Is Malkin a 9-11 Truther?

I was hoping we were done with this… but people are still talking about it.

Instead of debating Ron Paul on the issues - such as the role our failed foreign policy played in creating the conditions for 9-11 - some would prefer to attack Paul using guilt by (distant) association and innuendo. And the main attack dog on this issue is Michelle Malkin. So here’s an idea, let’s take a look at Michelle’s writings and see if she is a truther.

In March 2002 Malkin wrote a column raising some questions about 9-11. In it she seems to claim that we were lied to and that Flight 93 was actually shot down by an American F-16:

What really happened on United Airlines Flight 93? As the Philadelphia Daily News reported back in November, many folks in Shanksville, Pa., where the hijacked Boeing 757 crashed, believe the plane was shot down. Eyewitnesses reported seeing a small, unmarked jet flying overhead immediately after impact; others are convinced they heard the piercing sound of a missile. A federal flight controller told The Telegraph of Nashua, N.H., that an F-16 had indeed been in “hot pursuit” of Flight 93 until it hit the ground. One of the 911calls from a passenger on the flight indicated that there was an explosion aboard the plane. The FBI immediately confiscated the tape.

The eight-mile-wide debris field seems to bolster claims of an on-board explosion. So did the discovery of a one-ton chunk of the plane’s engine far from the rest of the crash site - which some say points to evidence that a heat-seeking missile targeted the flight. Then there’s the eight-minute gap from the time all cell phone calls from the plane ceased and the time it crashed.

Although both the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered, not a single scrap about what was on the black boxes has been officially released. This despite the government’s otherwise routine release of such information. (Recall that after American Airlines Flight 587 crashed in New York last November, the feds released detailed information from one of the black boxes within less than two days.)

The feds insist on keeping all the Flight 11 data secret because disclosing such information might “interfere with enforcement proceedings.” Against whom? All the hijack culprits are dead.

[My emphasis added.]

She then goes on to claim a cover-up on Flight 11:

What really happened on American Airlines Flight 11? Did one of the hijackers have a gun on board? Was it planted before the flight took off, or was it smuggled on? Either way, shouldn’t someone be held accountable if such an egregious security breach did in fact take place? Investigative reporter Paul Sperry, formerly of Investor’s Business Daily and now with, scooped the mainstream press by exposing a high-level, internal report from the Federal Aviation Administration. It detailed the alleged shooting of Flight 11 passenger Daniel Lewin by hijacker Satam Al Suqami.

According to the document, which was later obtained by the Washington Post, USA Today, and others, an onboard flight attendant reported in a phone call that “one bullet was reported to have been fired” during the flight, killing Lewin before the plane crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. FAA officials dismissed the leaked memo as a draft and claimed that the very specific report of gunfire - including the names of the victim, shooter, and their precise seat numbers — was an editing error.

Just a typo, huh?

And finally she alludes to a government cover-up in the murder of Katherine Smith:

Who murdered Katherine Smith, and why? Smith was the Tennessee state license examiner who had been implicated last month in a phony ID scam involving a group of shady Middle Eastern men from New York City. Investigators say there are “connections” between the ring and the Sept. 11 terrorists; one of them had a repair pass in his possession that gave him access to the lower levels of the World Trade Center basement. It was dated Sept. 5.

A day before Smith was to appear in court over the matter, she died in a bizarre and fiery crash inside a car registered to one of her Middle Eastern co-defendants. Smith was burned beyond recognition; her arms and legs disintegrated in the flames. Yet, her car was traveling barely over 20 mph when it hit a utility pole and damage to the vehicle was minimal. This week, the Tennessee Highway Patrol concluded definitively that her “death was not the result of the crash itself. Her death was by other means.” Is this the vengeful work of al Qaeda killers still on the loose?

Now all that doesn’t mean that Malkin thinks that 9-11 was an inside job, but it does mean that she has questions about the official account and doesn’t automatically trust the government’s investigation.

Which is funny, because that is exactly what she smeared Paul for saying: “Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation…” when asked by some truthers about the government’s official investigation.

So my conclusion is that neither Paul nor Malkin believes 9-11 was a government conspiracy. But…

Given that Malkin has claimed there were multiple cover-ups by the government following 9-11, while Paul simply doesn’t automatically believe everything the government tells him, is it not fair to say that Malkin is miles closer than Paul to the cliff of 9-11 thrutheriness?

Now can debate something important? Like foreign policy or the Constitution. Please. Or do Republicans not debate those things anymore?

7 Responses to “Is Malkin a 9-11 Truther?”

  1. Darryl Mason Says:

    Michelle Malkin is clearly trying to smear Ron Paul in any way she can. She lied on Fox News about what he did and didn’t say during the first Republican debate, and her vague apology on her blog for this total distortion only contains more allegations of supposed “trutherism”.

    Good to see the GOP completely dismissed her disgusting attempt to have Ron Paul banned from future Republican debates.

    That Malkin would even suggest Paul be banned in this way for referencing the CIA and 9/11 Commission Report’s findings for why America was attacked on 9/11 says a lot about her grasp on reality, and what freedom of speech actually means.

    That Malkin column from March 2002 was featured and discussed prominently on so of the first “9/11 Truther” websites and discussion boards. So she actually helped to kick the whole thing off. She was swimming in the dark pool of conspiracy theories in 2002. In 2007, Ron Paul was merely stating the CIA’s conclusion and (earlier) pointing out the fact that tens of millions of Americans still have very important questions they feel remain unanswered about what happened in the months leading up to 9/11, and the events of the day.

    Since when it is a crime, or something to be ashamed of, to question the veracity of your own government and wish to hold them to account?

  2. Miles Berkedge Says:

    Did you see who they caught in the Dix terror attempt? Albanians.
    When Clinton was bombing the Serbs, Giuliani corralled a bunch of
    Albanians to protest at midnight resurrection services outside of
    the Manhattan Serb Cathedral. TO their credit, even the Albanians were reluctant. What you get is the politicians who won’t tow the Vatican line on one issue have to toe it even more on other issues to make up for it. Giuliani was tied into the muslims because Saladjic lived near Molinari. But McCain had the soldiers write “Happy Easter” on the bombs. THe Catholics love the muslims, because they vote like them and hate democracy, commerce and Jews.
    This is why 9/11 was definitely Rudy’s Yugo Blow Back.

  3. Larry Gwaltney Says:

    Pretty dishonest “summation” of Malkin’s remarks, to try to imply that what she said in 2002 was “closer” to “9/11 trutherism” than the ridiculous remarks of Ron Paul (who, keep in mind, made his supportive remarks on camera to a 9/11 “truther.”

    Completely different context (and a bad one) than someone who was clearly NOT thinking of 9/11 as an “inside job.”

  4. Dev Vaz Says:

    Dr. Ron Paul possesses integrity, consistency, and the intellectual honesty that makes him the only worthy candidate for president in 2008. It is outrageous to me that all the republican candidates, except Dr. Paul, endorsed a preemptive strike against Iran with nuclear weapons, if felt necessary. They represent an extension of the Bush-Cheney war mongering and continue to defend a colossal mistake. Furthermore they seem to want to escalate the conflict. Dr. Paul’s staunch opposition to this stance and his compelling arguments against such flawed foreign policy and his profound insight into the reasons for the proliferation of terrorism make him the ideal person to fight the ‘ War on Terror’. He is truly the defender of the constitution and a patriot and is the only individual who can reverse the downward spiral of this great nation. It is therefore not surprising that so many Americans stand behind him and will prove that we still have a democracy and power does not rest with corrupt politicians and the corporations that finance them.

  5. Katharinevv Says:

    favorited this one, guy

  6. tanie kompresory śrubowe Says:

    The post you wrote is very interesting.

  7. amway review Says:

    My business is not sure the spot you might be helping your facts, yet excellent subject matter. I have to devote more time to discovering far more or perhaps finding out additional. Appreciation for superb facts I became trying to find this data in my objective.

Leave a Reply