Cordoba House - A Possible Exchange

Move the location of building in exchange for new 9/11 investigation

The intention with which I write this letter is as a friend - although I realize that you may not consider me to be a friend. After all, I have been publically critical of Feisal's book: What's Right With Islam (e.g., in my: Unveiling Terrorism, Fundamentalism and Spiritual Abuse). However, if friends can't be honest with one another, then, I'm not really sure what friendship means.

Moreover, we previously have sat down face-to-face on a number of occasions to break bread and discuss issues of importance. I may not always have said what you liked or stated that with which you agreed, but I have always interacted with you both in a sincere fashion.

I once asked you, Daisy, to look in on a friend and her two children because I was concerned about their physical and spiritual welfare given that they seemed to be inextricably entangled with a fraudulent Sufi teacher. I asked you to do this because, among other reasons, you were relatively proximate to, and a friend of, the family in question while I was living more than ten hours travel-time away from them, and because -- for reasons about which you were cognizant -- a phone call from me might not have been well received.

You expressed mystification about what I believed you could do concerning those three individuals, and I said: "Be a Friend. In response you said during our phone conversation that you were planning to meet with the mother in the near future, and you indicated to me you would try to gauge what was going on. I assume this was done - I have to assume this since I never heard back from you on the matter.

I also have tried to get in touch with Feisal on several occasions -- both by e-mail and phone. On one of these occasions, I spoke with you and asked you to pass on a message to Feisal that I wanted to talk with him about an issue of some importance to me.

Once again, I never heard back. So, I have to assume that neither of you consider me to be a friend despite our past relatively, friendly interactions. I can't do anything about your side of the situation. All I can try to do is look after my own spiritual condition.

I have never written either of you off. I did not do this despite my disappointment in some of the things you were saying and doing -- such as Feisal's support for the fatwa which tried to justify Muslims killing other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan -- a fatwa that Feisal sent to the New York Times encouraging them to publish it and which was included in Feisal's book (What's Right With Islam) and a position which I criticized in my aforementioned book.

On the other hand, you both have been giving me some fairly clear signals for quite some time that you did not wish to have anything to do with me. Consequently, I consider our relationship to be one of estrangement - that is, something which is, in a sense, still open, in however a tenuous manner, but fraught with tension of one kind or another, and, something that might never get resolved.

In any case, despite the turbulent waters that have flowed beneath the existential bridge so elusively connecting us, I am currently writing to you both as a friend. Moreover, what I have to say now is from nowhere but my heart and soul with a deep concern for your spiritual welfare, as well as the welfare of all Americans, and people throughout the world.

You, Feisal, have been criticized by, among others, Newt Gingrich for claiming that the United States was, in a sense, partially responsible, for what happened on 9/11. Your position is the 'blowback' theory championed by a variety of people - including Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Amy Goodman, and Howard Zinn - that through the oppressive and destructive policies conducted by the United States government in relation to many Muslim countries over the last six decades (starting, perhaps, with the CIA's over-throw of the legally elected Mossadegh's government in Iran in 1953), the United States incited various elements in the Muslim world to get revenge against the United States -- revenge which allegedly came home to roost on 9/11.

You blowback position is in need of revision, for it is inconsistent with the actual facts of 9/11. You should revise your understanding in the light of testimony from, among others: Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh, Mike Ruppert, Barry Jennings, David Chandler, William Rodriquez, Richard Grove, Robin Wright, Colleen Rowley, April Gallop, David Schippers, Pierre Henry-Brunel, Judy Wood, Kevin Ryan, A.K. Dewdney, Steven Jones, Anthony Shaffer, Richard Gage, William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks (both of whom are Pentagon Police Officers), as well as hundreds of architects, engineers, scientists, pilots (both commercial and military), fire-fighters (including the first responders whose testimony was finally released under a Freedom of Information suit by the New York Times against the City of New York), ex-CIA officers, and workers at both Arlington Cemetery and the Naval Annex who have come forth with evidence that collectively demonstrates that the "official" conspiracy theory concerning 9/11 cannot withstand critical scrutiny - in other words, that what is alleged to have happened, among other places, at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon did not occur in the way that has been claimed in: The 9/11 Commission Report; the various NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) reports concerning the Twin Towers and Building 7; or, the Pentagon Performance Report.

John Farmer who headed up one of the 9/11 Commission research teams has indicated that there were many dynamics taking place behind the scenes of the Commission that ensured Philip Zelikow -- a person with deep ties and conflict of interests concerning the Bush Administration, conflicts of interest about which he remained silent when he was being interviewed for the position of: 'Director of the 9/11 Commission' -- had complete control over what did and did not see the light of day during the investigation. Not only is there evidence to indicate that Zelikow had already written a first draft of the Commission's Report prior to any witnesses being deposed, but there is overwhelming evidence to indicate that Zelikow actively sought to exclude important testimony from the process by preventing many, if not all, of the testimony from the foregoing listed names to be properly considered or openly discussed through the 9/11 Commission process. I believe you are honorable people who are seeking to do good as best you currently are able to understand what that might mean and involve. I believe your Cordoba initiative is done with such an intention.

I do not believe you are willfully holding an opinion concerning the events of 9/11 that is contrary to the facts. Rather, I believe you hold the opinion you do because you are ignorant of the actual facts -- because you have not had the time or taken the time to do due diligence with respect to conducting rigorous research concerning 9/11.

I believe your situation in relation to 9/11 is that of many Americans and even that of many people in the media. I do not believe any of you are part of some vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11.

I believe you have made the same mistake that many people have committed in this matter. You have let other people provide you with many of your opinions and ideas about 9/11 without bothering to properly verify or vet those sources.

Based solely on your public statements (such as, among other places, your book: What's Right With Islam), I know that you have not carefully, if at all, gone through The 9/11 Commission Report, The FEMA Report, the NIST reports, or the Pentagon Performance Report. I know with even more certainty that you have not taken the time to listen to the testimony of read the testimony of most, if not all, of the witnesses who I mentioned earlier.

I know this because if you had done such due diligence, you would have come to a much different conclusion than you have concerning the events of 9/11. I know this because you have had a good education and, at one point in your life, were heading toward a career in science and, therefore, are capable of looking at empirical data or experimental results and, then, being able to critically analyze such material in order to evaluate its credibility and viability. I know this because I have had discussions with you previously about technical issues.

The problem, however, is that you really have not looked at the actual data and facts concerning 9/11. Indeed, as indicated, your problem is that of many individuals in America -- individuals of good will and decency -- who have accepted, without much critical investigation of their own, what other people have had to say about 9/11 -- people who had positions of responsibility concerning the investigation of 9/11 but, unfortunately, betrayed the American people instead.

I don't know what the motives of such people were. I am not interested in speculating about them.

What I do know is that they got pretty much everything wrong. They committed egregious errors of both commission and omission during their inquiries into such things as the collapse of the Twin Towers, the collapse of Building 7, the devastation at the Pentagon, and the jet crash in the field in Pennsylvania.