Monday, July 31, 2006

Bipartisan

The following table shows that both Democratic and Republican administrations use false flag terror and fake intelligence (if you can't read this in Firefox, try Internet Explorer):


REPUBLICAN


USS MAINE. The sinking of the USS Maine -- the justification for America's entry into the Spanish-American War -- was, according to the Navy's own historians, probably caused by an internal explosion of coal, rather than an attack by the Spanish, yet it was blamed on the Spanish. (William McKinley)


IRAN BOMBINGS: 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 (see also this essay)(Dwight D. Eisenhower; plan devised during a Democratic administration)


ITALIAN TERROR. As confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy 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." (commenced during Nixon administration, then continued under both Republican and Democratic administrations)


GULF WAR. Two lies were used to justify the 1991 Gulf War: the statement that Iraqis murdered Kuwaiti babies and the statement that Iraqi troops were massed on the border with Saudi Arabia (second half of video)(technically, the statement about Kuwaiti babies did not come from the U.S. government). (George H.W. Bush)


9/11. The 9/11 attacks (George W. Bush)


ANTHRAX. 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? Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong"; and see this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer. It is also interesting that the only congress people mailed anthrax-containing letters were key democrats, 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. (George W. Bush)


DEMOCRATIC


PEARL HARBOR. As shown by this BBC special (which contains interviews with some of the key players), it is possible that America knew of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor — down to the exact date of the attack — and allowed it to happen to justify America's entry into World War II. See also this short essay by a highly-praised historian summarizing some of the key points (the historian, a World War II veteran, actually agreed with this strategy for getting America into the war, and so does not have any axe to grind). The Pearl Harbor "conspiracy" involved hundreds of military personnel, according to top historians. Moreover, the White House apparently had, a year earlier, launched an 8-point plan to provoke Japan into war against the U.S. (including, for example, an oil embargo) And — most stunning — the administration took numerous affirmative steps to ensure that the Japanese attack would be successful (Franklin D. Roosevelt).


OPERATION NORTHWOODS. 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 committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. Read the followingABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings (click link entitled "Joint Chiefs Guilty-Northwoods"). (John F. Kennedy, who vetoed the plan)


GULF OF TONKIN. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a fabrication, used to justify the escalation of hostilities against Vietnam. See this article. (Lyndon Johnson)


OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING. Local news reports after the blast indicated that there were numerous blasts, contrary to the official story. A Brigadier General wrote a report finding that there were multiple, high-tech bombs used to bring down the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. (see also the General's letter to Senator Trent Lott ). A report based upon test results at a military base apparently confirmed this conclusion (William Clinton).


1993 WTC BOMBING. 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 (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) (William Clinton)


TERROR IN GENERAL. 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" (the audio is here) (the relevant Senate discussion occured during the Carter administration, although the statement clearly applies to both Republican and Democratic administrations spanning many years).



4 comments

Saturday, July 29, 2006

2004 Gallup Poll: Majority Think 9/11 Cover-Up

According to a March 2004 Gallup poll, 53 percent of those surveyed said they thought the Bush administration was covering up pre-9/11 intelligence (8th paragraph).

This is the first time I've seen any mention of this poll.


3 comments

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

What Would It Take?

Just hypothetically, what would it take to convince you that 9/11 was an inside job? I'm not talking real-world here. Just as an exercise.

Is there any proof, any piece of evidence, any confession -- no matter how far-fetched or impossible -- which could, just hypothetically, convince you?

Confession

You might say "sure . . . confession by a high-level insider". If such a confession is the only thing which would convince you, think about this for a second: If you helped to kill 3,000 of your own people, would you admit it?

Probably not.

That's why most criminal convictions take place in spite of the fact that the defendant adamantly denies that he committed the crime. But there's enough evidence from other witnesses or the crime scene that the judge or jury finds him guilty. Or maybe there is such strong evidence that the defendant had the motive to commit the crime -- because he would benefit handsomely from it -- that he's convicted.

You might say that 9/11 is different. If there was a conspiracy that big, someone would have spilled the beans by now. Right?

But -- hear me out -- that's not necessarily true. If, hypothetically, of course, 9/11 was an inside job, then it was probably carried out by a group of very disciplined military type folks who know how to carry out an operation and keep their mouths shut. Moreover, these folks would be used to learning information stricly on a need-to-know basis. In other words, they wouldn't even know that they were helping to carry out 9/11; they would just know their one little part of it.

Moreover, a very small group of people could have carried out 9/11.

And when you think of confessions, you're thinking of small-time criminals. High-level criminals like mob bosses don't go around blabbing to outsiders. And the Nazi leaders didn't really confess their crimes (some did at the Nurenberg trials, but not before).

In any event, many witnesses who are high-level officials, and firefighters, police and FBI have come forward to testify against the U.S. government's version of 9/11.

So -- if there are other types of evidence -- can you at least consider the possibility that 9/11 might, just possibly, be an inside job even if none of the actual perpetrators have yet confessed?

But That's NOT POSSIBLE

Of course, it's IMPOSSIBLE that anyone in our government would do something as horrible as 9/11. We know that because we know that we're the good guys, and that our government tries its hardest to protect us. Right?

Its like a defendant falsely accused of a crime. The jury should find him innocent, because he's a good guy, and his life, his actions have been those of a basically decent guy. It would be very different if the defendant had previously been found guilty of similar crimes. Obviously, in that case, it would be more likely that the defendant did it this time, too. Right?

A good example is Muslim countries and other rotten nations who have terrorized their own people for political gain. If the leaders of one of those countries was accused of a terrorist act, we'd think its possible they did it again. Right?

Well, here's the thing. American political leaders have occassionally exaggerated military intelligence for political gain.

And, our leaders have in fact sometimes used terrorism in the past.

So we can't assume, without looking at the facts of 9/11, that this is not the kind of thing that our leaders would do.

What would it Really Take?

So what would it really take for you to believe 9/11 was an inside job? Disproof of the official story? Okay, here it is.

Proof that the government knew about the pending attacks, but did nothing? Read this and this.

Scientific experts saying it? See this.

Or . . .

Or do you just NOT want to believe it? That's okay. Admit it.

Then when you are ready, take a look at the evidence . . .

Start by actually reading the information contained at the links.


18 comments

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 (see also this essay).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy 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."

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 (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. Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong"; and see this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer. It is also interesting that the only congress people mailed anthrax-containing letters were key democrats, 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.

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" (the audio is here).


1 comments

Monday, July 24, 2006

Strange Times at the Pentagon

Navy Historian Barbara Honegger says that there are multiple lines of evidence showing that an explosion occurred at the Pentagon on 9/11 at 9:32 a.m. The official story says that Flight 77 did not hit the building until 9:37 a.m. (top of page 10).

For example, in an interview for the new version of Loose Change (7:00 into the video -- you can pull the scroll bar at the bottom left to the correct time, and it will take you right to the right place), Honegger said:

• Several clocks at the Pentagon stopped at 9:32, a full five minutes before the official time that the Boeing 757 hit the building

• High-level, credible witnesses place the incident time at 9:32

• A Pentagon worker said that he witnessed a bomb squad at a subway station near the Pentagon prior to the attack on the morning of 9/11, but there were no bomb squads there on previous or subsequent days

I asked Pentagon survivor April Gallop whether she knew when the explosion occurred at the Pentagon. April sent me the following email in response:

"I looked at my watch before I looked at the computer, it was 9:30 am.

Later that night, I looked at my watch it stopped at 9:30am."

Does Gallop's testimony reinforce what Honegger is saying or not? Or is this another example of moving timelines to fit the official story? Or does it corroborate Matthew Everett's theory that there was a military exercise occuring at the Pentagon on 9/11?

I honestly don't know whether this is an important lead or a red herring and a distraction. But I hope that its all sorted out, one way or the other, in the near future.



4 comments

Friday, July 21, 2006

Who Are the Heroes?

Who are the Heroes of the 9/11 Truth Movement?

Is it Jim Fetzer, Steve Jones, David Ray Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Bob Bowman, Morgan Reynolds, Webster Tarpley, and the rest of the all-star cast of Scholars for 9/11 Truth? These folks have certainly been doing great work and getting the word out.

Is it Dylan Avery and the rest of the Loose Change crew? They have indeed made a movie which has been seen by millions on the Internet already, and are doing incredible interviews for their new edition.

Is it Alex Jones, Mike Rivero, or the handful of people who have run thoughtful and informative websites for years? They have without doubt acted as elders to us, teaching us about false flag operations (and in AJ's case, getting incredible interviews and making hard-hitting documentaries).

Is it the well-known web researchers who have turned over every stone to find the basic facts contradicting the official story of 9/11? These talented men and women have been unbelievably persistent, dedicated, hard-working and smart in their efforts, and the rest of the movement stands on their shoulders.

Certainly, these folks are all heroes in my book (along with other well-known heroes who -- for the sake of brevity alone -- are not mentioned by name).

But on-the-ground and web activists are also incredible people. Not only do the activists move the ball forward by leaps and bounds, spreading 9/11 truth virally and into every segment of the country, but they are also an INSPIRATION to the people in the limelight mentioned above. Don't believe me? Ask them yourselves.

KEEP IT UP PEOPLE . . . WE'RE HEROES TOO!


10 comments

Monday, July 17, 2006

Officials from Across the Political Spectrum Question 9/11

The following table shows that high-ranking officials from across the political spectrum question the official version of 9/11:


CONSERVATIVE

Current Republican Congressman states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"


Former U.S. Republican Congressman, who is a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (see also this statement, and this one)

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (his conservative credentials are evident in his bio)

Former high-ranking official under George W. Bush, and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis

Former high-ranking official under Ronald Reagan, who is a highly influential conservative (see also this essay)

Former Air Force Colonel and Pentagon official, who was part of the influential Office of Special Plans, and who was at the Pentagon on 9/11


LIBERAL

Current U.S. Senator states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

Former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (see also this statement)

Former ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson


Current congresswoman, former senior CIA analyst, former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter, former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism, and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (as well as a who's who of liberals and independents)

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg

UNKNOWN OR NON-U.S.

Former Two-Star general

Former 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required), said "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job

Former Canadian Minister of Defense

Two former MI5 (British intelligence) agents (19 minutes into video)

High-ranking general and the former chief of NATO (in Danish; hint -- he mentions bombs in the Twin Towers)

The commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force; and see also statement of former chief of staff of the Russian armed forces

See also the officials listed here and here.

These are just the officials who have gone public. There are many more who have privately expressed skepticism of the official story.

I am not vouching for everything that these officials state, or for the credibility of every official. But this list shows, without doubt, that the demand for 9/11 truth is bipartisan.



12 comments

Chop Wood, Carry 9/11 Truth Posters

If you are an atheist, please consider sharing this essay with people you know who are spiritual or religious.

Fundamentalist Christians and Jews certainly don't want anyone to question 9/11. The war on Muslim nations with alot of oil terror is based on the official myth of 9/11.

But an entirely different group of believers is equally closed to 9/11 truth for an entirely different reason.

Perhaps 35 million Americans have read the book The Secret (or seen the movie), or read other spiritual books which say that what you think creates your reality*. This belief is going viral.

What does this have to do with 9/11?

Well, someone I know who liked The Secret told me that my 9/11 activism was "bringing negativity into my life" and helping to create exactly what I feared -- another false flag attack. Indeed, I think that millions of Americans are avoiding 9/11 truth because they think that looking at unpleasant subjects like false flag terror will "bring down their energy" and actually increase the chance of negative things happening.

Is she right? Well, it turns out that even some of the spiritual teachers featured in "The Secret" say that their message has been misunderstood, and that we have to act as well as do spiritual practice.

Indeed, many spiritual and religious teachers have endorsed 9/11 truth, and called for 9/11 action. A partial list of such teachers includes:

Rabbi Michael Lerner

Many Christian teachers and theologians

Ray McGovern (Christian)

Dr. Steven Jones (Mormon)

Bob Bowman (Catholic)

Joanna Macy, Buddhist teacher (in private correspondence)

Celestine Star (non-denominational)

Fred Burks (non-denominational)

Kevin Barrett (Muslim)

Steve Bhaerman (Yogi)

Ken Jenkins (non-denominational)

These aren't cynical atheists. They're all folks who meditate or pray a lot.

We may create our own reality, but part of that creation is using our minds, and our voices, and our pens, and our bodies.

Indeed, a quick Google search shows that spiritual teachers of every stripe, including many believers of "new thought" spirituality advocate 9/11 truth. See, for example, this site.

As a well-known Christian ministry says about religion and justice: "The good news about justice is that God is for it. And we're it!" In other words, we can't sit around and pray for God to bring justice to the world. We are God's hands in the world, and if we are people of faith, we have to do justice.

So I'm not saying don't meditate or pray. Personally, I think meditation and prayer are great. But when you're done with your practice at the altar, pew or meditation cushion, get out and fight for 9/11 truth and justice.

The Bible says "faith without works is dead" (James 2:20). Similarly, Zen teachers say -- when asked what to do when one becomes spiritually aware -- "chop wood, carry water". What they mean is that after you get up off your meditation cushion, you need to live life in the world, to do the things which need to be done.

As the many spiritual teachers who advocate 9/11 truth and justice might say, "chop wood, carry 9/11 truth posters".

* This estimate includes people who read the books or view movies without buying them.


1 comments

Sunday, July 16, 2006

America Haters

I've been accused -- along with all others who question the official 9/11 story -- as being "America Haters" or "Anti-American". Is it true? Is it unAmerican to question the story that 19 hijackers outsmarted the American military and made fools of the world's top building engineers?

Well, that depends. Specifically, it depends on what being American means. If being American means upholding the Constitution, believing in our democratic republic, and striving to meet the ideals of our founding fathers, then those who question the official story are some of the most patriotic Americans around. Everyone I know in the 9/11 truth movement loves liberty, freedom and justice, respects the Constitution, and values truth.

On the other hand, if being American means going to war under false pretenses, and murdering innocent American civilians as part of a "false flag terror" campaign to whip up hatred of an enemy, then no -- we don't want any part of that.

Please stop for one minute and reflect on the following question: Who are the true patriots? Are the real patriots:
  • Those who murder innocent Americans and falsely blame it on others and who intentionally twist intelligence in order to deceive the people into unnecessary wars?
or
  • Those who seek to expose such practices, and to prevent the spilling of more innocent American blood?
Those who question the official story of 9/11 do not hate America. We, who are 100 million strong and growing in numbers every day, love our country enough to protect it from those who would destroy it and everything it stands for.

Those who murder innocent Americans in order to justify unnecessary wars, and who twist intelligence to fool people, are the true America haters.


33 comments

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Interview with April Gallop

April Gallop worked inside the Pentagon on 9/11, as an administrative specialist (with a Top Secret with SCI clearance) with the U.S. Army. It was her first day back from maternity leave, after delivering her son Elisha, then two and a half months old.

April is a very brave woman. She and her son suffered tremendous injuries and trauma on 9/11, but they both made it out alive to tell their story.


Me: April, did you hear any warning alarms go off before the Pentagon was hit on 9/11?

AG: No I did not.

Me: What type of warning alarms would you normally expected to go off in the case of an attack on the building?

AG: While I worked at the Pentagon. At random times, there would be drill exercises utilizing an alarm for us to evacuate the building.

Yet on that particular day no alarm. [This is] especially [odd] considering the fact of what had already taken place at the World Trade Center.

Me: When you were first hired to work at the Pentagon, what were you told about the security of the building?

AG: I wasn't hired. I was selected from the military in Germany. I just was granted approval for an additional 3 years tour in Heidelberg Germany. Which is called an IPCOT (In Place Consecutive Tour). Then I learned I was selected among my peers to go to the Pentagon. Upon arrival,I completed what is known as Reception and Integration.

A common statement provided, as you are walking around is that, "you are now standing in one of the most secure building in all of the United States." It is quite an impressive building on the inside.

Me: Do you have any theory about how a Boeing 757 could have hit such a secure building without any anti-aircraft defenses being activated or any warning alarms sounded?

AG: I have thought about this very question numerous times. And then I realized I needed to rephrase the question. The real question is what is the probability or likelihood that no anti-aircraft defense, warning alarms or additional security mechanism functioned on that particular day?

And then we need to think how likely is it then there was a glitch in all the security mechanisms, anti-aircraft defense and warning alarms?

You know, it takes a while to get around that building. And I remember being so disgusted at the frequency of random drill exercises taking place for us to evacuate the building. It seemed as if they always happened when I had to take care of certain things.

Yet on September 11th, the day when our lives were threatened, not one alarm.

Me: I would imagine that security procedures are different now than they were prior to 9/11, so I don't think you would be revealing any confidential information by answering this question. I have heard that, as of 9/11, the anti-aircraft batteries were automated, in other words, that they would have automatically fired against any incoming aircraft that did not transmit the appropriate friend or foe signal. Is that true?

AG: Yes that is true. They are either to attempt to guide the incoming aircraft that has violated the airspace to a safe location to land. Making reasonable effort to guide it down. Or shoot it down.

Me: I know that you have previously been quoted about things like thinking that a bomb had exploded in the Pentagon, and that you did not see any plane debris in the Pentagon. I do not want to misquote you or twist your words. Is there anything you wish to state about these topics?

AG: I have been misquoted on numerous occassions. That happens when individuals have ulterior motives. But here is my statement for the record.

I was located at the E ring. From my inside perspective, with no knowledge of what had actually happened on the outside, it did sound like a bomb. And we had to escape the building before the floors, debris etc collapsed on us.

And I don't recall at anytime seeing any plane debris. Again, I don't know what plane debris would look like after hitting a building. But I would have recalled unusual looking pieces similar to plane parts.

I have many flashbacks being inside the mouth of death. The images from being inside that building on that day are forever etched in my mind.

Me: As a father, I understand and empathize how traumatic the explosion at the Pentagon must have been, where you had to search for your son, and -- when you first found him -- he wasn't breathing (that is why I am calling for assistance for your family below). I also have no opinion, unlike many 9/11 writers, about whether a Boeing 757 hit the building or not. In all honesty, if I could conclusively prove it was a 757, and put the controversy to rest, I would be happy. Or if I could prove that it was not a 757 once and for all, I would be glad that way too.

So I want to ask you more about what you saw, in the hope that it will provide clues one way or the other about this issue. Specifically, given that the images from being inside the Pentagon on 9/11 etched in your mind, do you remember how big was the hole in the West Wing that you and Elisha crawled out of? A retired 2-star general says that there is no way a 757 could have fit in the hole: http://www.undersiegemovie.com/media/stubblebine.wmv (short video clip). Similarly, the first cameraman at the Pentagon said he did not see any hole or debris which would indicate a 757 hit the building: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1375208054676470714 (38:27 into the video -- you can pull the scroll bar at the bottom left to the correct time, and it will take you right to the right place) (Note: I do not necessarily endorse the views expressed by these clips, or the credibility of the people speaking therein; indeed, I have not yet made up my own mind about them. I am simply attempting to obtain April's opinion based upon her experience).

As someone inside the building at the time who crawled out, I would be very interested to hear whether you think these folks are right or whether you think they are mistaken. There are no right or wrongs here -- I just want to hear your true opinion, and I understand that you were suffering a terrifying trauma at the time given that you were injured and you were focused on getting help fo your injured son.

AG: Yes I was focusing on getting help and getting out. With that in mind, the images are etched in my mind. When I review the pictures regarding the Boeing, in my opinion, the hole didn't appear to be big enough for the 757. I don't know the scientific theory that was created to justify it being a hole created by a 757. What we need to consider is how did the plane go thru the building with all that heat and not burn us (those on the inside) to a crisp? We need to consider, how did the plane break up so to the point it created a perfectly round hole considering the rate of impact?

I didn't know it was a plane until I was informed at the hospital. If I wasn't informed I would have never believed it. I walked through that place to try to get out before everything collapsed on us . . . surely we should have seen something.

Me: Is there anything else you'd like to tell me at this time?

AG: I don't want another American citizen to have our experience. We are already infiltrated by our enemies in this country. There are terrorist cells all over the country. It is my hope that real accountability take place. And that we work to improve services for victims who suffer from such a horrid event. And prevent people, agencies and organizations from capitalizing off of our victimization.

April was severely injured on 9/11, and has suffered Mild Traumatic Brain Injury with Post Concussive Syndrome, an unresolved muscoskeletal condition, and mild hearing loss. Her son has suffered mild traumatic brain injury with behaviorial deficit that resulted in developmental delays and learning disability in retaining information he learns. She was medically retired from her job because of her injuries.

April has not received adequate support for her or her son's injuries. Whatever you believe about 9/11, this woman deserves our support.

Note: For more information on the attack on the Pentagon, see this.


37 comments

Prominent Christians Endorse 9/11 Truth

You might be interested to learn that numerous prominent Christian theologians have stated that an in-depth examination of what happened on 9/11 is a moral imperative for Christians.

For example, look at what ministers and Christian theologians from around the country are saying about "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action", published by the official publisher for the Presbyterian Church (available here):

"Professor David Ray Griffin has a well-deserved reputation for the thoroughness of his research. All Americans who love their country enough to dig into the facts of these critical times will be well rewarded by examining his books. 9/11 truth is a very important issue---one with the power to bring lasting change to our country.”

—The Reverend William Sloane Coffin Jr, author of Credo: Letters to a Young Doubter and A Passion for the Possible: A Message to U.S. Churches

“A gripping account of precedents for the current global empire, from the Rome of Jesus to twentieth-century ‘false-flag’ operations. . . . His wake-up call to U.S. Christians will be evaded at our peril.”

—Catherine Keller, Professor of Theology, Drew University, and author of God and Power.

"WARNING: If, like most Americans calling themselves Christian, you prefer the comfort of acquiescing in the official version of 9/11 and the imperial wars it facilitated, DROP THIS BOOK NOW. But if you are open to the grace of honest inquiry and the risk of following the historical Jesus in confronting the evils of empire, this rigorously argued book is a MUST READ.”

—Ray McGovern, CIA veteran analyst now with Tell the Word, a project of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour, Washington, D.C.

"David Griffin has previously made the case for the Bush administration’s complicity in 9/11 and the cover-up of this evidence by the 9/11 Commission. Here, in this important book, he puts these shocking realities in the context of Christian theology and the challenge to the churches. In a profound exploration of the nature and history of the demonic, Griffin suggests that American empire is a culmination of human demonic alienation from God."

—Rosemary Radford Ruether, emeritus scholar, Claremont Graduate University and Claremont School of Theology

“Do American Christians want the United States to act like the New Rome, invading other countries to impose its imperial rule and its control of other peoples’ resources? That, however, is just what the US is doing, increasingly so since 9/11, explains David Griffin. In this gripping summary of evidence for the truth behind 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission report, Griffin makes a compelling case that the imperial practices of the American government have become a destructive force in the world. And he clarifies the biblical and theological basis for Christians to challenge the resurgent American imperialism that often claims divine blessing on its destructive actions.”

—Richard A. Horsley, Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts and the Study of Religion, University of Massachusetts, and author of Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder

“If you are open to recognizing that the United States behaves much as other great powers have behaved, but you get your information through standard American channels, I dare you to expose yourself to the facts Griffin summarizes, facts that have been suppressed by our newspapers and magazines. If you are one who wants to be a disciple of Jesus, you will have some hard thinking to do about what American Christians are called to be and to do at this historical moment.”

—John B. Cobb Jr, co-author of The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God

“Are we brave enough to read this nerve-wracking book, one of the most important theological texts of our time? Rooted in the longstanding belief that Christians share responsibility for shaping a more justice-loving world, Griffin makes a strong case that the real "conspiracy theory" about 9/11 is the Bush Administration's silly notion that nineteen young Arab men could have pulled it off. Griffin helps us wrestle with questions that are almost too much to bear, yet which may empower us, if we dare, to build a more truthful and, over time, more deeply moral nation and world.”

—The Reverend Carter Heyward, Robbins Professor of Theology Emerita, Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and author of Saving Jesus from Those Who Are Right and God in the Balance: Christian Spirituality in Times of Terror

Now watch for yourself an interview on BBC television of a prominent theologian outlining some of these issues.

As Christians, we have a moral duty to take a hard look at the facts for ourselves.



16 comments

Monday, July 10, 2006

More Pentagon Videos to Be Released

Many people interested in 9/11 truth are falling into a big trap.

Specifically, they believe that the government is refusing to release any videos of the aircraft which struck the Pentagon on 9/11 other than these two inconclusive clips.

Whether you believe that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or not, please get your facts straight: many more videos will probably be released soon.

The reason is that there are actually two separate Freedom of Information Act requests for Pentagon videos. The first two videos were released in response to the first FOIA request. But the second FOIA request is much broader in scope, and will probably lead to the release of 84 new videos, including the Citgo gas station video and the Doubletree Hotel video.

By way of background, the group which initially prepared the FOIA requests -- Flight77.info -- drafted the first FOIA request too narrowly and, after they realized their error, submitted a better-written, second FOIA request. See the Flight 77 Info website for details.

So whatever you think about the Pentagon, and whatever you think the still-unreleased videos will show, please keep in mind that a boat-load of new videos will probably be released within the next couple of months.


12 comments

Saturday, July 08, 2006

A Hundred Firecrackers

There were numerous eyewitness reports of loud explosions right before the collapse of each of the Twin Towers.

Defenders of the official story argue that the explosions were actually floors "pancaking" on top of each other.

However, such a theory doesn't explain the reports from credible witnesses of a series of rapid-fire sounds like "gunshots" or "firecrackers". For example:

A witness interviewed on television stated "it sounded like gunfire . . . . bang bang bang bang bang . . . and then three big explosions"

And a paramedic said "at first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop -- thats exactly what I thought it was" (page 9)

Now, the guys who made the video Loose Change have found another witness. Specifically, the brand new trailer for the final cut of the video Loose Change includes a news interview with a witness who heard the following, right before the collapse of one of the towers:

"It sounded as if you had a hundred of those . . . firecrackers and you lit them all off at once . . . it sounded like the finale of the Fourth of July over the East River"
(at 15:21)

How can pancaking floors sound like hundreds of firecrackers during the grand finale at a major fireworks show?

On the other hand, wouldn't hundreds of cutter charges going off at once make exactly that sound?


3 comments