiracy theories”.
      I was gonna throw in a quote from Nuremberg,but about 75% of the articles in the Declaration of Human Rights apply robustly to the Palestinian case. A good reason to support Falk in any way possible.

      “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”
      -Martin Luther King.

  27. mynzah February 1, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    Thank you Mr. Falk for speaking up and out about 9/11 and the inconsistensies of what we have been sold. I know that in the near future it will be in the consciousness of humanity that the original 9/11 story is a farce. I am not concerned about when it will become known by all, because I know it will in its own time when it is supposed to be but I do know it is soon. Again thank you for all that you do and for your truth.

    Peace, Light, and Love to You and to All that You know.

    • Richard Falk February 1, 2011 at 11:25 pm #

      Your kind and encouraging words are much appreciated!

  28. Ray Joseph Cormier February 5, 2011 at 8:33 am #

    Professor, I hope Piers Morgan of CNN takes my suggestion seriously.

    U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday sharply criticized the U.N. expert on Palestine for suggesting the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States were orchestrated by the U.S. government. The U.N. chief criticized the official in a speech before the body’s Human Rights Council in Geneva.

    It is very rare for the U.N. chief to publicly criticize one of the organization’s own officials. And he seemed dismayed by remarks made by the U.N. expert on Palestine, Richard Falk, who cast doubt on al-Qaida’s role in the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

    In his speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged it was up to the council to decide whether the experts it appoints should continue in their jobs.

    He said he respected the independence of the investigators, but Mr. Ban added that he could not condone irresponsible behavior that undermines the council and the United Nations.

    “Recently, the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967 suggested there was an ‘apparent cover-up’ in the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States,” said Ban. “I want to tell you, clearly and directly, I condemn this sort of inflammatory rhetoric. It is preposterous, an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack.”

    The expert, Princeton University Professor Emeritus Richard Falk, was appointed by the Human Rights Council to report on Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories in March 2008. He has been criticized by Israel, and by Jewish and human rights groups for his controversial views.

    The Israelis and the other Jewish organizations that want Professor Falk fired, view him as a “self-hating Jew” or one who dares to criticize Israel and their policies.

    Since the Secretary General of the United Nations has singled him out and publicly smeared him, this experienced gentle soul at 83 would make an excellent guest on your show.
    February 5, 2011 at 11:27 am

  29. Carolfrances Likins February 7, 2011 at 7:56 pm #

    I really enjoyed hearing you two nights ago here in L.A.

    I want to share with you and your readers my open letter to President Obama:

    Mr. President,

    I am asking Ms. Rice to step down. Her calling for Mr. Falk to step down for his 9/11 comments is embarrassing – the U.S. does not run the U.N. Basically, she’s angry that he uses his position of Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights to advocate for Palestinian human rights.

    The hypocrisy of Ms. Rice calling Mr. Falk biased! Her idea of being “unbiased” is your government occasionally scolding Israel for violating international law while continuing to give them billions of our tax money to continue doing so.

    If she pursues this, I know many of us will write to the U.N.

    • Richard Falk February 8, 2011 at 10:15 pm #

      Carol, thanks for this supportive initiative. It means a lot to enjoy your confidence to this extent.

  30. Carolfrances Likins February 7, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    I just sent this to Secretary Gen. Ban-Ki Moon:

    Mr. Secretary, Your attack on Mr. Falk, one of the few U.S. diplomats that I truly admire, was the first time I was ever disappointed in you – but I am deeply disappointed. Perhaps you are not aware what a large percentage of the world’s people agree with him, even New Yorkers, the directly hit population. A 2004 Zogby poll found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.” Please read this about the world opinion and consider publicly apologizing to Mr. Falk. Here in the U.S., we’re taught that people have the right to freedom of press, which means we have the right to express our opinion in our blogs. I hope that your attack on Mr. Falk does not have a chilling affect on that right. Perhaps you can explain how wanting to know the truth about 9/11 offends the sensitivities of those who lost their lives. As far as Secretary Rice, she is predisposed to attack Mr. Fisk for any excuse because he has the nerve to use his position as Special Rapporteur on the rights of Palestinians to advocate for the rights of Palestinians. Her idea of not being biased is to occasionally scold Israel for their regular violation of international law while her government continues to pay out billions of my people’s money to fund their continuing the violations. Please, I urge you, remedy this violation of Mr. Falk’s rights and of our right to know the truth.

  31. rik thomas February 9, 2011 at 6:50 am #

    dear mr. falk,
    i did three years of presentation and investigation into the official story of 911. in the end, all one has to do
    is look at the video of the fall of wtc7 building 7 hours
    after the initial attack on the towers. if one can view this video and not have any further questions – and i mean
    important questions- than any more discussion is not neccesary. god bless.

  32. Steve Miller February 9, 2011 at 7:17 am #

    Dear Sir,Thank you for your comment’s concerning 9/11.We see who the truth teller’s are and we see the liar’s.As someone born of Russian Jewish blood we also believe in the RIGHT’S of our brother’s in Palestine and we mourn deeply for the murder inflicted by the Zionist’s.Time will show all truths and your courage will be vindicated.
    In Peace,Steve

    • Richard Falk February 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm #

      Thanks, Steve, for this supportive comment. I believe that over time and through struggle
      there will be a just outcome for the Palestinians, at least I fervently hope so.

  33. Dave February 9, 2011 at 7:26 am #

    Thank you

  34. Jon Waratuke February 9, 2011 at 7:37 am #

    Thank you for standing strong. My prayers are for your success.

    I have a disk filled with information I have collected that I guarantee you will find of interest. Once you see the contents you will be aghast and in agreement.

    Do you have a P.O. box I could mail a copy to?

  35. rick February 9, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    Dear Mr. Falk.

    You have obviously touched a nerve with those who seek to prevent an investigation into 9/11. I say prevent an investigation and not a “re investigation” because there never has been an investigation into 9/11. This is because there is no such thing as an investigation without subpoena power, well perhaps for a jaywalking case but certainly not a capital mass murder case. It is completely ludicrous that the world has been asked to accept this. you are simply pointing this out.

  36. jay February 9, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    I’m really baffled to read an honest and unbiased opinion about 911 by such a high ranked UN official (or affiliated). I almost gave up hope to find anyone sincere at those levels..
    Thank you and keep up the good work!

    • Richard Falk February 9, 2011 at 5:29 pm #

      Thanks, for your encouragement. If we want a democracy, we have to act as citizens not subjects!

  37. John O'Neill February 9, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    Thank you Mr. Falk. You are indeed a great man as Saman Mohammadi stated in his Excavator article “Dark Side of Ban Ki-moon & UN as They Condemn Richard Falk for Views on 9/11” dated February 9, 2011.

    An interesting piece in the article quotes Susan Rice, our puke bag United States Ambassador to the United Nations as saying, “Mr. Falk endorses the slurs of conspiracy theorists who allege that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were perpetrated and then covered up by the U.S. government and media.”

    Oh really Ms. Rice? Oh really. Well, let’s talk about a few conspiracy facts of 9/11. There’s hundred’s if not thousands of them, but here is a little gem I always like to talk about.

    Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation under King George 43, testified before the 9/11 commission sometime during 2003 and he indicated there was a stand down order given by Cheney. He said he was at the east under ground bunker of the White House at approximately 9:20 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001. He said he witnessed an officer standing in the middle of the room. He continued on to testify that the officer kept Cheney informed about the plane that was headed towards the Pentagon. Beginning at 50 miles out, the officer notified Cheney “Sir, the plane is 50 miles out.” “Sir, the plane is 40 miles out.” Sir, the plane is 30 miles out.” “Sir, the plane is 20 miles out.” Sir, the plane is 10 miles out, does the order still stand.” According to Mineta, Cheney whipped around and said, “Of course! Have you’ve heard anything to the contrary?

    It gets better. Three months before 9/11, on June 1, 2001, a new policy was issued that provided for a “stand down” protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for hijacked and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the authority to shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military commanders to the President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense. Coincidence? Oh no! Oh no!

    It gets better. Rember when King George 43 and Dick Bag Cheney testified before the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors? Dick told the Commissioners that he didn’t arrive at the east bunker under the Whitehouse until a few minutes before 10:00 AM the morning of 9/11. Somebody is lying. It’s either Dicky or Norman. Who’s your pick? Who benefits? Always remember who benefits.

    It gets better. Sometime in 2008 or 2009, We are Change interviewed Mineta and he adamantly claimed that Dick Bag Cheney was indeed at the east bunker at approximately 9:20 AM on the morning of 9/11.

    Norman Mineta’s testimony is one good reason that the attacks of September 11, 2001 need to be investigated, because there never was a real investigation.

    Thank you Richard Falk. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

  38. Victoria John February 9, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    Dear Mr. Falk,

    I am writing to offer my sincere support to you for your brave stance speaking out in the manner that you did. The totally over the top reaction, out of all proportion to your restrained remarks, show most clearly that you have hit a nerve
    and ‘stirred the hornets nest’.

    “They referred to the views expressed there as ‘despicable and deeply offensive,’ ‘noxious, ‘inflammatory,’ and ‘preposterous'” (re:your blog post)

    However, they didn’t say that they were ‘untrue’, nor that they were ‘unsupported by credible forensic or scientific evidence’, both of which I and many others would say of the US government’s ‘smoke and mirrors’ efforts.

    Many brave academics or others with relevant expertise have officially independently stated that the official US government ‘story’ (and it is that), doesn’t stand up to rigorous scrutiny, and in fact in some cases would take a leap of pure imagination to be convincing in any meaningful way. I could write an essay explaining why, and there is enough evidence in the public domain to completely undermine any credibility or moral authority the US government attempts to maintain on this issue.

    I consider it very important that the contradictory evidence is assessed rationally, logically and unemotionally. Whether that will happen in my lifetime remains to be seen, but the current state of affairs is unresolved and deeply unsatisfactory, as you quite rightly have had the courage to point out.

    Wishing you all the very best,


    • Richard Falk February 9, 2011 at 5:24 pm #

      Thanks, Victoria. I really appreciated your thoughtful and generous message. I agree
      that the exaggerated reaction to my remarks seems to heighten rather than dampen
      suspicions about the validity of the official 9/11 narrative.

  39. Robert Hart February 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    I tip my hat to you, Prof. Falk, for your restrained response to those who choose to defame you then face the truth. As a proud petition signatory for Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth I don’t think I could be as restrained as yourself. In my view, the evidence screams out for a new, independent investigation. This investigation should be conducted by leading members of the various 911 Truth organizations and their hand selected legal consultants with full subpoena powers. If we have the government investigate the government then we’re bound to have the same result: lies, lies and more *%** lies! It’s like the IRS asking a business to audit itself, the major sporting leagues to monitor illegal steroid and performance enhancing drug use and asking the Obama Administration to investigate the Bush Administration (or the Bush Administration to investigate the Clinton Administration… et. al).

    • Richard Falk February 9, 2011 at 5:20 pm #

      Thanks for your supportive message. Actually, my knowledge of the 9/11 controversy is only sufficient to be confident that there exists a strong case for examining the unanswered questions of the skeptics, and until these are answered in a credible inquiry there will be no closure.

      • NeoAcario February 9, 2011 at 10:35 pm #

        Mr Falk,

        My name is Stephen Bastas and I have only just recently awoken to my own personal nightmare.

        I am a man of science whom has only recently overcome my emotional feelings with regards to the events of 9/11. At the time I was serving in the military and was privy to a live viewing of the events on television. I became quite scarred that day. It became a rallying cry for everyone in the military, in the country, and even around the globe.

        Just recently, I came across a video which most would dismiss as a “conspiracy theory” as soon as they read the title: 9/11: Blueprint for the Truth. Viewable here:

        I even sat there watching it as somewhat of a joke, waiting for the wild conspiracy to be expressed. Something completely unexpected happened: There was no conspiracy theory stated. This is a video made by a licensed engineer (and supported by almost 1500 other professionals in the field) that only covers the facts from the collapse of the buildings.

        Since watching, for the past few days, I’ve lost sleep, appetite and even friends. I’ve been doing every bit of research I can, and sharing videos and facts with anyone whom will listen. But, to be perfectly honest, the reason I’ve lost sleep and have even felt ill during all of this is because it feels so very pointless.

        I’ve even been toying with the idea of trying to address the UN myself… and then I noticed my own countries officials attacking you for even raising a question. A question which anyone of any education would raise: “When will a real investigation over the death of thousands take place?” It brings a true smile to my heart to see that someone in your position is actually aware of at least the possibility that something might actually be wrong in the official report we’ve all been forced to accept without question.

        The reason I sought to address the UN myself is quite simple: The US was not the only nation belonging to the UN to lose citizens that day. It honestly blows me away that all of the victimized nations of that horrible morning haven’t risen up and demanded an international and independent investigation. One that would answer ALL questions to the satisfaction of the scientific and professional people of this world.

        You have my complete and absolute support, sir. I know the chances are unlikely, but I truly hope you might do even the slightest bit of research on the events of that day yourself. It won’t even take you an hour to realize that the official story could not be further from the truth.


      • Richard Falk February 9, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

        I appreciate your comment, Steve, very much. Because of my UN focus on the Israel/Palestine conflict I cannot consider other issues at this time beyond expressing my strong conviction that we need a proper investigation of the 9/11 events. Your experience is very powerful witness for this need of inquiry.

  40. Chris Stuart February 9, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    Congratulations ! The UN’s feathers have been ruffled. Ban-Ki Moon is a NWO fraud. It’s about time for good people to stand up & speak out against tyranny… Now, if only we could get them to back off with the green agenda “global warming” carbon tax take-over fraud.
    We must prepare for the ice age & climate change REALITY…

  41. Paul February 9, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    IT is disturbing to the digestion of ones meal, this blatant lie upheld by the establishment… your voice for simple truth and reason is a single ray of sun illuminating a prison cell containing the minds of many people.

  42. Sadat February 10, 2011 at 2:14 am #

    You are a brave guy Richard. How can someone blame you given the fact that according to the members of 9/11 commission they didn’t had mandate to completely investigate the events that led to terrible incident.

    Scientific investigations by Richard Gage (Architect AIA) indicates that guys living in cave can’t do such kind of job. Please visit his website which is supported by more than 1400 professional Engineers & Architects:


  43. Writers Wanted February 10, 2011 at 1:51 pm #

    I like your transitions and clarity. I have been writing for Ghost Writers for a while now, and they pay me very well to write blog posts like this, or articles. I clear $100-$200 on a poor evening.
    Judging by your ability with written words, you may enjoy doing the same.
    It wouldnt hurt to check them out.Here are the details

  44. Darrick Lebaugh February 10, 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    Thank you so much for providing individuals with such a terrific chance to read in detail from this site. It really is so superb and as well , jam-packed with a great time for me and my office peers to visit your blog more than thrice per week to find out the fresh issues you will have. And indeed, I’m just at all times happy with the amazing things served by you. Selected 1 facts in this article are unquestionably the most efficient I have had.

  45. Emmitt Mcpheeters February 10, 2011 at 11:50 pm #

    I found your blog site on google and verify a couple of of your early posts. Continue to maintain up the superb operate. I simply additional up your RSS feed to my MSN Information Reader. Searching for ahead to reading extra from you afterward!…

  46. Victoria John February 11, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    Mr. Falk, I have posted this to the Blog Site of UN Watch. Feel free to reproduce my correspondence with you as you see fit. (I also have strong views on the Israel-Palestine situation, and will applaud anyone who is a rational voice for peace and humanity. These issues transcend politics, race and religion, which merely muddy the waters.

    Victoria John
    Feb 11th, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Dear Mr.Neuer,

    As a fully qualified architect I am bemused by these over the top reactions from the US ambassador to the UN, other Western political officials, and now the UN itself, whenever questions are raised about the official narrative surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

    It is insulting to vast numbers of academics and other highly qualified individuals, and to all others who can clearly see the highly erroneous and unsatisfactory nature of the current position in this regard. Labeling these individuals ‘conspiracy theorists’ is not a very intelligent way to address their concerns.

    In accordance with the values of ‘freedom and democracy’ we are apparently attempting to set as the gold standard for global citizenship, these reactions merely serve to raise more eyebrows.

    The considerable obfuscation; failure to address, or flat denial of the existence of credible conflicting scientific and forensic evidence simply undermines trust in the US government further,and no amount of hysterical over reaction to legitimate questions is going to reverse that process.

    We can only assume one of two things from this. A) Complete ignorance of the conflicting evidence independently gathered by scientists, physicists, pilots, military officers, architects and engineers etc not financed by the US federal Government, B) An awareness of these facts, and therefore an understanding that should a fully transparent independent investigation take place, the clearly fraudulent current version of events would be ‘officially’ revealed.

    I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your underhand tactics, and refrain from undermining the professional good standing of others who take a stance on this matter.

    Kind regards,

    Victoria John
    Architect, UK registered.

  47. Sebastian Semmens February 11, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    This is the correct weblog for anybody who needs to find out about this topic. You notice so much its virtually laborious to argue with you (not that I really would want…HaHa). You definitely put a brand new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just nice!

    • Richard Falk February 14, 2011 at 11:59 am #

      Thanks, Sebastian, I hope that my blogs will continue to please you!

  48. 2012 nfl jerseys December 25, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

    Does your site have a contact page? I’m having problems locating it but, I’d
    like to send you an email. I’ve got some ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great website and I look forward to seeing it grow over time.

    • Richard Falk December 25, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

      I would welcome constructive ideas about my blog. My email address is I look forward to hearing from you.

      Richard Falk

  49. accutane April 30, 2013 at 10:32 pm #

    Your write-up features established helpful to me.
    It’s quite helpful and you’re obviously quite knowledgeable in this field. You get popped my personal eye to be able to varying thoughts about this particular subject with interesting and reliable content.

  50. supplies business August 9, 2013 at 8:14 am #

    This design is wicked! You certainly know how to keep a reader amused.
    Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well,
    almost…HaHa!) Wonderful job. I really loved what you had to say,
    and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!

  51. Richard Falk January 30, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    Thanks for the clarifying material on the site.


  1. ONU e Israel Comecam o Linchamento do Oficial que Denunciou a Farsa do 11 de Setembro | Blog Anti Nova Ordem Mundial - January 27, 2011

    […] Falk Blog: Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance Richard Falk Blog: Supplemental Blog on Arizona Shootings Telegraph: UN human rights official claims 9/11 was US […]

  2. Tweets that mention Supplemental Blog on Arizona Shootings « -- - January 29, 2011

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dirk Adriaensens, Syd Walker. Syd Walker said: Ban Ki-moon should watch & apologize to Richard Falk for unwise, stupid remarks #UN #UNO #911truth […]

  3. In Support of Richard Falk « Norcaltruth - January 29, 2011

    […] has recently said this in response: I never endorsed doubts about the official version of 9/11 beyond indicating what anyone who has […]

  4. In Support of Richard Falk | - January 30, 2011

    […] was enough for Ban Ki Moon to weigh in and condemn Richard Falk for his 9/11 comments:Richard has recently said this in response:I never endorsed doubts about the official version of 9/11 beyond indicating what anyone who has […]

  5. Using WordPress - Wordpress Video Tutorials - February 2, 2011

    […] Supplemental Blog on Arizona Shootings « […]

  6. Top UN Officials Have Public Meltdown over Call for New 9/11 Investigation : Infowars Ireland - February 6, 2011

    […] a more recent blog post Falk said: “It is always more tempting to shoot the messenger than to heed the […]

  7. Dark Side of Ban Ki-moon & UN as They Condemn Richard Falk For Views on 9/11 » The Original N-D-N's Blog - February 9, 2011

    […] here to read Falk’s response to the attacks on his character by Ban Ki-moon and Susan Rice, and give […]

  8. Dark Side of Ban Ki-moon & UN as They Condemn Richard Falk For Views on 9/11 | OneWorldScam - February 9, 2011

    […] here to read Falk’s response to the attacks on his character by Ban Ki-moon and Susan Rice, and give […]

  9. Dark Side of Ban Ki-moon & UN as They Condemn Richard Falk For Views on 9/11 » The Original N-D-N's Blog2 - February 9, 2011

    […] here to read Falk’s response to the attacks on his character by Ban Ki-moon and Susan Rice, and give […]

  10. Richard Falk « Lal Qila - July 11, 2011

    […] 11 January, 2011 blog post, that was condemned by Ban Ki-moon and Susan Rice, and his 27 January, 2011 follow-up, responding to their criticism. LikeBe the first to like this […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: