Documents on the International Campaign for Real History

Quick navigation

Posted Saturday, July 31, 2004

Since a press item reveals that New Zealand's foreign minister Phil Goff has spoken out in favor of my entry, I do what Caesar did to all Gaul.

click for origin 


July 30, 2004 (Friday)
Key West, Florida

ROTTEN night, weirdest dreams yet, very exhausting. Phone rang at 3:53 a.m. (from "unknown"). Awake from 2 then 3 a.m., wandered into the Mosquito Room at 5:30 and slept two hours more there.

More from young author Oliver D., writing about Geoffrey Dawson and the prewar London Times, an excellent subject:

If I am honest I am finding it very difficult finding a publisher as they all think my idea is brilliant but does not fit in with their publication lists, I am considering going self-publishing.

More donations for the battle come in via the website; several from newcomers over the last few days, too.

Muddled news reports come in from New Zealand -- that the Immigration Service says they "can" ban my entry if they choose. Looks like another legal battle is shaping up.

The New Zealand Herald sends two emails, the first reporting that a "decision" has been made, according to a radio report, the second reading: "Cancel that, it appears the situation stays the same, the radio report I was referring did not really update the situation at all."

The situation is thus obscure. I suspect that was the cause of the 4 a.m. phone call too. I reply with a lengthy message beginning:

If NZ Immigration purport to exclude me solely on the grounds of the Canadian deportation (twelve years ago!) please take an hour of your life to study the entire dossier on that sordid episode:

I summarise it for her:

(a) Canadian Jewish bodies planted fake items about me earlier in 1992 on the Canadian Immigration computer, after I visited Canada safely fifty times without any problem since 1965. This was discovered by my Canadian solicitors who obtained the files under the Access to Information Act.

(b) I was arrested on Vancouver Island by the Mounties on October 28, 1992 after making a speech (on Freedom of Speech) and being given the George Orwell Award for Freedom of Speech. Deportation proceedings started. Since my following lecture tour was accordingly in ruins, I reached a deal the next day with the Canadian Immigration adjudicator in Vancouver BC for a "voluntary departure" notice, expiring 3000 miles away in Ontario at midnight, November 1, 1992. Such a notice was not a deportation, but would allow me to return at any time thereafter to Canada. Hence the benefit of the deal.

(c) An hour before the deadline, I drove across the Niagara Falls bridge into the USA. A certain Canada Immigration official (Harold Musetescu, who has since been sacked) had however phoned ahead asking US Immigration to return me to Canada on a pretext, for minor paperwork.

(d) I was sent back across the bridge to Canada. I was deemed not to have left Canada by the appointed hour, and -- after a three week trial -- deported. I.e. it was an ambush, a set-up. It shows the lengths people go to.

(e) Oddly, I had in fact, by chance, left Canada later on October 29 for a few hours, to visit Washington State, just over the US border. Thus I had complied with the order, as it turned out (phone Brian Fisher, whom I visited on the USA side -- he even drove me --, now living at Las Vegas [...] if you want to test my veracity; we even produced in court his phone billing to prove I was with him). But the Ontario immigration "judge" refused to accept that as true, as the timings we stated were three hours different than those shown by US border computers (and he even called me a liar!) - he evidently did not realise that US INS computer records are standardised on US East Coast time, three hours' different from Pacific Coast time.

Confused? So am I. The deportation shocked the Canadian press, who knew the facts, and there were angry editorials in their newspapers as it was quite clear what was going on. We appealed the decision, at vast expense to myself. After nearly a year the appeal was rejected without explanation by a Judge Rothstein. See the dossier. Comment is superfluous.

I conclude: "Please do not ask me for comment on any Immigration decision. Comment must come from New Zealanders, in this case."


NEXT week is going to be a thin week.

3:53 Radio New Zealand phones (I am sitting outside the Croissants de France café, drinking tea) for a recorded interview. They say that NZ Immigration "can ban" me. I say, "I am not going to comment on that." "But," I remark, "one thing appears to unify those who condemn me and those who support me -- none of them has read any of my books." She asks about the Holocaust denier label. I say, "I have never written a book or article, or made a film about the Holocaust; it is a mystery why the smear is attached to me." "So you deny you are a Holocaust denier?" -- Yes.

I say that I have been invited by the National Press Club to speak, and I shall "honour that invitation." I shall arrive at the appointed time. She presses: "So, the Jews have nothing to fear from you coming?" I reply with a snort. "On the contrary, the question is what I have to fear from them: everywhere that I have been, they have been the ones to use violence to stop me speaking."

Since a press item reveals that NZ's foreign minister Phil Goff has spoken out in favor of my entry, I do what Caesar did to all Gaul. This letter will go to him by Priority Mail with a copy of a collector's edition of my "Churchill's War", vol. ii: "Triumph in Adversity":

Churchill's War is a 35-year project: volume 1, which I had the privilege of promoting in six NZ cities in 1986; volume 2 in 2002; and volume 3 in 2005, for which purpose I have already arranged in writing to work in the NZ National Archives in Wellington on my forthcoming visit, to study the rather meagre papers of Peter Fraser.

Perhaps you would be good enough, having glanced at the enclosure, to lean on your feeble Cabinet colleagues in the Immigration Service, who seem to overlook that any "any British Passport holder with the right of abode in the UK is entitled to travel into New Zealand visa free for a stay of 6 months", and further remind them of the terms of your country's fine Bill of Rights, which defines:

Section 13: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference.

Section 14: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

You were good enough to be quoted in the media today (tomorrow actually, NZ time!) as saying that you did not believe I should be excluded from your country unless I had serious criminal convictions. In fact, I don't have any (unless you intend to allow Germany to decide which Britons can visit NZ or not -- a privilege most of us would consider she forfeited consequent on the events of 1939-1945).

SOMEBODY has sent me a copy of The 9/11 Commission Report, a few days ago. I take it down the street to "Michael's," the up-market "Chicago-style" restaurant which is always advertising on TV and Radio here, and order their $19.95 early bird special, which seems good value. By the time the little meal (of minuscule proportions) is consumed, I have devoured the first fifty pages of the Report.

It is brilliantly written, most unlike a Government report; the blunders of NORAD and the Federal Aviation Authority are laid grimly bare. NORAD's failings were compounded by their deliberate lies to the Commission recently, about how good they were that morning; and if NORAD can lie about that, I wonder what else they have told untruths over?

I cannot help sensing an aftertaste about this book. The taste of an Establishment whitewash. I have distorted and manipulated history myself, so I am told, so I know how these things are done: a little over-emphasis here, a little omission there. . .

First, I myself have been wrong on a number of points, it seems: the Commission is sure that none of the teams had a gun. My understanding is that there was a telephone call from the air to the ground reporting the shooting of the Israeli agent Daniel Lewin aboard United Airlines 93; the report finds he was stabbed. But that is just one of the phone calls that is not mentioned in this report, though it was widely reported in the next day's press.

Another phone call which maks no appearance in this report is the one made by a passenger in UA.93 in the skies over Pennsylvania to a dispatcher on the ground, from the rear of the plane: he describes that this is a hijacking, a hijacking, he is not joking; now there is an explosion and the cabin is filled with white smoke, and the call is cut off. This call too was widely reported in the press at the time; as later was the fact that the FBI had confiscated the tape. It is not mentioned in the Report.

Nor is the Cleveland Air Traffic Control Recording of a conversation with an American Airlines pilot to which I link on my website: the tape ends with the words of the American pilot, witnessing the demise of UA.93 from about ten miles away: "There appears to be a puff of black smoke." Not a column, or pillar, of smoke, but a puff. Was that pilot interviewed about what he had seen? If he was, the Commission is not telling us. They tell us instead about another plane, a National Guard C130-H cargo plane, which has seen "black smoke" -- and that conversation too confirms, "from the plane."


THE lesson is that for maximum comfort with this Report, we must forget all else we may have read about Sept. 11 and particularly about UA.93.

The omissions are one thing. The over-emphasis another. It appears to be on the actual time of impact of UA.93 in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. It is given to the second, as 10:03:11. Three minutes past ten, and eleven seconds.

There is none of this precision about the impact times of the other planes on the North and South Towers -- largely, perhaps, because of the thousands of eye-witnesses. But the Pennsylvania time is given to the second, which worries me: why was that necessary?

In order to establish that it crashed before the "Military Command Authority" -- i.e. the president and his staff -- authorized a shootdown of unresponsive airliners? Over the later time, the timing of the order, the Report displays a charming vagueness, although the order was firmed up in phone calls between Vice President Dick Cheney (in the White House shelter) and George Bush (in the air): now, surely such phone calls are logged, start and finish? Even if we are to believe (which I don't) that these calls are not taped, is there not usually an aide at an earpiece, taking notes?

The second thing I find, upon which again the obedient US press have not remarked, is that in a section of the Report temptingly called "United 93 and the Shootdown order," Cheney is actually recorded on page 43, as saying in a phone talk with Rumsfeld at 10:39 a.m., "…And it's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out." (Asked about this the next day on television, as I saw, Cheney said: "I am not aware" that any planes were shot down -- a curiously defensive, lawyerly kind of statement: as in, to the best of my knowledge and belief. . .)

The third piece of hard evidence which the Report omits concerns the impact time itself. On August 9, 2002, I posted an article which contained this passage:

"[Seismologists] Won-Young Kim and Gerald R. Baum were unable to definitively set the impact time of the Pentagon crash, but they were able to determine the time of Flight 93's impact to within 5 seconds (10:06:05 ±5, EDT)"

That is three full minutes later than the Report claims. The seismologists determined this using seismic data -- which again is missing from the Report; which is startling, because the same seismic data also showed a mystery plane making a supersonic boom over Pennsylvania at 9:22 a.m. -- a plane which is totally excluded by the NORAD version of events.

The three-minute discrepancy seems crucial for a number of reasons: one is that the cockpit tape recording of those three minutes has not been released.

I am told that there have been reports on the Web about a fighter pilot in a National Guard unit based in South Dakota having admitted taking down UA.93. He is even named.

Other rumours, for instance about the "gun", are squarely addressed by the Report. This one is not -- just the over-detailed fudging of the impact time by three minutes; and the Report makes no mention of one of the airliner's engines being found two miles from the crash site (and bodies being found scattered over a relatively wide area, hanging in trees etc: I have invited the Somerset County coroner to talk about this at Cincinnati, but so far he has not responded).

FOOD for thought indeed. The waitress at "Michael's" comes with the bill: steeper than expected, $32 -- but then she has charged $9 for a small glass of house red. I put my last fifty-dollar bill on the table. She returns with eight dollars change. Short-changed by ten dollars. I leave the cash untouched, and call over the supervisor to count it. I remark that such errors are never made in the customer's favour, invariably the restaurant's, which is statistically improbable.

"I don't usually do that --," sniffs the waitress, pouting.

"-- And I don't usually leave only a quarter as a tip," I reply, doing so. "I may be English, but I object to be taken for a sucker." A pity, the food was excellent -- but the waitress a crook.

Or her math is not up to it. She should have been on the 9/11 Commission, perhaps.

 [Previous Radical's Diary]


© Focal Point 2004 F DISmall David Irving