Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: New Independent 9-11 Video or How did the Whole
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > 9/11: Theories, etc.
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
Magmak1
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jul 17 2006, 10:31 AM)
When the guy saw the Pentagon it was too late to hit from where he was, so he had to circle back.  "Military style precision hit?"
*



There is a presumption here that has to be challenged.

I'm not attempting to answer for G4A, and I've never ventured too far into the questions about the Pentagon because the stream of "information" is too muddied with speculation, misinformation, disinformation, etc for me to make a coherent judgment at this time.

But you are presuming that indeed Hani Hanjour was the pilot, and that the thing that hit the Pentagon was a commercial aircraft, and that that commercial aircraft was piloted by a human. Again, I'm not offering up either a theory or "proof" about anything... just pointing out that there's been a lot of smoke and not much light on this topic... and that all theories have to be thoroughly challenged and proven.
Magmak1
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Jul 17 2006, 10:39 AM)
I wonder if the mind doesn't recognize (record) what the eyes see...? It would be like some pulling out from an intersection after diligently looking both ways, and promptly getting broadsided by an on coming car.... Just a thought.
*



I don't know, Frenchy... I don't even know if the Major in question is a real person, or a fictional character, or what. I knbow nothing about this movie except what I just posted, and that is thin info indeed.

But you raise a good point that should be kept in mind whenever we talk about "eyewitnessing" or other forms of information and evidence; the human mind and the human eye are easily misled, misinformed, or fooled.
Magmak1
Gotta go now... be back in a bit. Keep talking.
Frenchy
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jul 17 2006, 08:50 AM)
I don't know, Frenchy...  I don't even know if the Major in question is a real person, or a fictional character, or what.  I knbow nothing about this movie except what I just posted, and that is thin info indeed. 

But you raise a good point that should be kept in mind whenever we talk about "eyewitnessing" or other forms of information and evidence; the human mind and the human eye are easily misled, misinformed, or fooled.
*


I agree, Magmak!
Arneoker
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Jul 17 2006, 09:39 AM)
I wonder if the mind doesn't recognize (record) what the eyes see...? It would be like some pulling out from an intersection after diligently looking both ways, and promptly getting broadsided by an on coming car.... Just a thought.
*

I think that the bottom line was that the record (at least what I have seen of it) shows that most people who saw anything saw a civilian airliner head directly at the Pentagon and that people on the scene after the impact saw all sorts of evidence of that. (To say nothing of things like Barbara Olsen's phone calls from the plane, whatever happened to the flight.) Yes, a minority of people reported something else, or got the impression of something else. I talked to a lady who worked at the Pentagon who described hearing a boom that she didn't think much of right at the time (she obviously wasn't close to the impact point). Is it so surprising that a minority of people are going to have some different impressions and interpretations of what happened? Shouldn't we tend to put more weight on what the majority reported, particularily those who saw, heard and felt more than others?

The Pentagon is a pretty monotonous buidling on the inside. Is it possible that this Major Kruter could have been confused as to precisely where he was at the moment of impact? The whole thing must have been especially traumatic for people at the Pentagon. I wouldn't be surprised if a few people were confused on points like this, where they were at what time.
Mac2
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jul 17 2006, 09:34 AM)
That's a pretty fair statement, Arneoker....

I think the issue about the "debate" is that that there aren't too many who are willing to come forth for such a debate.  Another simple point is that it is exceedingly difficult to have such a debate in a thread like this; first, we'd need to set some ground rules and a structure and a process, and then we'd have to assemble some information, facts, etc., some of which is beyond any of us on either side of the question. 

..........................................
.................................................
................................................
Another thing that has to be noted repeatedly is that there are multiple cases where it can be proven that the US government has lied....  ....................
................................
*



Strong points, Magmak. Both Arne and you are onto something. Could not agree with you more!


IMHO, we could strengthen and accomplish much here by using this as a guide.
Arneoker
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jul 17 2006, 09:47 AM)
There is a presumption here that has to be challenged. 

I'm not attempting to answer for G4A, and I've never ventured too far into the questions about the Pentagon because the stream of "information" is too muddied with speculation, misinformation, disinformation, etc for me to make a coherent judgment at this time. 

But you are presuming that indeed Hani Hanjour was the pilot, and that the thing that hit the Pentagon was a commercial aircraft, and that that commercial aircraft was piloted by a human.  Again, I'm not offering up either a theory or "proof" about anything...  just pointing out that there's been a lot of smoke and not much light on this topic... and that all theories have to be thoroughly challenged and proven.
*

Actually if you carefully read what I said I was implicitly considering both the theory of Hanjour being the pilot and the plane being remotely controlled. And I was specifically challenging the descripion (of what happened to the Pentagon) as a "military style precision hit." And in a later post I recounted some reasons for believing that it was in fact a civilian airliner that hit the Pentagon.

Now I will acknowledge that I hardly provided the last word on that issue, but I do believe that I made some points that need to be addressed, and would need to be refuted (at least in part) by those supporting alternative theories.
Magmak1
Yeah, okay, Arne... no problem.

As I noted, I personally do not and will not advance any theories about specific sub-elements of this discussion, especially with regard to the Pentagon. My focus, quite simply, is that things are not as they seem, and are not as we were told, and there's a lot of cover-up and duplicity going on, and the evidence that I've seen and read points much more, and much more coherently, to something far greater than an al-Qaeda inspired plot undertaken by only 19 young Arabs. The available information points more effectively and coherently to some degree of high governmental duplicity, cover-up and involvement. There is little actual proof of either theory, but there's more evidence for the latter than the former.

I have infintely more questions than answers, and no one in a governmental or journalistic or investigative role seems to want to find those answers.

Given that we, as a nation, are on the brink of both long-term global war, economic jeapordy and Constitutional crisis as a result of the policies driven before and after 9/11 based on what happened that day, I think we'd better find some answers soon.
jimiray
QUOTE
But you raise a good point that should be kept in mind whenever we talk about "eyewitnessing" or other forms of information and evidence; the human mind and the human eye are easily misled, misinformed, or fooled.


I have somewhat of a photographic memory. But i'm quite aware that most people probably do not. Maybe that is why sometimes i just can't quite understand some peoples thinking. The American attention span has shrunk to short soundbites. Whenever i try to engage in a discussion with people about the government or the "war on Terror" or whatever. I hear a parroting of the news pundits so to speak. That's where the memory kicks in. I do moniter some of these news pundits and i swear i hear the same "ad Hominem" type statement's from people almost word for word if not exactly.
It's like arguing with a robot sometimes.

Glad to see mac and Frenchy engaging in some discussion too. thumbsup2.gif

You guys don't have to agree with anything. All i ever wanted was for people to at least listen to what the skeptics have to say. That's how it started for me at least. I don't hold a particular theory about 9/11. But i don't think we were told the truth about it and the 9/11 report sounds too much like the Warren comission report to me.

I would like to see a poll for people who believed government involvement in the JFK assassination compared to the 9/11 involvement and compare the two.
A majority believe the government lied about 9/11. So that means to me that the majority believes there was government involvement.

Good discussion guys .........keep it up.
We'll never know if we don't try. I'd hate to see it come out as public knowledge 40 years after the fact. Just like Pearle Harbor . JFK , MLK , Gulf of Tonkin , USS Liberty , etc.....,
Magmak1
Speaking of discussions, here's the response letter from the 9/11 activist Bill O'Reilly said he'd like to see murdered and thrown in the Boston Harbor.

from http://www.911blogger.com/

Rupert Murdoch
Bull-Goose Loonie & Fascist Billionaire Extraordinaire
Fox News

Dear Mr. Murdoch,

It has come to my attention that one of your announcers, Bill
O’Reilly, has stated on national television that he would like to see
me murdered and thrown into Boston Harbor.

Since I get so many email death threats I can’t keep track of them
(among the 10% of my 9/11-related emails that are negative) this is a
pretty inflammatory thing to say. If anything were to happen to me,
Fox News would find itself facing the mother of all lawsuits, and my
family might very well end up in control of the Murdoch fortune. You
may wish to consider urging your friends in the White House to offer
me Secret Service protection. Please assign me the guy who said
“we’re out of here” to Bush when the second plane hit the building at
9:04 – not the higher-up who overruled him and kept Bush reading
about pet goats while our nation was allegedly under surprise attack.
See: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11secretservice.html The
Secret Service agent who said “we’re out of here” before being
overruled was honest. That’s the guy I want protecting my life.

Also, you might want to tell O’Reilly that HE'S the one who should
worry about ending up in Boston Harbor. 9/11 was an act of high
treason and mass murder, and media figures complicit in the cover-up
will be viewed, a few years hence, the way we now view Dr. Goebbels.

The last time a bunch of empire-builders tried to trample on our
rights, we had a little uprising called the American Revolution. It’s
time for another one. Let’s kick it off with another Boston Tea
Party—a little red-white-and-blue version of V-for-Vendetta—and throw
the whole Fox News crew, along with the traitors in this
administration, straight into Boston Harbor.

Sincerely,

Kevin Barrett
Lecturer
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Edgewood College of Madison"
jimiray
Maybe Bill O'Reilly should be thrown into the harbor with an Andrea Makris blow up doll and a loofa sponge with a vibrator on the side. roflmbo.gif

No .........wait a minute.......he could make a get away boat out of those items.

Seriously though I would love to see this guy (Kevin Barrett) debate some of the official story supporters.
Magmak1
The recently-mentioned Vanity Fair article is here:
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/conte...es/060717roco02
jimiray
Fox News - 911 The Israeli Connection

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAoe26MaTew&search=fox%20news
Magmak1
"The truth about 9/11 is that we don’t KNOW the truth about 9/11, and we should. I will sponsor (and have already lined up co-sponsors for) legislation initiating a truly independent investigation of 9/11. There is mounting evidence of complicity by elements of our own government.

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything? Why are they hiding audiotapes of FAA and NORAD controllers? Why are they hiding videotapes of whatever hit the Pentagon? Why are they hiding the black boxes? Why did they destroy most of the forensic evidence showing that three buildings at the World Trade Center were brought down by thermite demolition charges? If the thermite residue found on severed steel beams didn’t bring down the towers, what did? (Never before in history did steel skyscrapers fall because of fire, and THREE of them did on the same day … one of which wasn’t even hit by an airplane!) Why did four hijacked airliners fly around for up to an hour and 45 minutes without being intercepted? Why were normal procedures not followed? (If normal procedures HAD been followed, the aircraft would have been intercepted with 20 minutes to spare, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.) If it was massive incompetence, why has no one been fired? … or demoted? … or court martialed? (Instead they were promoted or given the medal of freedom!) If Osama bin Laden was really suspected, why did our government violate its own “no-fly” order to hurriedly fly the bin Laden family out of the United States before they could be questioned? Why does the “Osama bin Laden” in the “confession” videotape have a nose about an inch shorter that the real Osama bin Laden? Why have half a dozen of the 19 “hijackers” turned up in other countries … alive and well? Were there really any hijackers at all, and if there were, were they patsies? Who made millions on short sales of United and American Airlines? Where is the tens of billions of dollars worth of missing gold that was stored in the World Trade Center?

The American people and the families of those who died on 9/11 deserve the truth, and we do not yet have it. The above are but a tiny fraction of the unanswered questions not even raised by those who “investigated” the 9/11 tragedy. The most unbelievable of all the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 is the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory told us by our government. The Kean-Hamilton commission report was a whitewash, a cover-up, and a bundle of deception. If a new investigation identifies those responsible, they should be indicted for treason. And those who covered up the treason should themselves be indicted as accessories after the fact."


This is a statement in the issue section of Bob Bowman's web site.

See http://www.bowman2006.com/issues_az.htm

He is a candidate for Congress in Florida.

For his bio, see above or go here: http://www.bowman2006.com/about.htm
Magmak1
http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/pakistan911.pdf

1. The Pakistani ISI has been funded by the United States and Saudi Arabia for years.

2. Weeks before 9/11, Senator Bob Graham, Rep. Porter Goss, and Senator John Kyl fly to Pakistan.

3. Weeks before 9/11, Omar Sheikh, under the direction of Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, wire transfers $100,000 to Mohammad Atta.

4. On the morning of 9/11, Senator Bob Graham, Rep. Porter Goss, and Senator John Kyl have breakfast in Washington D.C. with Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of the Pakistani ISI. The same man who ordered the wire transfer of $100,000 to Mohammad Atta.

5. A few weeks after 9/11, it is reported on the online version of the Wall Street Journal that Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad ordered $100,000 wire transferred to Mohammad Atta.

6. A few weeks after the news of the wire transfer, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad is sacked from his position.

7. Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss were in charge of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.

8. Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street journal reporter, is alleged to have been on the trail of the $100,000 wire transfer. Omar Sheikh, the man Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad ordered to wire transfer the money, is the prime suspect in the murder of Daniel Pearl.

9. The Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 released a report with 28 redacted pages.

10. Family member Bill Doyle claims he heard from a source that part of the information in those 28 redacted pages refers to the United States' financing of the Pakistani ISI.

11. It has been alleged that the 9/11 Commissioners were bribed by a Pakistani Lobbying group not to mention Pakistan's involvement in the attacks of 9/11.

12. The 9/11 Report neglected to mention any of Pakistan's involvement in the attacks of 9/11.

13. Pakistan is a CLOSE ally of the United States in the so-called, "War On Terror".

14. When confronted about the $100,000 wire transfer, 9/11 Commissioner Thomas Kean denied any knowledge of the transfer, even though it was on the list of questions submitted by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee.
Magmak1
Officials from Across the Political Spectrum Question 9/11

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/...-political.html
jimiray
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jul 18 2006, 02:54 PM)
http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/pakistan911.pdf 

1. The Pakistani ISI has been funded by the United States and Saudi Arabia for years.

2. Weeks before 9/11, Senator Bob Graham, Rep. Porter Goss, and Senator John Kyl fly to Pakistan.

3. Weeks before 9/11, Omar Sheikh, under the direction of Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, wire transfers $100,000 to Mohammad Atta.

4. On the morning of 9/11, Senator Bob Graham, Rep. Porter Goss, and Senator John Kyl have breakfast in Washington D.C. with Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of the Pakistani ISI. The same man who ordered the wire transfer of $100,000 to Mohammad Atta.

5. A few weeks after 9/11, it is reported on the online version of the Wall Street Journal that Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad ordered $100,000 wire transferred to Mohammad Atta.

6. A few weeks after the news of the wire transfer, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad is sacked from his position.

7. Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss were in charge of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.

8. Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street journal reporter, is alleged to have been on the trail of the $100,000 wire transfer. Omar Sheikh, the man Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad ordered to wire transfer the money, is the prime suspect in the murder of Daniel Pearl.

9. The Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 released a report with 28 redacted pages.

10. Family member Bill Doyle claims he heard from a source that part of the information in those 28 redacted pages refers to the United States' financing of the Pakistani ISI.

11. It has been alleged that the 9/11 Commissioners were bribed by a Pakistani Lobbying group not to mention Pakistan's involvement in the attacks of 9/11.

12. The 9/11 Report neglected to mention any of Pakistan's involvement in the attacks of 9/11.

13. Pakistan is a CLOSE ally of the United States in the so-called, "War On Terror".

14. When confronted about the $100,000 wire transfer, 9/11 Commissioner Thomas Kean denied any knowledge of the transfer, even though it was on the list of questions submitted by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee.
*



This is pretty damning information if you ask me. It should raise suspicion in everyone that reads that. Damn near enough for indictments if not plenty enough IMO.
Magmak1
"The fact remains that two informed and credible witnesses, Sibell Edmonds and Indira Singh, have spoken independently of the importance of international drug trafficking in the background of 9/11.

The Bush Administration has paid Sibell Edmonds the tribute of silencing her on the grounds of national interest. She has nonetheless made it clear that what she would talk about concerns that part of the world where the meta-group has influence:

SE [Sibell Edmonds]: It's interesting, in one of my interviews, they say "Turkish countries," but I believe they meant Turkic countries – that is, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and all the 'Stans, including Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and [non-Turkic countries like] Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of these countries play a big part in the sort of things I have been talking about.

CD [Chris Deliso]: What, you mean drug-smuggling?

SE: Among other things. Yes, that is a major part of it. It's amazing that in this whole "war on terror" thing, no one ever talks about these issues.

Indira Singh, who lost her high-tech job at J.P. Morgan after telling the FBI about Ptech and 9/11, was even more dramatic in her public testimony at a Canadian event: "I did a number of things in my research and when I ran into the drugs I was told that if I mentioned the money to the drugs around 9/11 that would be the end of me."

I said earlier that by suppressing awareness of the role of drug-trafficking in our society, we give drug traffickers a de facto franchise to exert political influence without criticism or opposition. An example of this is the discussion of 9/11 in America, which usually fails to consider the meta-group among the list of possible suspects.

I have tried to suggest in this paper that in fact the meta-group had both motive – to restore the Afghan opium harvest and increase instability and chaos along the trade routes through Central Asia – and opportunity – to utilize its contacts with both al-Zawahiri in al Qaeda and the CIA in Washington. It is furthermore the best candidate to explain one of the more difficult anomalies (or indeed paradoxes) of the clues surrounding 9/11: that many of the clues lead in the direction of Saudi Arabia, but some lead also in a very different direction, towards Israel.

-- snip --

In America few are likely to conceive of the possibility that a force in contact with the U.S. government could be not just an asset, but a force exerting influence on that government.

My personal suggestion to 9/11 researchers is that they focus on the connections of the meta-group's firm Far West, Ltd. – in particular those which lead to Khashoggi, Berezovskii, Halliburton and Dick Cheney, and Diligence, Joe Allbaugh, and Neil Bush."

Peter Scott Dale
The Global Drug Meta-Group:
Drugs, Managed Violence, and the Russian 9/11

From http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/global-drug.htm
( a very long, foot-noted article)

Peter Dale Scott's web page, with bio, blibliography etc., is here:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/index.html

See also "A Ballad of Drugs and 9/11"
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/liberation.htm

--
with a tip of the cap to Jeff Wells at Rigorous Intuition
jimiray
Nice post magmak.

I liked this poem found from the link on Peter Dale Scotts bio
a poem that looks at the eye in the triangle

above the blunted pyramid

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/m41.html
Magmak1
Excertps from
A Post-Election Wrap-Up:
Iraq, 9/11, Drugs, Cheney, and Watergate Two

by Peter Dale Scott
27 November 2004
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/postelection.html
with imbedded links and footnotes at this link

-- --
To defeat the divisive electoral tactics of a Karl Rove, we must find issues which can bring right and left together to correct the excesses of a bureaucratic center. I shall argue that the quest for truth about 9/11 is such an issue. I believe further that it stands a better chance than vote recounts of shortening George Bush's occupancy of the White House.... I believe that the impeachment issue with the most traction and momentum, and the most important issue of all if America is to remain a democracy, is 9/11.

--

We now have four new books which between them strengthen the case that the Bush-Cheney Administration itself, taken as a whole, was at least partly responsible for the catastrophe of 9/11, not just by negligence but by design. I hope readers will buy and study them: Paul Thompson's The Terror Timeline, David Ray Griffin's The 9 /11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Mike Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon, and Peter Lance's Cover Up. (I'm not impartial on 9/11, after having blurbed the first two books, and being mentioned in the third.)

Each book has its own different merits. Griffin's is the best introduction, Thompson's is the best research guide, Ruppert's is the strongest case against Cheney. Lance's Cover Up, while it says less about Bush and Cheney than the other books, is the best expose of how the 9/11 Commission became a seamless part of an ongoing cover-up, because of the involvement of some of its members and staff in prior pre-9/11 scandals, which a true investigation would have exposed. While his narrative is complex, it reaches to profound malfunctions in America's justice and intelligence establishments.

--

And what they [the 9/11 Commission] were covering up, in effect, included earlier, pre-9/11 occasions when the US intelligence bureaucracies had, knowingly or unknowingly, facilitated terrorist attacks in which Americans were killed.

In my opinion this cover-up extends to the 9/11 Report's extraordinary and absurd contention that "No persuasive evidence exists that al-Qaeda relied on the drug trade as an important source of revenue." [56] This ignores the British government's report to Parliament, previously cited, that al-Qaeda's financing "includes substantial exploitation of the illegal drugs trade from Afghanistan." [57] It ignores also a US Central Command report that in December 2003 a dhow was intercepted near the Strait of Hormuz carrying almost two tons of hashish valued at up to $10 million. There were "clear ties" between the shipment and al-Qaeda, the Centcom statement said. [58]

Once again what is being covered up is the CIA's culpability in helping in the 1980s to build up the Islamist drug networks, in order to help finance its proxy armies in Afghanistan (a pattern repeated in 2001-04). [59]

Just as Watergate ended up being about much broader scandals than a break-in at the DNC, so the 9/11 Commission investigation must be seen as a scab covering major scandals affecting both parties over at least the past decade.

-- --

What Happened on September 11, 2001?

I know that many of my friends, left, center, and right, still resist the idea of looking beneath the surface of the official account of 9/11. But whatever one thinks, one must recognize that the still unexplained mysteries of 9/11, reinforced by books like these, have helped to define a new political constituency in America that spans and unites both left and right, and is determined to obtain answers.

There is still an appalling lack of resolution as to what happened in the USG on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report had to admit that information first supplied by NORAD, and then later corrected, was still simply wrong (though the Report's unsupported "corrections" to the record seem just as doubtful). [60]

Paul Thompson is much blunter:

NORAD's explanations about 9/11 have never made sense, and their new eagerness to be seen as an incompetent "Cold War vestige" is equally suspect. NORAD officials brazenly lied throughout their testimony. In the new NORAD timeline they presented, they even claimed that CNN first began showing images of the World Trade Center on fire at 8:57 when it is easily verifiable that CNN began doing this at 8:48. [CNN, Transcript, 9/11/01, NORAD Testimony, 5/23/03] Like their many other lies, one can see how this lie serves to cover up the extent of their failure. Unfortunately, the Independent Commission did not require that testimony be given under oath, so these officials cannot be charged with perjury. [61]

Even from the flawed data in the 9/11 Commission Report itself, it is clear that in pursuing the truth about this matter, all eyes should now be focused on the behavior of Cheney that day. As a non-conspiratorial article by Benjamin Demott in the October Harper's concludes, "Details in the President's, Vice President's, and other accounts of the framing and delivery of the `presidential' order to shoot down the hijacked airlines inspire severe doubt that the order came from Bush himself, rather than from an official -- Vice President Cheney -- with no military authority." [62] The bulk of DeMott's article focuses on ways that Bush (fortunately for him, not under oath) lied to the Commission.

We need a comparable article focusing on the apparent lies, to the Commission and elsewhere, by Cheney. As the webblogger Xymphora has noted,

apologists for the Official Story can't rely on the delay in Cheney's orders reaching the pilots to explain why no defensive action was taken. Someone still has to explain why NORAD acted as if it was under a standdown order. [63]

-- snip --

Ruppert argues that Cheney was in charge because of the multiple wargames running that day -- Vigilant Warrior, Vigilant Guardian, Northern Vigilance, an NRO exercise (name unknown), and Tripod II (a non-military biochemical attack exercise involving FEMA) -- that needed coordination from outside NORAD. [65] If he has no single source to nail this claim down, it is because of the extreme evasiveness shown by officials about that day, as for example:

When asked who was responsible for coordinating the multiple wargames running on the morning of September 11, 2001, General Ralph E. Eberhart, the man in charge of NORAD on the morning in question, replied "No Comment." [66]

This anecdote can stand as a synecdoche for the performance of the 9/11 Commission as a whole, and its studied efforts to avoid answering the most urgent questions about September 11.

-- --

At present the mainstream media have been unwilling to touch the 9/11 controversy. As Paul Thompson reports on his website, when the 9/11 Commission held important hearings in May 2003 on the critical issue of air defense, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times failed to report them at all. [67]

It is obvious that, for reasons summarized by Ben Bagdikian and others, the corporate media are not now likely to perform the cleansing and healing role they played in Watergate One. In this new crisis the American people will have to be actors, not witnesses; and they must help to achieve what the media will not do for them.

There is, at least at the present, a great new medium for those interested in speaking truth to power. It is the blogosphere of the Web, and more and more of us are becoming blogonauts. The old media themselves swept Watergate One under the rug, as soon as it was about to raise issues about the malfeasance, not just of Nixon, but of the CIA. One can predict that the Web, as currently constituted, will never do that.

I have never agreed with those on the left who argued that the way to make things better was to make them worse (je schlimmer, desto besser). But if a power-crazed administration takes us down the path to disaster in the Middle East, we should use all our efforts to turn disaster into opportunity.

-- --

The main truth established by the 9/11 Commission is the existence of a massive cover-up in which Commission members and staff were also actively involved. The country still needs to learn what lies behind the cover-up.
jimiray
Good post dude thumbsup2.gif

I need to check this guy out (Peter Dale Scott ) he's a pretty damn good writer. Pretty old guy too so he's seen a lot in his day. I know a guy who's 86 years old who thinks the Bush Gang was involved in 9/11. He even knows Pearl Harbor was allowed to get us into WWII
cardinal
911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8...rch=flight%2077
Magmak1
Just in case you missed this short segment from a National Geographic documentary on the Secret Service:

http://www.freepressinternational.com/secr...acking-911.html
Magmak1
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060718232126585
-- -- -- --
Exclusive Report: Did Military Exercises Facilitate the 9/11 Pentagon Attack?

By Matthew Everett
July 2006

Profuse thanks to astute 9/11 researcher and cooperativeresearch.org contributor Matthew Everett for allowing us to debut his highly thought-provoking study of the many military mindgames preceding 9/11. Not only do these well-documented attack rehearsals belie huge swaths of the official story and the 9/11 Commission's investigative zeal, their similar protocols offer a suggestive way to re-explore air defense dysfunction on the day itself. - Ed.

Since 9/11, numerous authors and researchers have drawn attention to training exercises being conducted or prepared for by the U.S. military and other government agencies at the time of the September 11 attacks. With names like Vigilant Guardian, Global Guardian, Timely Alert II, and Tripod, the question has arisen as to what connection these drills might have had with real-world events that morning.[1]

Attention has also been drawn to exercises held prior to 9/11, often bearing an uncanny resemblance to the actual attacks. For example, soon after 9/11 the New Yorker reported: "During the last several years, the government regularly planned for and simulated terrorist attacks, including scenarios that involved multiple-plane hijackings."[2] USA Today reported: "In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating … hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center."[3]

As I will show in this essay, exercises also took place that bore a chilling resemblance to the attack on the Pentagon. I will look at evidence suggesting that the Pentagon actually scheduled another such training exercise for the morning of 9/11. I will end by briefly examining the possible implications of these exercises and considering whether they might have helped facilitate the attack on the Pentagon.

PRE-9/11 EXERCISES BASED AROUND A PLANE CRASHING INTO THE PENTAGON

After 9/11, members of the Bush administration claimed that no one had previously envisioned the kinds of attacks that occurred that day. For example, Condoleezza Rice said: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."[4] However, these claims were totally untrue. Besides the exercise involving the simulated crashing of a plane into the WTC, there were at least three separate exercises in the 12 months prior to 9/11 based around a plane hitting the Pentagon.

The first of these occurred in late October 2000. In the Office of the Secretary of Defense's conference room, military planners held the Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, which was based around a passenger aircraft crashing into the Pentagon, with 341 victims. The exercise was first described in a military newspaper in a report that the British Daily Mirror later said, "reads like an account of what actually happened" on 9/11.[5]

The next such exercise occurred in May 2001. As U.S. Medicine later reported, the Department of Defense's response to the 9/11 attacks "was aided by the fact that department medical personnel had carried out a simulation exercise in May in which a hijacked 757 airliner crashed into the Pentagon."[6] The DiLorenzo Tricare Health Clinic and the Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic, both located within the Pentagon, participated. Doctors James Geiling and John Baxter later said this exercise prepared them well to respond to the Pentagon attack on 9/11.[7]

Presumably referring to the two exercises described above, Lieutenant Colonel John Felicio, the deputy commander for administration of the DiLorenzo Tricare Health Clinic, said: "The saving grace to our efforts [on 9/11] was the two MASCAL exercises we previously had conducted with the clinic leadership and staff. You know it was kind of eerie. The scenario we had for these MASCALS was very similar to what actually happened. Our scenario for both MASCALS was a plane flying into the Pentagon courtyard."[8]

The third exercise occurred in August 2001, just one month before 9/11. This was another mass casualty exercise held at the Pentagon, involving an evacuation of the building. According to General Lance Lord, Air Force Space Command commander, "the scenario for that exercise included a plane hitting the building."[9]

WAS AN AIRCRAFT-INTO-PENTAGON EXERCISE SCHEDULED FOR 9/11?

We can see that Pentagon training exercises prior to 9/11 routinely involved the simulated crashing of an aircraft into the building. But might another such exercise have been scheduled for the morning of 9/11? There are various pieces of evidence indicating this may have been the case. Although the existence of such an exercise has never been stated explicitly, this might be because the exercise was declared classified. In fact, supposedly due to the national emergency declared by President Bush in response to the 9/11 attacks, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz issued a memo to senior DoD officials in October 2001, requesting a particularly high level of secrecy. He urged that "Defense Department employees, as well as persons in other organizations that support DoD, exercise great caution in discussing information related to DoD work, regardless of their duties. Do not conduct any work-related conversations in common areas, public places, while commuting, or over unsecured electronic circuits. Classified information may be discussed only in authorized spaces and with persons having a specific need to know and the proper security clearance. Unclassified information may likewise require protection because it can often be compiled to reveal sensitive conclusions. Much of the information we use to conduct DoD's operations must be withheld from public release because of its sensitivity. If in doubt, do not release or discuss official information except with other DoD personnel."[10]

Despite the secrecy, the combination of evidence I summarize below suggests a training exercise on 9/11, based around an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon:

i) Captain Charles Leidig, Jr. had assumed duties as the deputy for command center operations in the J3 Directorate of the Joint Staff just two months before 9/11. In August 2001, he qualified to stand watch as the deputy director for operations in the National Military Command Center (NMCC), which is located within the Pentagon. The day before 9/11, Brigadier General W. Montague Winfield, the deputy director for operations in the NMCC, requested that Leidig stand a portion of his duty on September 11. Thus, between 8:30 a.m. and roughly 10:30 a.m. that day (i.e. for almost the entire duration of the attacks) a stand-in officer was in charge of convening a Significant Event Conference (subsequently upgraded to an Air Threat Conference) in response to the attacks.[11] No further explanation has been given as to why or how this situation arose. But might the reason (or at least the excuse given) have been that Leidig needed to gain experience as deputy director for operations by assuming this role during a training exercise?

ii) The accounts of some Pentagon medical staff suggest they were preparing for a MASCAL (mass casualty) exercise the morning of September 11. For example, Sergeant Matthew Rosenberg, a medic at the Pentagon's DiLorenzo Tricare Health Clinic, recounts: "We had virtually completed our MASCAL plan. … Believe it or not, the day prior to the incident, I was just on the phone with the FBI, and we were talking 'so who has command should this happen, who has the medical jurisdiction, who does this, who does that,' and we talked about it and talked about it, and he helped me out a lot. And then the next day, during the incident, I actually found him. He was out there on the incident that day."[12] According to Major Lorie A. Brown, chief nurse of the DiLorenzo Tricare Health Clinic, the morning of 9/11, "We actually had our MASCAL equipment out of the storage areas because we were doing an inventory. So there were many pieces that just fell into place and worked so well on that day. It was just fortuitous. It was just amazing that way that things kind of happened the way they did."[13]

As I have described above, three previous Pentagon exercises incorporated a simulated plane crashing into the place. And early in the morning of 9/11, Matthew Rosenberg was reportedly "down on Corridor 8" of the Pentagon, "grateful for an uninterrupted hour in which he could study a new medical emergency disaster plan based on the unlikely scenario of an airplane crashing into the place."[14] Might he have been studying in preparation for an exercise taking place later that day?

iii) At least two army bases near the Pentagon were conducting training the morning of 9/11 based around terrorist attacks or plane crashes. At Fort Belvoir, about 12 miles south of the Pentagon, they were running a "garrison control exercise," which aimed "to test the security at the base in case of a terrorist attack."[15] At the Education Center at Fort Myer, an army base 1.5 miles northwest of the Pentagon, firefighters were attending what has been described as an "aircraft crash refresher class" and a "week-long class on air field fire fighting."[16]

According to Major Don Arias, NORAD's public affairs officer, "it's common practice, when we have exercises, to get as much bang for the buck as we can. So sometimes we'll have different organizations participating in the same exercise for different reasons."[17] Might the antiterrorist exercise at Fort Belvoir have been scheduled as part of a larger exercise at the nearby Pentagon, and might the "aircraft crash refresher class" at Fort Myer have been scheduled as part of an exercise involving an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon? After all, the Fort Myer Fire Department is responsible for operating the fire station at the Pentagon heliport, just 150 feet from where the building was hit on 9/11.[18]

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TRAINING EXERCISES
What is the significance of these training exercises? Is it just coincidence that at least three exercises were held in the year before 9/11, based around the scenario of a plane crashing into the Pentagon? If another aircraft-into-Pentagon exercise was scheduled for 9/11, is this just another even bigger coincidence?

Several writers have suggested a more sinister role played by training exercises that mirror real-world events. They believe such exercises happening at the same time, or prior to an attack, can indicate that a criminal group within the government and military are responsible. According to author Webster Tarpley: "Staff exercises or command exercises are perfect for a rogue network which is forced to conduct its operations using the same communications and computer systems used by other officers who are not necessarily party to the illegal operation, coup or provocation as it may be. A putschist officer [i.e. a rogue officer] may be working at a console next to another officer who is not in on the coup, and who might indeed oppose it if he knew about it. The putschist's behavior is suspicious: what the hell is he doing? The loyal officer looks over and asks the putschist about it. The putschist cites a staff maneuver for which he is preparing. The loyal officer concludes that the putschist's activities are part of an officially sanctioned drill, and his suspicions are allayed. The putschist may even explain that participation in the staff exercise requires a special security clearance which the loyal officer does not have. The conversation ends, and the putschist can go on with his treasonous work."[19]

Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones have elaborated: "The exercise fulfils several different goals. It acts as a cover for the small compartmentalized government terrorists to carry out their operation without the larger security services becoming aware of what they're doing, and, more importantly, if they get caught during the attack or after with any incriminating evidence they can just claim that they were just taking part in the exercise."[20]

Clearly, the plane crash drills at the Pentagon, and the possibility of another such drill having been scheduled for 9/11, raise serious concerns. Considering their similarity to the actual attack, the question of whether they fulfilled the kind of malicious and duplicitous purpose described above needs looking into. Yet the 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the three pre-9/11 Pentagon exercises, and fails to consider the possibility of a similar exercise occurring on September 11. This is additional proof that, five years after the event, we are yet to have a proper investigation into the attacks of 9/11.

End

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew Everett has written two major articles about U.S. government complicity in 9/11 for the Journal of Psychohistory, and also contributes to the Complete 9/11 Timeline.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES


[1] For a comprehensive list of 9/11-related training exercises, including those taking place on September 11 itself, see the "Military Exercises Up to 9/11" page of Paul Thompson's Complete 911 Timeline:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...litaryExercises

[2] "September 11, 2001." The New Yorker, September 24, 2001.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?010924fa_FACT

[3] Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons." USA Today, April 18, 2004.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-18-norad_x.htm

[4] "National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing." Office of the Press Secretary, May 16, 2002.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0020516-13.html

[5] Dennis Ryan, "Contingency Planning: Pentagon MASCAL Exercise Simulates Scenarios in Preparing for Emergencies." MDW News Service, November 3, 2000.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/content/anmviewer.asp?a=290; Andy Lines, "Pentagon Chiefs Planned for Jet Attack." Daily Mirror, May 24, 2002.

http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/flight77-...-jet-attack.txt

[6] "Crisis Response Puts Agencies On Path To Better Coordination." U.S. Medicine, January 2002.

http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?arti...=329&issueID=34

[7] Matt Mientka, "Pentagon Medics Trained For Strike." U.S. Medicine, October 2001.

http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?arti...=272&issueID=31

[8] Soldiers to the Rescue: The Medical Response to the Pentagon Attack. Washington, D.C.: Office of Medical History, September 2004, p. 18.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/memoirs/sold.../responding.pdf

[9] Gen. Lance Lord, "A year ago, a lifetime ago." The Beam, September 13, 2002.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/airforce/beam/7_...ry/19212-1.html

[10] Paul Wolfowitz, Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, et al., "Operations Security Throughout the Department of Defense." Department of Defense, October 18, 2001.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/wolfowitz.html

[11] "Statement of Capt. Charles J. Leidig, Jr. Commandant of Midshipmen United States Naval Academy Before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." June 17, 2004.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hea..._statement.pdf; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Twelfth Public Hearing, June 17, 2004.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2004-06-17.htm

[12] Soldiers to the Rescue: The Medical Response to the Pentagon Attack, p. 39.

[13] Ibid., p. 7.

[14] David Maraniss, "September 11, 2001: Steve Miller Ate a Scone, Sheila Moody Did Paperwork, Edmund Glazer Boarded a Plane: Portrait of a Day That Began in Routine and Ended in Ashes." Washington Post, September 16, 2001.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15

[15] Chuck Hagee, "An Engineer's Expertise Joins a Firefighter's Nightmare." The Connection Newspapers, September 5, 2002.

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/articl...aper=69&cat=104

[16] Alan Wallace, "A Fire Fighter's Story." First Due News, April 17, 2003.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030417074321/.../first-due.htm; Spc. Jennifer Lilly and Chris Walz, "Local heroes: FMMC fire department reflects on attacks." Pentagram, November 2, 2001.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6...s/11746-1.html; Michael J. Ward, "Attack on the Pentagon: The initial fire & EMS response." JEMS, April 2002.

http://info.jems.com/911/pdf/jems0402.pdf

[17] Quoted in Michael C. Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 2004, p. 367.

[18] "After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon." Arlington County, July 2002, p. A-20.

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Fire...terReport.aspx; Stephen Murphy, "ARFF Crews Respond to the Front Line at Pentagon." NFPA Journal, November 1, 2001.

http://www.nfpa.org/publicJournalDetail.asp?itemID=20904

[19] Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. Joshua Tree: Progressive Press, 2005, pp. 204-205.

[20] Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones, "London Underground Bombing 'Exercises' Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack: Culpability cover scenario echoes 9/11 wargames." Prison Planet, July 13, 2005.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...ngexercises.htm
Magmak1
Rumsfeld announced -- the day before 9/11 -- that 2.3 Trillion Dollars was missing from the Department of Defense. See the old CBS News report here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=gUKJNxdmX6Y

Franklin Spinney is one of the "Boyd Acolytes".

You remember Boyd? Lt. Col. USAF. Author of the OODA loop theory...
Magmak1
Money...

Did someone mention missing money?


http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm
graham4anything
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jul 20 2006, 03:13 AM)
Rumsfeld announced -- the day before 9/11 -- that 2.3 Trillion Dollars was missing from the Department of Defense. See the old CBS News report here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=gUKJNxdmX6Y

Franklin Spinney is one of the "Boyd Acolytes".

You remember Boyd?  Lt. Col. USAF.  Author of the OODA loop theory...
*



Out of everything, that nobody ever looks at just this and scratches their head is something.

2.3 trillion and nobody cares...it's like why?
Magmak1
Who warned Giuliani of the collapse of the South Tower?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/giuliani.html

-- --
The administration's claim that terrorists crashing planes into buildings was not foreseeable on 9/11 is contradicted by numerous sources.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/oops.html

-- --

On 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft POSING AS HIJACKED AIRLINERS.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...ember-11th.html

All three links have embedded links to sources.
Magmak1
Those who think that the conspiracy theorists are outrageous have a cheerleader.

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

G.W. Bush speaking before the UN General Assembly 11/10/2001

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/shrub.rm.ram (RealPlayer video)

But then, as he explained, part of his job is to catapult the propaganda.
Magmak1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060720/us_nm/leisure9_11_dc

-- --

9/11 documentary director wants truth to prevail
By Sue Zeidler

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The director of a new documentary on September 11 fears that two upcoming Hollywood dramatizations of the World Trade Center attacks may eclipse her project.

"I hope the truth does not get lost amongst the fiction," Linda Ellman, a former NBC News producer, who made her film directorial debut with "On Native Soil," told Reuters.

"I don't have a problem with fictionalized stories or fictionalized efforts about 9/11, because people need to be kept aware and should never forget. I just hope the truth isn't replaced by fiction, because the truth is shocking," she said.

Ellman was referring to film director Oliver Stone's upcoming "World Trade Center," a drama about two police officers trapped under the smoking rubble of the collapsed buildings, opening nationwide on August 9, and the ABC television network miniseries "The Path to 9/11," debuting on September 10.

Unlike those works, Ellman's goal with "On Native Soil," airing next month on cable channel Court TV, was to stay true to the 9/11 Commission Report -- the government's account of the suicide hijackings that killed about 3,000 people -- and present an historically accurate version of events as they unfolded, almost in real time.

All of these films, as well as other documentaries and television specials, are being released to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Ellman was approached by producer Jeff Hays to direct the project with a budget of just over $1 million, and immediately saw opportunities and challenges.

"Millions of copies of the book had been sold, but nobody was reading it," Ellman said.

567 PAGES, ONE TRUE TALE

After plowing through the 567-page "9/11 Commission Report" in late 2004, Ellman set out to capture the story of victims' families who were key in pressing the government to form the bipartisan panel that investigated the tragedy and recommended reforms.

"My goal was to expose the truth about 9/11 that's been hiding in plain sight. When it became clear to me that there almost wasn't a 9/11 Commission had it not been for this small group of people, that was even more upsetting," she said.

Ellman said one of the biggest challenges was winning the families' trust. She contacted each, one by one, and conducted what became "deeply personal and painful" interviews.

Court TV bought the rights to broadcast the film, whose full name is "On Native Soil: The Documentary of the 9/11 Commission Report," to air on August 21.

Lionsgate Entertainment plans to release the film on DVD on August 22.

The movie, narrated by Kevin Costner and Hilary Swank, includes never-before-seen interviews with victims' family members, as well as familiar footage of the day's events, Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan declaring his intentions on television in 1997 and former White House counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke telling victims' families, "Your government failed you."

Another scene features badly burned survivor Harry Waizer saying about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "She will not acknowledge that (the government) made a misjudgment. And that galls me. That angers me."

Other scheduled programs dealing with the September 11 attacks include CNN's "In the Footsteps of Osama bin Laden," National Geographic Channel's "The Final Report: Osama's Escape," and the History Channel's "The Miracle of Stairway B."

----
Magmak1
Has 9/11 changed your life? Tell MSNBC about it

E-mail your story to MSNBC.com — it could be featured on the site

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13939175/
jimiray
911, Rare clip from USA Today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3su9mWta-M
jimiray
CURT WELDON SEES THE LIGHT!!!
http://www.dfalink.com/blog_post.php?id=16808

A Republican congressman watches an anti-Bush video and as a result suspects that the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, and that explosives were the main factor in bringing down three of the World Trade Center buildings. Unbelievable? Here's a transcript of a Town Hall Meeting from April 2006 held with Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA 7th):

Dave Slesinger: First, I want to praise you for your Able Danger efforts. Since you are the Congressman most sympathetic to firefighters, have you looked at the quotes from NYC firefighters at the World Trade Center on 9/11 about explosives? If you have, will you accept information on [this] for later comment?

Rep. Weldon: I will absolutely accept information, and I'm very close to the NYC firefighters because one of my best friends was killed there…

I talk to the fire department on a regular basis. When the Republican convention was held in New York in 2004, I went up a day early, I went down to the fire department headquarters. I spent the day with them. And when I finished the briefings, and getting their input, as to what happened on 9/11, which I had ongoing, I went up and spent two hours running with Engine 54 (inaudible) in midtown Manhattan. And I wanted to do that because on 9/11 all 15 firefighters on duty from that station were killed. And I wanted the firefighters to give me their views without going through any chiefs or other officers about what happened.

Now, there's a lot of theories out there about what occurred. And uh, I haven't gone into the structural elements of the building. The fact that there are reports on multiple explosions on other floors... I am open to that information. I'm willing to challenge the system. And uh, and don't automatically discount anything that's told to me because I've seen, I've seen too much. I mean, ya know, I hate to say that sometimes I don't trust my Government, but sometimes, I don't trust the Government. The bureaucracy. Ya know the best evidence of that is we had the, uh, Tillman, the football player. Joined the army, he was killed. We now find out that the army burned his clothing. So the family never got to get the real story about how Pat Tillman died. Now if it was an accident, so be it. You don't hide that information because somebody is going to be embarrassed.

That's the whole story with Tony Shaffer. It's the bureaucrats trying to hide information and facts, so they're not embarrassed. So, do I automatically accept what the Government tells me? No. And that's why I get myself in trouble. I challenge the CIA, I challenge the DIA. I'll challenge our Defense Department. That's why you send me there. If you want somebody to go there, and just go along, you would send a robot. That would vote the way the party wanted, and would go along with the current President. I won't do that. So I'm absolutely open to any information anyone has that challenges anything about the 9/11 Commission or the work there.

Dave Slesinger: Congressman, that was my question, I, wanna give out, anybody who wants this, this is a speech by a physics professor at BYU, Steven Jones.

Rep. Weldon: Yeah.

Dave Slesinger: It's the hottest thing happening on the 9/11 issue. In his speech, he praises Congressman Weldon, he's a conservative Republican [or was], he praises Reagan, he quotes St. Paul. I think I have [DVD copies] enough for everybody. Just ask me.

Rep. Weldon: It'll open your eyes, because his allegations are pretty strong.

The video that opened Rep. Weldon's eyes can be seen here:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-st...

For more information about firefighters reporting explosions and the attempt to suppress this information: http:// www.911truth.org/article.php?sto...

Audio recording of the Town Hall Meeting can be gotten from this site: http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.p...

Full transcript here: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto...

Additional 9/11 videos: http://www.universalseed.org...
jimiray
UW Lecturer Kevin Barrett

Friday, July 21st, 2006: The guest for this week is UW-Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett, who has come under fire recently for his views on 9/11.

This is the fairest interview i have seen yet.

http://www.c3ktogo.com/video-player.php?id=4688
graham4anything
Ground control to Major Tom...
Ground control to Major Tom...

Come in Major Tom...
Magmak1
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/stor...7p-368502c.html
-- --
Abandoned heroes

Mayor must face WTC health crisis


They rallied for New York and America in the terrible hours after the World Trade Center collapsed - and ever since, thousands have paid with their health. Some have given their lives.

Forty-thousand-strong, they labored at Ground Zero under miserable conditions in a time of crisis, working 10 and 12 hours a day to search for the lost, extinguish underground fires and haul off 2 million tons of rubble. As a direct result, well over 12,000 are sick today, having suffered lasting damage to their respiratory systems.

In increasing numbers, they are the forgotten victims of 9/11. The toll has risen steadily over the past five years, yet no one in power - not Gov. Pataki, not Mayor Bloomberg, not the state and city health commissioners, not the U.S. government - has acknowledged the epidemic's scope, much less confronted it for the public health disaster that it is.

They cough.

They wheeze.

Their heads and faces pound with the pressure of swollen sinuses.

They lose their breath with minor exertion.

They suffer the suffocation of asthma and diseases that attack the very tissues of their lungs.

They endure acid reflux, a painful indigestion that never goes away.

They are haunted by the mental and emotional traumas of having witnessed horror.

Many are too disabled to work.

And some have died. There is overwhelming evidence that at least four Ground Zero responders - a firefighter, two police officers and an Emergency Medical Service paramedic - suffered fatal illnesses as a consequence of inhaling the airborne poisons that were loosed when the pulverized remains of the twin towers erupted seismically into the sky.

The measure of how New York and Washington failed the 9/11 responders starts with the fact that after a half-decade, no one has a grip on the scope of the suffering. The known census of the ill starts at more than 12,000 people who have been monitored or treated in the two primary medical services for Ground Zero workers, one run by the Fire Department, the other by the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program based at Mount Sinai Medical Center.

In the Fire Department, more than 600 firefighters - soon to be 700 - have been forced into retirement because they were deemed permanently disabled. Most suffer from asthma that disqualifies them from battling blazes. And fully 25% of the FDNY's active fire and EMS forces have lung-related conditions - more than 3,400 people in all.

At the Mount Sinai program, where physicians are monitoring the health of 16,000 cops, construction workers and others, Dr. Stephen Levin estimates that from half to two-thirds of the patients are similarly sick. That works out to at least 8,000 people and pushes the tally of the ill over 12,000.

The count goes up from there among the thousands of responders who are not enrolled in either program. How far up, nobody knows. But doctors are all too aware that the general prognosis for the sick is not good. While treatment has helped many to improve, few have regained their health.

"I think that probably a few more years down the road we will find that a relatively small proportion will be able to say, 'I am as good as I was back on Sept. 10, 2001,' " said Levin.

Typical is the case of NYPD Officer Steven Mayfield, who logged more than 400 hours at the perimeter of what became known as The Pile and suffers from sarcoidosis, a disease that scars the tissues of the lungs; shortness of breath; chronic sinusitis, and sleep apnea. "My lungs are damaged; they will never be the same," said Mayfield, 44.

Still more frightening: Serious new conditions may soon begin to emerge. Top pulmonary specialists say lung-scarring diseases and tumors generally begin to show up five to 20 years after toxic exposure, a time frame that's about to begin.

Some responders have received excellent care. The FDNY's medical service, led by Dr. Kerry Kelly and Dr. David Prezant, has delivered first-rate monitoring and treatment to more than 13,700 active and retired firefighters and EMS workers. But the rest of the Ground Zero responders have not been nearly so well served.

Most of them - from police to construction workers - are eligible for monitoring and treatment through the Mount Sinai program. The center's leaders, Dr. Robin Herbert and Levin, are among the world's experts in occupational health, but they have been badly hobbled by a lack of funding. The wait for treatment is four months, and doctors are able to schedule followup appointments less frequently than they would like.

In even worse shape are an estimated 10,000 federal workers who participated in the Ground Zero effort. The government promised to create a program specially for them, and then reneged. The federal workers are on their own.

The big lie

The betrayal of the 9/11 responders began with a lie that reverberates to this day.

When the twin towers collapsed, the remains of 200,000 tons of steel, 600,000 square feet of window glass, 5,000 tons of asbestos, 12,000 miles of electric cables and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete crashed to the ground and then spewed into the air. To the mix were added 24,000 gallons of jet fuel burning as hot as 1,300 degrees.

At The Pile, the air was "darker than a sealed vault and thicker than pea soup," in the description of one deputy fire chief. But officials pronounced that would-be rescuers were safe.

As then-U.S. Environmental Protection Administrator Christie Whitman put it in a press release on Thursday, Sept. 14, 2001: "Monitoring and sampling conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday have been very reassuring about potential exposure of rescue workers and the public to environmental contamination." Two weeks later, Mayor Rudy Giuliani said rescue workers faced minimal risk because the air quality was "safe and acceptable."

In truth, those who rushed to the scene were at the epicenter of "the largest acute environmental disaster that ever has befallen New York City," according to a 2004 analysis by several dozen scientists in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. In truth, every breath at Ground Zero was noxious to health and even to life.

A cauldron of toxins

The Environmental Health Perspectives report cited the presence in the air of highly alkaline concrete dust, glass fibers and cancer-causing asbestos, as well as particles of lead, chlorine, antimony, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, iron, zinc and calcium. The flaming fuel and burning plastics released carcinogens including dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated furans.

Almost immediately, the toxic cloud began burning the lungs of the responders because most were not provided with, or did not wear, proper respiratory protection. Hundreds soon started coughing up pebbles and black or gray phlegm, and, for most, symptoms steadily worsened.

The false assurance of safety and the failure to adequately equip the workers has opened the city and its construction contractors to potentially huge liability. More than 8,000 responders have joined a lawsuit that has targeted a $1 billion federal insurance fund established after 9/11 to facilitate the recovery work. So the lawyers, not the doctors, have taken charge.

The city's chief attorney, Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo, says, for example, that he is confident Ground Zero workers have been provided with appropriate medical attention and disability benefits. This may be wise to argue for the purpose of limiting liability, but it's destructive denial as a public health strategy.

Never did the state health commissioner, Dr. Antonia Novello, or the city health commissioner - Dr. Neal Cohen in the days immediately after 9/11, Dr. Thomas Frieden since January 2002 - step forward to lead a crusade that marshaled the resources of New York's vast public and private health systems.

Nor did Cohen or Frieden ever issue protocols advising physicians on recognizing and treating syndromes generated by World Trade Center exposures. Inexcusably, Cohen failed to disseminate advisories at a time when the Giuliani administration was declaring all was safe at The Pile, and Frieden's staff is only now getting around to completing its first bulletin.

Nor did the Police Department establish a system for tracking the prevalence of illnesses such as asthma among the thousands of cops who worked at The Pile. The police surgeon, Dr. Eli Kleinman, says he believes there hasn't been more than "a blip" in lung-related ailments - which would be a truly remarkable outcome compared with the 25% of the Fire Department that is counted as having 9/11 aftereffects.

The city Health Department in 2003 did establish the World Trade Center Health Registry, inviting people who worked at Ground Zero or lived in the area to report their health conditions. More than 71,000 provided information, and the department is in the midst of conducting a followup survey. The data are likely to prove highly valuable when the department finishes crunching the numbers. But that milestone is planned for next year, astonishingly long to wait when the unaddressed needs of the sick have been building since 2001 and are so large at this very moment.

Frustrated by the response to 9/11-related illnesses, Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Vito Fossella in February won the appointment of Dr. John Howard as federal Ground Zero health coordinator. Howard's valuable presence should be taken as a rebuke to all the local officials who allowed this health crisis to fester for half a decade.

But Howard is hardly the solution. As director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the doctor has a schedule that is quite booked. Nor does Howard have the capacity to do a great deal. He has no special budget and no special staff, and he can only study and recommend. Far more is required.

A cry for leadership

What's urgently needed is dynamic leadership by someone with the muscle and brains to tackle the World Trade Center health crisis on all fronts - medical, legal, social, political and more. The person who best fits the bill today is Michael Bloomberg.

As the 108th mayor of the City of New York, Bloomberg commands vast municipal resources, occupies an unparalleled bully pulpit from which to prod other levels of government, has a deep, long-standing commitment to public health and, most important, knows how to get things done. And it is simply inconceivable that he would not act were he to inquire deeply into the facts.

Were the mayor to ask Herbert and Levin, he would find out that Mount Sinai's doctors succeeded only this year in getting the okay for the first federal funding for treatment, that patients frequently arrive at Mount Sinai after being misdiagnosed or improperly treated by family physicians and that Ground Zero responders are seeking help in increasing numbers because they haven't gotten better with time or have developed new illnesses.

Were the mayor to speak with Dr. Alison Geyh, assistant professor at his namesake Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, he would learn that a program aimed at tracking the health of Ground Zero's "invisible" recovery workers - heavy equipment operators, sanitation workers, truck drivers and laborers - stopped for lack of money after less than two years.

"It took a year to get this labor-intensive project up and running, only to have its funding stream cut off 18 months later," said Geyh. "It's been frustrating and a lost opportunity."

Were the mayor to talk to Kelly and Prezant at the Fire Department, or to Herbert and Levin at Mount Sinai, or to their colleague Dr. Alvin Teirstein, an eminent lung specialist, he would hear calls for long-term monitoring for cancers and other diseases that could emerge among Trade Center responders in the coming years.

And, were the mayor to spend time with any of the 8,000 responders who are suing the city, he would hear the voices of fury and fear. Their anger is well grounded in that they were lied to, but it is far less clear that each of their illnesses, among them brain and blood cancers, is attributable to Ground Zero exposures. Still, lacking authoritative, trustworthy information, they live under agonizing shadows.

It is vitally important for Bloomberg to take charge.

To take the full measure of this growing epidemic.

To devise appropriately funded treatment programs so that all 9/11 responders have access to the quality of care provided to firefighters.

To establish monitoring systems that can detect swiftly the emergence of new diseases or improved treatments.

To create a clearinghouse that would inform workers and physicians about illnesses and proper treatments, and keep them up to date on the latest developments.

To begin to acknowledge that service after 9/11 did, in fact, cause fatalities, rather than let city officials keep insisting that there is no absolute, total scientific proof that anyone died from illnesses contracted at Ground Zero.

To galvanize the federal government into supporting long-term monitoring and treatment programs.

To review disability and pension benefits afforded to 9/11 responders with an eye on eliminating gross inequities. While firefighters and cops have been granted extremely liberal, even overly liberal, line-of-duty retirement benefits, thousands are trapped in a workers' compensation system that is ill-suited to treat them fairly.

When the call came, the instant the first hijacked jet knifed into the north tower of the World Trade Center, the Ground Zero recovery army surged to the aid of their fellow human beings without a thought as to their own safety. After the buildings collapsed, they worked long and hard to bring New York back from the worst attack on U.S. soil. But they were lied to and they were badly equipped, and then, when they became sick, as many physicians predicted they would, far too many were abandoned.

Decency demands better.


TOMORROW
The fatalities among the forgotten

Originally published on July 22, 2006
Magmak1


Book Description (Amazon.com)
Probing disturbing questions that beg for a response from the Christian community, distinguished scholar of religion and popular writer David Ray Griffin provides a hard-hitting analysis of the official accounts of the events of September 11, 2001. A tireless investigator, Griffin has sorted through enormous amounts of government and independent data and brought to the surface some very unsettling inconsistencies about what really happened. In this, his latest book, he analyzes the evidence about 9/11 and then explores a distinctively Christian perspective on these issues, taking seriously what we know about Jesus’ life, death, and teachings. Drawing a parallel between the Roman Empire of antiquity and the American Empire of today, he applies Jesus’ teachings to the current political administration, and he explores how Christian churches, as a community intending to be an incarnation of the divine, can and should respond.

About the Author
David Ray Griffin is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Theology at Claremont School of Theology, Professor of Religion Emeritus at Claremont Graduate University, and Codirector of the Center for Process Studies. He is the author of numerous books, including the popular best-sellers The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.
Magmak1
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...06insidejob.htm
-- --
Foremost 9/11 Whistleblower Discusses Possibility Attack Was Inside Job
Edmonds agrees weight of evidence leans towards criminal complicity


Prison Planet.com | July 24 2006

Sibel Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks.

Edmonds appeared as a guest on the Alex Jones Show to give an update on her organization's progress and indicated that the preponderance of evidence, plus the outright cover-up surrounding 9/11 - suggests that criminal elements at the very apex of the US military-industrial complex had a direct hand in carrying out the attack.

A partial transcript appears below.

----------------------------------------------------------

Alex Jones: Sibel Edmonds-- 9/11. You personally, I've heard you on other shows, I've talked to you here. All these prominent people have come out. Clearly you've said that elements of the government had the motive for 9/11. Arabs wouldn't bring down the greatest military in the world upon them. The majority of Arabs in major polls-- what 90% in foreign polls-- believe it was an inside job. What I'm ask-- now half of Americans do in Zogby polls. I'm asking you-- I mean, clearly, where does the evidence point on 9/11?

Sibel Edmonds: Well, that is the whole point, Alex. They are not letting out all the evidence. And since we don't have it to this date. It is as I was telling you, the [unintelligible] Force has been all classified. They also had 35 pages-- and this is according to Senator Graham-- the most important evidence and information on 9/11 by the Senate and House Joint Inquiry that happened in 2002 classified and 5 years later everything about it is classified. And again, you are still having people who are gagged. So this already points out that they don't want the evidence out. And they are keeping the evidence out of the public--

Alex Jones: But even if they cut evidence out of reports, we have the clear evidence of Thermite in the buildings, we have clear evidence of C.I.A. insider trading, N.O.R.A.D. standing down, U.S. troops already massed in central Asia, Bush having the launch order two days before to attack Afghanistan. I mean, Sibel, when you put all that together-- I'm asking you personally-- where does all the evidence point?

Sibel Edmonds: The evidence points to a massive government cover-up.

And that raises the question of why. Now we can answer that in so many different ways and we can speculate, but as I said, the most important thing is to stay with the facts. Not the facts that the government claims to be the facts, but the facts that are absolutely undisputed.

Alex Jones: Sibel, what I'm asking you is, in your gut, do you think 9/11 to some extent is an inside job?

Sibel Edmonds: Well, again, as I am telling you, I'm trying to tell you is, I have all the evidence of cover-up. Now, who were the people behind this? And why? And how? We don't have a definite answer. As I said, we can come up with theories, we can come up with speculation, but they do not--I mean, in my opinion, they are not facts. But also what government has been giving us, again, I don't consider those a total--you know-- total truth or fact either.

Alex Jones: Would you be surprised?

Sibel Edmonds: No. I wouldn't.

Alex Jones: You wouldn't be surprised if elements or criminal elements or private contractors were involved in 9/11?

Sibel Edmonds: No, I wouldn't be surprised.

Alex Jones: So you wouldn't be surprised like many others, because of the evidence and the cover-up you've seen, if 9/11 was an inside job?

Sibel Edmonds: At this point, I'd have to say no, I wouldn't be surprised.

Alex Jones: Do you think the evidence is leaning towards that?

Sibel Edmonds: Well, again, considering the level of cover-up and the length at which they have gone to gag people and prevent information-- this information from coming out, I would say yes.
Magmak1
"We have been advised that the correct date for the C-SPAN broadcast of Alex Jones' LA Panel is this Saturday, July 29th, 2006, 8PM (EDT).

Bear in mind that this is tentative. Don't take our word for it, watch the schedule yourself."
Magmak1
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060723035503797
-- -- --
9/11 Truth Advocates Launch Nationwide Congressional Candidate Poll

- "Politics 911" Seeks Candidates Responsive to 70+ Million Voters Demanding New 9/11 Investigation

Our second anniversary present to Zelikow's fictional thriller, the 9/11 Commission Report. We cordially invite your participation in this historic political gut check, which we suspect may become the best argument yet for transcending the two party system. - Ed.

Nation's largest 9/11 truth network marks second anniversary of the 9/11 Commission Report with campaign to survey all mainstream and third party congressional candidates re their awareness of the case for US government complicity in 9/11 and the high levels of public support for a full reinvestigation, as well as their personal willingness to back such an inquiry if they are elected in the fall.

Kansas City, MO (PRWEB) July 22, 2006 -- In recognition of the second anniversary and widening distrust of the 9/11 Commission Report, 911truth.org announces the launch of "Politics 911," a national campaign to determine support for a new and truly independent 9/11 investigation among all 2006 candidates for the US House and Senate.

The three-month effort aims to poll all congressional hopefuls regarding their awareness of current evidence for US government involvement in 9/11 and the high levels of public support for a full reinvestigation, as well as their personal willingness to back such an inquiry if they are elected in the fall. Zogby polls in August, 2004 and May, 2006 showed that 66% of New York City residents and 45% of Americans overall now desire a new and broader investigation that explores all the evidence for government complicity. In 2004 four presidential candidates-- Michael Badnarik (Libertarian), David Cobb (Green), John Joseph Kennedy (Democratic write-in) and Ralph Nader (Independent)--all backed this demand, but no one has ever polled congressional candidates on this issue before. Survey results will be posted at sponsor websites as they come in starting in early August.

The concept and funding for "Politics 911" materialized from the national truth movement's June 2~4 "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future" strategy conference in Chicago where it emerged as the most favored 2006 initiative. Besides identifying 9/11 truth-friendly candidates, the campaign is designed to remind politically active citizens that the official 9/11 myth remains the covert power source fueling war support, rights violations, and rampant corporate profiteering as well as recent advances toward one-party rule

Campaign advisor W. David Kubiak summarizes its strategy, "We believe the logic is self-evident. 1) Our expensively frightened and misled nation's meek acceptance of the official 9/11 story unleashed every aggressive, autocratic and imperialistic impulse in this government. 2) The architects of this fear and ignorance then consolidated their gains into a repressive 'national security' state at home and an endless, lawless 'War on Terror' everywhere else. 3) This unprecedented fusion of military might, commercial greed and unchecked authoritarian power now threatens the entire planet and every aspect of our lives. 4) Until candidates start publicly addressing this reality and exploring its source--or the people force them to--our elections will remain absurd pillow fights, popular sovereignty a farce, and vote fraud a very moot issue. 5) We the people therefore need to loudly inform our candidates that at least 45% of us can indeed handle the truth and are already way out ahead of their 'leadership'. 'Politics 911' is one effective way to spread that message and support those courageous enough to respond."

911truth.org executive director Janice Matthews also takes heart from the rapidly increasing quantity and quality of grassroots truth advocates. "We're witnessing a major sea change in 9/11 activism and the nation as a whole that no one could have predicted a year or two ago," she said.

"Reaching out to over 1200 congressional candidates would have seemed unthinkable then, but suddenly we have nearly 15,000 people on our mailing lists and local 9/11 groups springing up in 35 states. We are of course deeply grateful for recent help from eminent figures like Daniel Ellsberg, Paul Craig Roberts, 9/11 family leader Bill Doyle, Charlie Sheen and other gutsy celebrities, but what really gives us hope are the often lonely battles of ordinary citizens who put so much of their lives on the line to wake their communities up. It's their help we're ultimately counting on, not just for this campaign, but to help us remember how democracy works and how far we still have to go."

Since so many of the harms of 9/11 have reverberated and even intensified over the last five years, we cordially invite the collaboration, endorsement and/or cosponsorship of other groups and individuals working against war, torture, surveillance, social service decimation or any other downstream consequences of the 9/11 attacks.

To help with this campaign or just obtain more info on how it works, see the "Politics 911" introductory page at http://911truth.org. All the necessary campaign forums, resources and databases should be up and running by August 1. ###
Magmak1
"Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this essay---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed in my books---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion."


From the final two paragraphs of a lengthy, footnoted and referenced article

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

by Dr. David Ray Griffin

January 29, 2006


The entire article is here:

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context...&articleId=1846
Magmak1
Recently Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, was interviewed. Reports circulated thereafter. Ellsberg has written a letter requesting correction of mistatements and misquotations and explaining more precisely what he said and meant. The entire matter is reviewed here (it is very long):

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060720104452787

Some pertinent excerpts of Ellsberg's letter:

"The main headline in the story by Kevin Smith and Alex Jones, Infowars.com, July 19, 2006, "Ellsberg Says Government May Have Carried Out 9/11", is a highly misleading paraphrase of my comments and beliefs. The subheadline, "Predicts Bush Regime Will Stage Terrorist Attack to Provide Pretext for Iran, Syria invasion, and Justify Internment Camps for American People", is a flat misquotation, which actually reverses what I said. Likewise, the corresponding statement in the second paragraph that "within days after a U.S. military strike on Iran Bush's handlers would probably stage some type of terror attack in the West to legitimize the new war."

Both of these alleged quotations are contradicted by the accurate quotation running in a boldface insert alongside them: "If there's another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire DECREE that will involve massive detentions in this country." [emphasis added: not a Reichstag-fire-like US-staged terrorist ATTACK, either before or after a US air attack (not an "invasion") against Iran].

On the possibility that 9-11 was "carried out" by the government, my views have not changed over the last two years, when I have repeatedly endorsed calls for a thorough investigation of a sort that has not yet occurred, exploring valid questions that have been raised by outside investigators and not directly addressed by the official hearings. Those hearings have at the very least have aimed at obscuring or covering up massive incompetence, inattention, horribly misdirected priorities, and culpable negligence, especially in neglect of warnings (all comparable to the response to Katrina). That there "may" have been more sinister motives at work, I cannot rule out as impossible, after my own insider's experience of the Tonkin Gulf incidents in Vietnam, but the evidence so far does not make that a major probability in my view.

-- snip --

I would regard the evidence that manipulation of the electoral process, unethical or illegal, enough to shift the results in the 2000 and 2004 elections to be very much stronger, though still short of near-certainty. And the evidence that a secret Administration RESPONSE to 9-11 was to accelerate a president-led conspiracy to lie the country into an invasion of Iraq, and to violate laws and Constitutional rights, seems overwhelming, more than enough to warrant impeachment of the president, the vice-president, the secretary of defense, and other top aides.

I know others disagree about 9-11, which I respect, but I would point out that much of the evidence on which they base their conclusions has not been subject to cross examination or directly opposing testimony, precisely because the "investigations" so far have refused to use fully the subpoena powers at their disposal or even to address directly many of the probing questions that have been raised by outside analysts."
Magmak1
Recently there was an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times entitled "Conspiracy Theories 101".

Here is the original text as posted at another web site:
http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11591

Here is the response by the professor in question:
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11664

Here is a response by David Ray Griffin:
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11663
jimiray
casual conversation recorded in the lobby at the Chicago 911 "Truth" Conference, Richard Grove telling Webster Tarpley where he stands.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=51...webster+tarpley
Magmak1
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/...measure-us.html

-- -- --

Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Former NSA Director: "By any measure, the US has long used terrorism"

Has the U.S. Government ever used terror?

Well, the New York Times has documented that Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president [ http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/midea...-cia-index.html ]
(see also this essay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax ).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,462976,00.html ], NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension ] and blamed the communists, in order to rally people's support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
[ http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/colle...io/synopsis.htm ]

Moreover, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC News report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings (click link entitled "Joint Chiefs Guilty-Northwoods").

In addition, the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 world trade center bombing, but had -- at the last minute -- cancelled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake power for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes NYT article here (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view).

And the anthrax attacks -- which were sent along with notes purportedly written by Islamic terrorists -- used a weaponized anthrax strain from the top U.S. bioweapons facility, the Fort Detrick military base. [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...49502-2001Dec15 ]

Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong" [ http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/internatio...fm?id=288522002 ].

See also this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer. [ http://www.counterpunch.org/madsenanthrax.html ]

It is also interesting that the only congress people mailed anthrax-containing letters were key democrats [ http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/...x/index_np.html ], and that the attacks occurred one week before passage of the freedom-curtailing Patriot Act, which seems to have scared them and the rest of congress into passing that act without even reading it. And it might be coincidence, but White House staff began taking the anti-anthrax medicine before the Anthrax attacks occurred. [Link: http://www.judicialwatch.org/2953.shtml ]

Even the former director of the National Security Agency said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In `78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation". [Link: http://hammernews.com/odomspeech.htm ] [audio here: http://hammernews.com/odom.ram ]
Magmak1
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NYT_Oliv...ching_0726.html


NYT: Oliver Stone unaware firm pitching his 9/11 film to conservatives worked on Swift Boat campaign

Ron Brynaert
Published: Wednesday July 26, 2006

Oliver Stone, that symbol of everything about Hollywood that conservatives love to hate, is getting help in marketing his newest movie from an unlikely ally: the publicity firm that helped devise the Swift boat campaign attacking John Kerry's Vietnam record in the 2004 presidential race," begins an article in Thursday's edition of the New York Times, RAW STORY has found.

According to a Salon report written two years ago, the firm Creative Response Concept is run by two former communication directors for Pat Buchanan, and has represented such clients as "the Christian Coalition, National Taxpayers Union, Media Research Council and Regnery Publishing."

"Heading into the 2005 Supreme Court nomination battles, it advised members of the Federalist Society on how to handle television interviews and was active in promoting the nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr.," writes David M. Halbfinger for the Times. "When the AARP came out against President Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security, the firm went to work for a conservative group that took on the AARP."

"But it was in the 2004 campaign that Creative Response Concepts made its biggest mark on the political landscape, advising the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which assailed Kerry's Vietnam record as a Navy officer and as a leader of the anti-war movement after he returned home," adds Halbfinger. "Its well-funded attacks were among the most damaging blows to the Kerry campaign."

Stone claims that while he had just learned about the firm's prior "political work" he wasn't surprised to hear about "skeletons in the closet" because it's an "impure market."

"Reached in Boston, Stone said he knew nothing of the public-relations firm's background other than that it had helped to promote "The Chronicles of Narnia" last year for Walden Media and the Walt Disney Co.," writes Halbfinger.

"Believe me, I didn't cave," Stone tells the Times. "They [Parmamount's marketing executives] do it their way."

"Stone said that he condemned the 'Swift-boating' of Kerry, but cautioned that he himself had 'hired publicists in the past that had skeletons in their closet," Halbfinger writes.

"It's not a holier-than-thou street here," Stone tells the Times. "It's an impure market."

Creative Response Concepts set up a screening for conservatives and evangelicals last week in Washington D.C. and more are planned for before the film's August 9 opening. Guests at that screening included conservative journalists from the National Review and The Washington Times, and representatives from groups such as the Family Research Council.

The Times reports that the studio decided that it wasn't necessary to also pitch to liberal groups.

"A Paramount spokesman said that the studio did not similarly pitch liberal groups in its multifront promotional campaign, reasoning that the entertainment press had covered that base," Halbfinger writes for the Times.

-- --

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/movies/2...age&oref=slogin


Odd Bedfellows Align to Market Oliver Stone's Film About 9/11

LOS ANGELES, July 26 — Oliver Stone, that symbol of everything about Hollywood that conservatives love to hate, is getting help in marketing his newest movie from an unlikely ally: the publicity firm that helped devise the Swift boat campaign attacking John Kerry’s Vietnam record in the 2004 presidential race.

And so Mr. Stone, the director of the antiwar movies “Platoon” and “Born on the Fourth of July,” now finds himself sharing something in common with a group of Vietnam veterans who insisted that their comrades who demonstrated against the war were misguided, misled or traitorous.

Mr. Stone said that he knew nothing of the firm’s political work until he was contacted by a reporter on Wednesday. The director’s “World Trade Center,” a largely factual drama about the rescue of two police officers from ground zero after the 9/11 attacks, is to be released on Aug. 9 by Paramount Pictures. But it is already drawing rave reviews in some unlikely quarters.

L. Brent Bozell III, president of the conservative Media Research Center and founder of the Parents Television Council — best known for its campaigns against indecency on television and for stiffer penalties on broadcasters — called it “a masterpiece” and sent an e-mail message to 400,000 people saying, “Go see this film.”

Cal Thomas, the syndicated columnist, wrote last Thursday that it was “one of the greatest pro-American, pro-family, pro-faith, pro-male, flag-waving, God Bless America films you will ever see.”

(Mr. Stone, for his part, has insisted in the past that the film is “not a political movie,” while acknowledging in a recent interview that this “mantra” had been handed to him by his employers.)

To top it all off, a writer on The National Review’s Web site, Clifford D. May, actually wrote the words “God Bless Oliver Stone.”

This about a filmmaker whose conspiratorial tirades — not to mention his hyperviolent “Natural Born Killers,” polarizing political films “J. F. K.” and “Nixon,” and the lesser-known television documentary on Fidel Castro — have driven conservatives batty for decades. Only last year, The Washington Times, in an editorial, called the hiring of the “conspiracy-addled” Mr. Stone a “maliciously inspired choice” to direct “World Trade Center.”

Such glowing reviews for an Oliver Stone movie might have seemed blasphemous to many conservatives until recently, when Creative Response Concepts, on retainer for Paramount, began pitching “World Trade Center” to pundits who would not normally be considered part of Mr. Stone’s core audience.

A screening in Washington last week, for example, drew members of the Family Research Council, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the evangelical Wilberforce Forum, along with a producer for William Bennett’s radio show, writers for The Washington Times and a reporter for the Web site of Human Events, which first reported the event. Creative Response Concepts has played a prominent role in promoting conservative causes. Heading into the 2005 Supreme Court nomination battles, it advised members of the Federalist Society on how to handle television interviews and was active in promoting the nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. When the AARP came out against President Bush’s plan to overhaul Social Security, the firm went to work for a conservative group that took on the AARP. And it promoted Newt Gingrich’s 1994 political strategy, Contract With America.

But it was in the 2004 campaign that Creative Response Concepts made its biggest mark on the political landscape, advising the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which assailed Mr. Kerry’s Vietnam record as a Navy officer and as a leader of the antiwar movement after he returned home. Its well-funded attacks were among the most damaging blows to the Kerry campaign.

The firm also played a major role that year in assailing CBS — then a corporate sister of Paramount at Viacom — for the “60 Minutes” report on President Bush’s record in the Texas Air National Guard that led to Dan Rather’s resignation as anchor of the “CBS Evening News.”

Reached in Boston, Mr. Stone said he knew nothing of the public-relations firm’s background other than that it had helped to promote “The Chronicles of Narnia” last year for Walden Media and the Walt Disney Company. “Believe me, I didn’t cave,” he said. “They do it their way,” he said, referring to Paramount’s marketing executives.

Mr. Stone said that he condemned the “Swift-boating” of Mr. Kerry, but cautioned that he himself had “hired publicists in the past that had skeletons in their closet.” He added: “It’s not a holier-than-thou street here. It’s an impure market.”

In addition to Mr. Bozell’s two groups, clients of Creative Response Concepts have included the three national Republican campaign committees, the Christian Coalition, Manhattan Institute, Free Enterprise Foundation, National Taxpayers Union and Regnery Publishing, home to conservative authors like Tony Blankley and Michelle Malkin, who were also at last week’s screening.

But its clients also have included several Hollywood studios, according to the firm’s Web site. Neither the firm’s president, Greg Mueller, a former spokesman for Patrick J. Buchanan, nor Mike Thompson, an executive who arranged the screening, responded to several telephone messages.

Rob Moore, president of worldwide marketing, distribution and home entertainment for Paramount, said he would have hired the firm regardless of who had directed the movie, because of its strong elements of Christian faith and its depiction of men sacrificing themselves for one another: “the definition of patriotism,” he said.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Moore cited Creative Response Concepts’ connections in the evangelical and conservative movements, and its work promoting “Narnia.” “You need somebody who has credibility with those groups,” he said.

A Paramount spokesman said that the studio did not similarly pitch liberal groups in its multifront promotional campaign, reasoning that the entertainment press had covered that base. The spokesman said that Creative Response Concepts has also helped promote the 20th Century Fox movie “Because of Winn-Dixie” and the CW network’s show “Seventh Heaven.” It has already been hired to help promote “Charlotte’s Web,” which Paramount has scheduled for release in December.

As it happens, the strange bedfellows in this marketing relationship include Tom Freston, Viacom’s chief executive, who with his wife Kathy contributed at least $14,000 to help Mr. Kerry’s campaign in 2004, federal records show. (All told, Viacom executives gave more than $69,000 to Mr. Kerry, far more than to Mr. Bush, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.)

But Mr. Moore said that marketing a movie is, after all, strictly business. “When we walk in that door and put our Paramount business cards in our pockets, our job is to get as many people as possible to come see a movie,” he said. “When we walk out the door, I could be leading rallies for John Kerry.”

-- --
Magmak1
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV407A.html
-- --
An unresolved mystery: The mass murder of 9/11
by Elias Davidsson

On July 22, 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (a bi-partisan Congressional body) issued its Final Report on the events of September 11, 2001. This document of over 500 pages is posted on the internet. It has been presented as the "unanimous conclusion" of the Commission members on what happened on that day and on the reasons for the failure to prevent the attacks. The Commission exonerates American public officials from any blame for such failure, which according to its Chairman, Thomas H. Kean, resulted from failures of "policy, management, capability and, above all, a failure of imagination".

Yet, the Commission has studiously disregarded a wealth of evidence, testimonials, contradictions, anomalies and questions, which both independent researchers and families of victims have referred to. The Commission left large areas of inquiry shrouded in mystery.

The number of anomalies that has been reported by independent researchers regarding 9/11 is staggering. A simple google-search with the string "unanswered questions 9/11" yields over 20,000 sites. These extend to the alleged reasons for the collapses of the two World Trade towers and the lesser known collapse of WTC-7 (which was not hit by an aircraft), the implausibility of a passenger aircraft hitting the Pentagon and disappearing without trace, the alleged shooting down of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, the lack of debris of the crashed planes, the removal and destruction of forensic evidence, the relaxed conduct of various public leaders on the fateful day, prescient remarks by US leaders, and so forth. Many, though not all, of these anomalies are discussed in Prof. David Ray Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor, published earlier this year. In this article, we will concentrate on a single anomaly, namely the passenger lists of the four doomed planes.

The first questions facing any crime investigator are: Who committed the crime and how was it committed. These questions would normally precede any efforts to discover the motives of the perpetrators, examining the preparation of the crime, identifying accomplices and developing means to prevent similar crimes in the future. Yet, the US authorities did not proceed in this time-proven manner. It did not initiate a proper criminal investigation at all and resisted even the call for a congressional inquiry into these events. No official investigation was conducted as to the causes of the plane crashes, as undertaken routinely in the United States regarding all types of crashes, including where criminal conduct is suspected. No official investigation was conducted on the causes of the collapses of the World Trade towers, as is the routine in cases of fire damage. The failure to conduct a proper criminal investigation of a mass murder is unprecedented in US history. Until this day no proper evidence has been presented by the U.S. authorities regarding the identities of the perpetrators and on the means of perpetrating the mass murder. Whatever has been presented in public are allegations based on undisclosed and unverifiable evidence.

For an investigator of a criminal airplane crash, the first source of inquiry would be to study the list of passengers (or flight manifest). On the base of such a list, further investigation becomes possible, such as tracing the passengers' addresses, contacting their families, tracing their credit card payments, etc. Shortly after 9/11, mass media began publishing lists of the passengers who crashed with the four planes. At least four variations of one such list (the passengers of AA 11) have been identified by Gerard Holmgren (see http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288505.shtml) , each with differing numbers of passengers and partly different names. No official explanation was provided for these variations. None of these published lists include Arab names. Yet the FBI and the airlines have until this day refused to publish the original passenger lists, which presumably were the source for these multiple lists published by the media as well as the source for their own claims on the hijackers' identities. An FBI press officer who declined to identify herself, told the author in a telephone conversation on July 23, 2004 that the FBI is not required to publish the passenger lists and did not explain why the FBI would not do so. In spite of the evidential importance of the original passenger lists, the Commission of Inquiry has neither published these lists nor indicated why these lists have not been published. The primary source for attributing the 9/11 atrocities to persons with Arab-looking names has thus remained secret.

Further questions have arisen regarding the number and identities of the alleged hijackers. On 13 September 2001, FBI Director Robert Mueller was reported in the press to have said that "18 hijackers were on the four planes". Yet a few days later that number grew to 19. If the passenger lists had been the source for the former statement, how could the number suddenly increase on the base of the same lists? What person was added to the list, by whom and why? Another perplexing question regarding these lists is the fact that between five and seven alleged hijackers have been reported alive by main media, including the BBC and the New York Times. This evidence was not denied by the FBI, who demonstrated, however, little inclination to interview these "living" suicide-bombers and their families and proffered an explanation to this anomaly as caused by "stolen identities" or because Arab names are prone to misspelling. Yet the FBI maintained the original names and photographs of the alleged hijackers on its website, including of those who are currently living. On November 3, 2001, FBI Director Robert Mueller said that "investigators have established the true identities of all 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers" (Karen Gullo, AP writer, emphasis added). Yet, attributing mass murder to 19 named individuals - who cannot defend themselves - without proving their culpability, is a case of gross defamation as well as an unconscionable attack on the honor of the families of these individuals. The very attribution of the deeds to Arabs, the identity of whom are not even proved, represents also a form of racial incitement.

The import of this single issue (the flight manifests) is far greater than it appears. The refusal to publish the flight manifests cannot be explained by security considerations. The names of the dead passengers were published shortly after the attacks. The names and photographs of the alleged hijackers appear prominently on the FBI's website and have been cited innumerable times by the media and in books. The reluctance of the FBI to publish these passenger lists suggests that they simply do not include the names of the alleged perpetrators. Should no Arab names have appeared on the flight manifests, it would suggest that the world community has been served with a monumental lie and that the perpetrators may be neither Arabs nor Muslims. It is therefore of crucial importance that these lists be published and the various anomalies surrounding the identities of the perpetrators be elucidated.

The above account demonstrates that far from closing the story of 9/11, the report of the Commission of Inquiry may be considered as evidence of a criminal cover-up by the members of the congressional Commission. Such a cover-up may have unforeseeable consequences for the American people as well as for world peace. I appeal to all those who initially felt compassion towards the families of the victims of 9/11: Please do not let these families down in their quest for the truth. They are entitled to know who committed the crimes, who assisted in their commission and in which circumstances their beloved died. We all should insist that the full truth, and nothing but the truth, on the crime of 9/11 be revealed. The publication of the original flight manifests, duly authenticated, would be one element in this quest.

----
Global Research Contributing Editor Elias Davidsson lives in Reykjavik, Iceland. He is a composer, human rights activist and a member of the Icelandic chapter of the 911-Truth Movement.

-- --
Magmak1
http://falseflagnews.com/

Pay attention now. With the recent news, the new al-Qaeda tapes, and the furtherance of the long-term plan for war, something more may be coming. Ellsberg has mentioned it, and others (Tarpley and perhaps McGovern) have noted it as well.
TheRestofUs
I'm worried about what is coming. ermm.gif
jimiray
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jul 27 2006, 09:48 AM)
http://falseflagnews.com/

Pay attention now.  With the recent news, the new al-Qaeda tapes, and the furtherance of the long-term plan for war, something more may be coming.  Ellsberg has mentioned it, and others (Tarpley and perhaps McGovern) have noted it as well.
*


Now I know why those B-52's were heading out from Barksdale yesterday.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.