How to Spy the 9/11 Lie

Spy-the-Lie-2785550A recent book written by veteran CIA officers describes how deception can be identified by simple observational techniques. In Spy the Lie: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Detect Deception, authors Philip Houston, Michael Floyd, and Susan Carnicero outline a number of verbal and visual behavioral clues that are demonstrated by people who lie in response to questioning. These proven techniques for recognizing deception can be easily applied to see that U.S. leaders have lied repeatedly about the attacks of 9/11.

The authors make clear that there are two important guidelines to employ when analyzing these verbal and visual clues. First, timing is important. Due to the fact that people think ten times faster than they speak, the behaviors are more important when the first one occurs within five seconds of the question. Secondly, when the behavioral clues occur in groups of two or more, called clusters, they are more indicative of deception on the part of the person being questioned. The more clues exhibited, the more clear the deception becomes.

Let’s take a look at some examples.

In a December 15, 2001 press conference, President George W. Bush was asked an unexpected question about 9/11. In a remarkably delayed response, Bush exhibited both a verbal clue for deception, the failure to answer, and a visual clue called an anchor-point movement. The latter is when the anxiety raised by the question causes the person questioned to shift his body to relieve physical instability. As Bush replied, he shook his head, moved his hands, and seemed to be shuffling his feet uncomfortably.

Reporter: Do you agree or disagree with the RNC that [a question of your advanced knowledge of 9/11] borders on political hate speech?

Bush: Uh, yeah, there’s time for politics and, uh, you know… time for politics and, uh… I, uh, it’s an absurd insinuation.”

If the reporter had been a CIA interrogator, like any of the three authors of the book, this response would have raised an immediate red flag that the issue needed further examination.

In April 2004, Bush was asked a question about why he could only meet with the 9/11 Commission if Vice President Cheney was with him. He responded in a stuttering, repetitive fashion that demonstrated the “failure to answer” clue as well as something called non-specific denial, in which the question is refuted with unrelated verbiage. As Bush repeated his diversionary answer, he also smiled—another indication of deception when dealing with any serious subject matter.

Reporter: “Why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 Commission?”

Bush: “Because the 9/11 Commission wants to ask us questions. That’s why we’re meeting and I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.”

Reporter: “My question was why are you appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request?”

Bush: “Because it’s a good chance for both of us to answer questions, that the 9/11 Commission is, uh, looking forward to asking us, and I’m looking forward to answering them.”

Not long after Bush and Cheney finally agreed to their unrecorded, secretive interview with 9/11 commission members, Bush’s national security advisor Condoleezza Rice gave testimony under oath. In that testimony, she demonstrated at least six of the CIA’s verbal clues to deception including isolated denial, selective memory, an overly specific answer, and a process or procedural response. Rice was also seen going into attack mode, responding to Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste with, “I believe you had access,” and using inconsistent statements. She said that a presidential brief was titled “Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S.” and yet also that no warnings of strikes inside the U.S. were received.

In addition to these highly deceptive behaviors, Rice gave a huge hint in her testimony that exemplifies something the book calls the “truth in the lie.” When Ben-Veniste asked her about Al Qaeda cells in the United States. She said,

Rice: “I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don’t remember the Al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.”

This extended answer suggested that the White House knew about Al Qaeda cells operating in the United States but that Rice and others were expected to do nothing about them. Ben-Veniste did not pursue the question further. This is not surprising given other lines of questioning in which Ben-Veniste engaged. Here’s an example with General Michael Canavan, who was supposed to be the “hijack coordinator” on 9/11—the one person most responsible for preventing, and initially responding to, the hijackings.

Ben-Vensite: What is your understanding of the first time FAA notified NORAD of the fact that this was a possible hijack or that it had deviated from course, or that there was some anomaly about Flight 77 in the context of everything else that was going on that day?

Canavan: Here’s my answer—and it’s not to duck the question. Number one, I was visiting the airport in San Juan that day when this happened. That was a CADEX airport, and I was down there also to remove someone down there that was in a key position. So when 9/11 happened, that’s where I was. I was able to get back to Washington that evening on a special flight from the Army back from San Juan, back to Washington. So everything that transpired that day in terms of times, I have to—and I have no information on that now, because when I got back we weren’t—that wasn’t the issue at the time. We were— when I got back it was, What are we going to do over the next 48 hours to strengthen what just happened?

Although video is not available for Canavan’s testimony, it’s clear that he was using deceptive verbal behaviors. He failed to answer the actual question, he engaged in perception qualifiers and an overly specific response, and he gave non-answer statements. Because Ben-Veniste immediately dropped the question it is unknown, to this day, who was serving in the critical role of hijack coordinator on 9/11.

There are many more examples of deceptive answers from U.S. leaders regarding 9/11. When asked why an outline was created for the 9/11 Commission Report before the investigation began, Chairman Thomas Kean immediately ran away and went into attack mode. When asked about the CIA’s tracking of two of the alleged hijackers, CIA director George Tenet, who was undoubtedly trained in detecting deception, demonstrated many of the CIA’s clues that he was being deceptive.

One more example is instructive. This involves John Gross, who was the author of both the most critical FEMA World Trade Center (WTC) report and the most critical WTC report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. When asked a question during a presentation he was giving, Gross responded with multiple behaviors that the CIA would find deceptive.

Questioner: “I’m curious about the pools of molten steel that were found in the bottom of the towers.”

Gross (Anchor-point movements, non-answer statement, going into attack mode): “I am, I am too…. tell me about it. Have you seen it?

Questioner: “Well, not personally but eyewitnesses there found huge pools of molten steel beneath the towers and, uh, scientists, some scientists, think that the collapse of the buildings could [sic] have melted all that steel. And a physics professor, Steven Jones, found evidence of a thermite residue, which would explain how the buildings collapsed by means of pre-planted explosives. So have you analyzed the steel for any of those residues?

Gross (Reluctance to answer, Anchor-point movements): “First of all, let’s go back to your basic premise that there was, uh, a pool of molten steel. Um, I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses, who have said so, nobody has produced it. I was on the site, I was on the steelyards, so I can’t, I don’t know that that’s so.”

When further questioned about the collapse of WTC Building 7, Gross made inconsistent statements and engaged in hand-to-face activity, another two of the deceptive behaviors noted by the CIA. This is not surprising to people who have studied events at the WTC, however, because Gross would have needed to be grossly negligent in his observance of evidence to have not known about the molten metal at the WTC site.

As seen above, the 9/11 Commission hearings and other statements by 9/11 investigation leaders provide a treasure trove of opportunities for people to practice detecting deception. Of course, the 9/11 Commission Report demonstrates many of the same clues for deception that CIA officers would highlight. Its lies of omission are many and its reliance on deceptive language like “we found no evidence” is another clue.

Interestingly, the authors of Spy the Lie introduce their book by recalling the 9/11 attacks in a way that suggests that their deception-identifying skills are needed to avoid such tragedies. Yet these three experts on deception don’t question the official narrative of 9/11 at all and apparently have never seen any evidence for deception in that narrative or its origins. This fact may be the result of extreme bias—with the CIA officers unable to question their own agency. Or maybe it exemplifies a high level of self-deception, perhaps suggesting a sequel to the book.

In any case, the official account of 9/11 continues to provide a most powerful way to see just how much people deceive each other and themselves. When it comes to 9/11, experts on scientific fraud can’t see the most glaring example, journalists can’t see the most obvious examples of negligent reporting, and the CIA’s most skilled detectors of deception can’t see when they are deceived. Since many of us can see these things, we should work harder to reveal the truth because deception is at the root of many of the world’s problems.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • cstahnke

    I’m not an expert at detecting deception but I have developed the habit of watching officials with the sound off–usually the never say anything helpful and are always lying. Verbal truth, in general, is a thing of the past and we need to start looking more on body language, including gestures, facial expressions. One way I found useful was to mimic the expression and body language and mannerisms of others and see how it feels–I’ve found that this results in very quickly bringing up very interesting feelings.

    Now in terms of language use we tend to notice it more when we have it written down as you have above. When we actually listen to someone we take in his/her whole demeanor their authoritativeness (even major league cynics like myself are overly impressed by rank) their gestures are often made to distract us and and misdirect us so if we see the words written down or are able to focus only on the gestures we can get to the truth far easier. People who are experts at deception (nearly all people in authority) get very good at it.

  • jadan

    “…..deception is at the root of many of the world’s problems.” Had to laugh, as though I were reading an essay by a college freshman in the first stages of adulthood.

  • Jackson

    Apparently another way professionals determine if someone is lying is to observe the action of the pupils of the eyes. The pupils will dilate if someone is lying.

  • ClubToTheHead

    I find a sure sign that these degenerates are lying is that in looking closely at their mouths one can detect visible lip movement.

  • “These proven techniques for recognizing deception…”

    Can we see that proof? Data please.

    Science has been trying for 200 years to come up with a method to spot lying and has not succeeded.

    it won’t anytime soon because lying is subjective in most instances.

  • I have a very important recommendation and that is simply read allot of books. Like this one for starters and the ones offered here through Global Research!

    US history – “How Jimmy Carter I Started the Mujahideen” – Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor 1977-1981 (Jan.1998)

    “Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a13_1240427874

    Zbigniew Brzezinski Taliban Pakistan Afghanistan pep talk 1979
    Trustee, Trilateral Commission; Director (1973-1976)

    Director, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (1972 to 1977)

    In 1979 Carters National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski went into Pakistans border regions with Afghanistan to give a little pep talk to some prospective majehadeen (Holy Warriors).

    In a 1997 interview for CNN’s Cold War Series, Brzezinski hinted about the Carter Administration’s proactive Afghanistan policy before the Soviet invasion in 1979, that he had conceived.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA-5T2l54_8

  • “Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the most realistic of all foreign policy commentators. He is a model of integrity in analysis, his book provides an honest appraisal of the extreme danger that U.S. hegemonic neoconservatism poses to life on earth. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury “The Globalization of War” comprises war on two fronts: those countries that can either be “bought” or destabilized.

    https://store.globalresearch.ca/store/the-globalization-of-war-americas-long-war-against-humanity/

  • Sep 11, 2013 9/11 In A Nutshell

    James Corbett presents this 5 minute parody of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11.

    https://youtu.be/vrJiKbK0tVM

  • August 05, 2014 The Walls Are Crumbling Down Around 9/11 – Why?

    An absolutely monumental shift is in process that most have not recognized yet. The truth, or at least some truth, is about to be shown to the American masses about 9/11. I say American masses because everywhere I’ve gone in the world outside of the US, with few exceptions, almost everyone knows that the US government conspiracy theory on 9/11 is for people with tinfoil hats that are either completely zombified or are under mass hypnosis.

    http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35537/Jeffrey-Berwick-The-Walls-Are-Crumbling-Down-Around-911-Why/

  • Latest Richard Gage interview: https://youtu.be/cHakJbuxyh4?t=1h11m59s

    • Bev

      Richard Gage and AE911Truth’s brand new 50-page booklet, Beyond Misinformation: What
      Science Says About the Destruction of the World Trade Center Buildings
      1, 2, and 7 and their efforts to reach influential leaders (which I think washingtonsblog is)…pass it along:
      http://www.ae911truth.org/news/234-news-media-events-reaching-opinion-makers.html

      Reaching Opinion Makers with 9/11 Evidence
      “Now they can no longer claim ignorance of the evidence or turn a blind eye to the crime of the century, which is a cover-up of the fact that these buildings were brought down in controlled demolitions that day.” — Andrew Steele

      quoting from below: “The editorial staff at The New York Times (minus sports and arts writers) received copies. Any Times reporters or editors who read the booklet in September or in the first week of October did so under the shadow of the huge AE911Truth billboard that sat for an entire month right across the street from their building.

      Other media members receiving Beyond Misinformation included Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez at Democracy Now!, the staff of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC and of
      the Anderson Cooper 360 show on CNN, plus the entire staff of, respectively, Al-Jazeera America, The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel, and PBS in New York City. Of course, not to be forgotten were the producer and hosts of C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, which had
      AE911Truth’s Richard Gage as a guest last year.”

      ‘Beyond Misinformation’ mailed to 20,000 professionals, professors, legislators, journalists
      By Craig McKee
      A tremendous amount of research went into the creation of AE911Truth’s brand new 50-page booklet, Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of the World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. But getting 20,000 copies of the booklet into the right hands turned out to be almost as challenging.

      AE911Truth operations manager Andy Steele and volunteers Josh Ewing and Chris Kendall, who were responsible for building the distribution list for the mailing, had to be really creative as they went about finding contact information for the most influential people in government, media, academia, and professional associations and firms.

      “These are the opinion makers and the news makers in their fields,” Steele points out. “Now they can no longer claim ignorance of the evidence or turn a blind eye to the crime of the century, which is a cover-up of the fact that three buildings were brought down in controlled demolitions that day.”

      A particular challenge for Steele et al. was getting the booklet to the individuals who worked on the 9/11 official reports published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ewing used LinkedIn profiles and anything else he could find to track them down to the places where they work now. After many hours of searching, he located more than 250 current or former NIST and FEMA employees or contractors.

      Officers of the American Institute of Architects received booklets that were sent to each of the
      300 local AIA chapters in the US.

      Researching the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) proved especially daunting, since each member had to be reached individually, as no chapter addresses were available. An 80-page PDF booklet did contain all the necessary addresses — but lumped into one big paragraph and organized alphabetically by state. So the contact information had to be meticulously copied, then pasted into Notebook, then turned into spread sheets. Steele pulled an all-nighter in order to complete this arduous task.

      “It was well worth it, given that we added 2,000 names and addresses that night.”

      Like Ewing, he also used LinkedIn to find many of the ASCE national board and committee members.

      Steele says he found a list of the top 25 engineering colleges in the U.S. and through their websites was able to make a list of faculty members from the structural, chemical, mechanical, and civil engineering disciplines to whom the booklet could be sent. Among these schools were such prestigious institutions as MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Penn State, Johns Hopkins, and UCLA.

      One donor to the Beyond Misinformation project asked that an outreach effort be made to every member of Congress and every state governor. This was relatively easy to do with addresses gleaned from government websites. It was also simple to find contact information for the presidents of hundreds of architectural and engineering firms as well as for each of the 51 members of the New York City Council.

      The editorial staff at The New York Times (minus sports and arts writers) received copies. Any Times reporters or editors who read the booklet in September or in the first week of October did so under the shadow of the huge AE911Truth billboard that sat for an entire month right across the street from their building.

      Other media members receiving Beyond Misinformation included Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez at Democracy Now!, the staff of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC and of the Anderson Cooper 360 show on CNN, plus the entire staff of, respectively, Al-Jazeera America, The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel, and PBS in New York City. Of course, not to be forgotten were the producer and hosts of C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, which had AE911Truth’s Richard Gage as a guest last year.

      Steele says it’s vital for AE911Truth supporters around the US to pick up where he, Ewing, and
      Kendall left off — by putting the booklet into the hands of as many professionals and other decision makers as they can.

      “It’s important to make friction wherever you can by talking about this evidence and spreading it far and wide.”

      He says he believes the compilation of this massive mailing list highlights how much AE911Truth
      needs volunteers to get the essential work done. To Steele, the people working behind the scenes are just as important to the success of an effort of this magnitude as are those who make speeches on behalf of 9/11 Truth and present the controlled demolition evidence.

      “Activism is not just handing out flyers and talking on street corners, it’s the nitty-gritty work that
      needs to get done to keep this machine moving,” Steele emphasizes. “We need as much help as we can get.”

      Craig McKee is a journalist and the creator of the blog Truth and Shadows.

      ………..

      Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, includes Story Ideas at site. Send her and others a&e911truth’s important message:

      http://www.democracynow.org/contact
      Contact Democracy Now!
      Mail Us:
      Democracy Now!
      207 W. 25th St., Floor 11
      New York, NY 10001

      E-mail Us:
      Use the form to the left (go to site)

      Call Us:
      +1 (212) 431-9090

      Fax Us:
      +1 (212) 431-8858

      Send us a message