Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Buildings Topple Over

Normally, when buildings collapse, they topple over:

Why didn't this happen to the World Trade Centers on 9/11?


Monday, October 30, 2006

Osama Bin Framed?

Project Censored's list of the Top 25 Censored Stories is, appropriately, getting wide coverage all over the web.

The 16th censored story from the Project Censored list reads:

#16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
The Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006, and Ithaca Journal, June 29, 2006
Title: “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’”
Author: Ed Haas

That's true. But the bigger story is the possibility that Osama Bin Framed.

The Real Bin Laden Denied Responsibility

On September 16, 2001 Bin Laden denied responsibility for 9/11, stating:

"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."

Would Mr. Bragging-Terrorist himself deny such a devastating attack had he carried it out?

Subsequent Videos

According to video experts (and see this) and top Bin Laden experts, recent Bin Laden videos are fake.

Even Walter Cronkite, America's most trusted newsman, said of a previous Bin Laden tape:

"I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing...."

Why would Cronkite say this? Well, all of Bin Laden's videos since his initial denial of responsibility for 9/11 seem to praise whatever person, viewpoint or country the Neocons currently wish to demonize. You know, if Bin Laden endorses it, then we Americans should be against it.

And Bin Laden's videos always come at the most politically expedient time for the White House. Just like all of the other terror scares.

Dead or Alive?

Of course, many say that Bin Laden is dead (see, for example, these reports from Israeli intelligence and Pakistani intelligence).

But even if Bin Laden is alive, the U.S. has missed numerous slam-dunk opportunities to capture or kill him:

· A retired Colonel and Fox News military analyst said:
"We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty — which is huge in the world of intelligence — that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers — Seal Team 6 — nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it ....Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden."
· The CIA commander in charge of the capture of Bin Laden during the invasion of Afghanistan said that the U.S. let Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan

· CIA agents met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11, when he was already supposedly wanted for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, and when it was obvious to the intelligence services that he was supposedly planning 9/11.

Why would the U.S. let him slip away and survive on at least 3 different occasions? And why would the U.S. government authenticate videos that experts state are faked? To use him as a boogeyman to scare people into rallying against whatever the White House wants people to hate?

Is there anything to the following cartoon?


Even if you believe that Bin Laden actually had a role in 9/11, it is unambiguous that he was not acting alone. At the very least, elements within the U.S. government facilitated the 9/11 attacks. The attacks could not have caused 3,000 deaths without "help on the inside". If the government ever gets around to indicting Bin Laden for 9/11, it has to indict as co-conspirators all of those U.S. citizens who blocked our military and intelligence services from stopping the attacks, who instructed occupants at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to stay inside those buildings even though it was fatal to do so, and who demolished the World Trade Center.


Friday, October 27, 2006


Do not read this.

It is not authorized by the government.

   It does not say what the television news says.
It contains information which was not in your high-school history books.

Stop NOW . . .

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened". - Josef Stalin

Uh-oh . . . you read unapproved quotes. Did anyone give you permission to read these? Who gave you permission to think for yourself?

And what are these quotes about?

Well, it is widely known that the Nazis, in Operation Himmler, faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. And it has now been persuasively argued — as shown, for example, in this History Channel video — that Nazis set fire to their own government building and blamed that fire on others (if you have trouble playing the clip, it is because the website hosting the clip requires you to download the clip before playing it). The fire was the event which justified Hitler's seizure of power and suspension of liberties.

And the Russian KGB conducted a wave of bombings in Russia in order to justify war against Chechnya and put Vladimir Putin into power (see also this short essay and this report).

And the Turkish government has been caught bombing its own and blaming it on a rebel group in order to justify a crackdown on that group.

And the well-respected former Indonesian president said that that Muslim government had a role in the Bali bombings.

And the Philippine government has apparently played the same game.

But could this happen in modern America? Initially, it is now fairly well-accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a fabrication. See this article.

More importantly, official, 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. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC 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").

But Al-Qaeda is different -- powerful, organized, and out to get us, right? Maybe, but take a look at this Los Angeles Times Article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares".

And did you know that 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 have you heard that 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.

Uh-oh . . . you're starting to learn things the government, tv news and history books never told you about.

I told you not to read this.


Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Small White Plane Followed Flight 93 as it Crashed

The evidence is overwhelming that a small white plane was following Flight 93. And there is evidence that it was, in fact, following Flight 93 while it was still ariborne or, at least, as it crashed.

A second plane, described “as a small, white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings,” is seen by at least ten witnesses flying low and in erratic patterns, not much above treetop level, over the crash site within minutes of United Flight 93 crashing. Independent, August 13, 2002.

• Lee Purbaugh: “I didn’t get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon.” Mirror, September 12, 2002

• Susan Mcelwain: Less than a minute before the Flight 93 crash rocked the countryside, she sees a small white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings swoop low over her minivan near an intersection and disappear over a hilltop, nearly clipping the tops of trees lining the ridge. She later adds, “There’s no way I imagined this plane—it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven’t found one like it on the Internet. It definitely wasn’t one of those executive jets.

Mcelwain, who lives two miles from the Flight 93 crash site, had seen a small jet plane flying very low overhead as she was driving home. She later recalls that it had been “heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down.” But it was only later in the afternoon, after returning home and turning on the TV, that she’d realized what she’d seen was connected to the attacks in New York and Washington. While she was confused that a Boeing 757—not a small jet plane—was being reported as having gone down near where she’d been, she’d then realized that the small plane was flying in a different direction to that being described for Flight 93. So she got her husband to tell the police about what she’d witnessed. Consequently, late in the evening, the FBI turns up to talk to her about it. Yet, as Mcelwain later recalls, “They did not want my story.” They keep asking her how big the plane she’d seen was. When she tells them it was small, not much bigger than her van, one of the agents tells her, “You don’t know what a 757 looks like.” She retorts, “Don’t be condescending towards me. If you don’t want to believe me, that’s fine, but I thought I should report what I saw. You ought to know there was something else in the air at the same time this was going on. We want to make sure it was ours and not somebody else’s.” After this, she will recall, the agent “did seem to get a little nicer. Told me that it was a white Learjet. Somebody was taking pictures. And I said, ‘Before the crash?’ and he says, ‘Well, we’ve got to go,’ and that was the end of it.” September 14, 2001, Bergen Record; Mirror.co.uk; Lappe and Marshall, True Lies (New York: Plume, 2004), pp. 38-40

• John Fleegle and two work colleagues arrive at the crash site “before any fireman or paramedics or anybody.” According to Fleegle, “When we got there, there was a plane flying up above and he was smart, he flew straight for the sun so you couldn’t look at it and see exactly what type of plane, if it was a fighter or what it was.” However, Fleegle claims the plane “was decent sized. It wasn’t just a little private jet or something like that, from what we could see.” True lies, 35-36.

• Dennis Decker and/or Rick Chaney, say: “As soon as we looked up [after hearing the Flight 93 crash], we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast. It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out.” Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Learjet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. “It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, I’d find out who was driving that plane.” Bergen Record, September 14, 2001

• Kathy Blades, who is staying about quarter of a mile from the impact site, runs outside after the crash and sees a jet, “with sleek back wings and an angled cockpit,” race overhead. Philadelphia Daily News, November 18, 2001.

• Anna Ruth Fisher says, “After the crash, another jet went near over to look.” Her mother, Anna B. Fisher, adds, “We were looking at the smoke cloud when we saw the jets circling up there.” Courage After the Crash: Flight 93 Aftermath--An Oral and Pictorial Chronicle (Somerset, PA: SAJ Publishing, 2002), 27.)

• Jim Brandt sees a small plane with no markings stay about one or two minutes over the crash site before leaving. Pittsburgh Channel, “Alleged Partial Flight 93 Cockpit Transcript Obtained,” September 12, 2001

• Bob Page sees a large plane circling the crash site for about two or three minutes, before climbing almost vertically into the sky. He cannot see what kind of plane it is or if there are any markings on it, but says, “It sure wasn’t no puddle jumper.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, “Homes, Neighbors Rattled By Crash,” September 12, 2001

• Tom Spinelli: “I saw the white plane. It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash.” Mirror, September 12, 2002

The FBI later claims this was a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet, directed after the crash to fly from 37,000 feet to 5,000 feet and obtain the coordinates for the crash site to help rescuers. Pittsburgh Channel, “FBI Explains Other Planes At Flight 93 Crash,” September 15, 2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 16, 2001. The FBI also says there was a C-130 military cargo aircraft flying at 24,000 feet about 17 miles away (see 10:08 a.m. September 11, 2001), but that plane wasn’t armed and had no role in the crash. (Pittsburgh Channel, “FBI Explains Other Planes At Flight 93 Crash,” September 15, 2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 16, 2001). Note that this is the same C-130 that flies very close to Flight 77 right as that planes crashes into the Pentagon (see 9.36 a.m. September 11, 2001).

All of the information comes from Cooperative Research's 9/11 Timeline. The 9/11 Timeline is a fantastic resource, although their links are coded in an odd format which it makes it very time-consuming to post links.


Highly Credible People Question 9/11

Before you can come to an informed decision about 9/11, you should read why the following HIGHLY CREDIBLE people question the government's story about 9/11:

Military leaders: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/04/military-leaders-question-911.html

Legal scholars:

Scientists :

Members of Congress:

9/11 Commissioners:

Psychiatrists and psychologists:

Victims' family members and heroic first responders:

Prominent liberals:

Prominent conservatives:


Jews and Muslims: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566566606/104-4302294-7530306?v=glance&n=283155

Haven't heard of all of these credible people? Here's why:



Friday, October 20, 2006

Michael Chertoff: 9/11 Revisionist

Michael Chertoff, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, admitted in a Washington Post article that 9/11 truth has gone mainstream. Chertoff tries to write off 9/11 truth and the secret history of false flag operations as "historical revisionism", which is the polite way of saying a false conspiracy theory.

However, when Mr. Chertoff was a top justice department terrorism prosecutor, he said something very different:
"As of Sept. 10th, each of us knew everything we needed to know to tell us there was a possibility of what happened on Sept. 11th . . . We knew the World Trade Center was a target . . . We knew an airplane could be used as a weapon."
So, Mr. Chertoff, those in government knew "everything [they] needed to know", knew the Twin Towers were targets, and knew an airplane could be used as a weapon? And yet:

• Bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11?

• Security for the Trade Centers (run by a Bush-linked company) let a power down occur in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, with security cameras being shut down, and many workers running around the building largely unobserved?

• Someone with very high-level clearance moved up war games previously scheduled later in the year so that multiple large, complex war games all "happened" to overlap on 9/11 -- including live-fly exercises, plane-into-buildings drills, and the injection of false radar blips onto flight data screens?

• The 4 hijacked planes magically disappeared from the military's radar screens, which can track planes even with the transponders turned off (also, listen to this interview)?

• 3 modern steel-frame buildings all mysteriously collapsed on the same day, at nearly free-fall speeds, after explosive sounds and flashes (many below the impact zone) were seen and heard by numerous credible witnesses, somehow partially evaporating huge steel beams, creating chemical signatures found only when certain explosives are used, and producing molten metal which flowed for many months under ground zero?

The "revisionist" is you, Mr. Chertoff, not those who say that 9/11 was an inside job or that false flag operations have been used by Western governments to control their people.

Pledge of Allegiance

I remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance as a schoolboy. I didn’t fully understand what some of these concepts referred to: the words “liberty” and “justice”, for example, are very abstract ideas for a small boy. But I had a warm feeling swearing my loyalty to the United States, to God, to liberty and justice.

Now, many years later, I know what liberty and justice are. I have come to see how important -- and rare -- those ideals are.

And I have learned the entire history of the U.S., both good and bad. I have learned of her honorable and selfless actions. I have also learned about her brutally deceitful and murderous actions, including the frequent use by our government of false flag terror.

But even after learning of all of the deceit and murder committed by our government, I still have strong positive feelings for the United States. My forefathers fought and died for liberty. My ancestors struggled to deliver a nation ruled by laws and justice, instead of by the whims of men. My people gave their blood, sweat and tears to throw off the yoke of the British monarchy and to defeat the ambitions of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito in World War II.

And so – even after the Iraq war, and the destruction of New Orleans, and the spying and torture scandals, and the vote fraud, and 9/11 and all of the other false flag attacks carried out by by the government over the years - I am willing to pledge my allegiance to the United States of America. Because - as sick and twisted and amoral as she may have become in recent years - I still hold out hope that we may again decide to get back to the great work at hand, the “grand experiment” of self-government and democracy.

Better Forms of Government

Why not support some other form of government, you might ask? Well, no matter what “ism” one tries - socialism, communism, etc. - the government will only be as good or as bad as the people that run it, and their adherence to the ideals upon which it is founded. For example, I personally think any Americans still calling themselves communists are ridiculous, because that whole form of government has been tried and it failed miserably: its leaders were corrupt and brutally repressive (Russia's Stalin and the current Chinese leadership, for example, are some of the worst the world has seen).

And the American system is clearly imperfect, even on paper. For example, I believe that European-style proportional representation would be better than the current winner-take-all system, since it allows third parties to have some seats in Congress, and thus breaks the 2-party monopoly we see in the U.S. I also believe that, when the Founding Fathers adopted the idea of separation of powers from the Iroquois constitution, they forgot some of the most important parts. But the Constitutional system we have in America is basically a good system, and – as shown by the recent shenanigans by those currently in the White House and Congress - any system, no matter how good it looks on paper, can be subverted by bad people.

The U.S. system is as good a starting point as any. And - with good leadership - it has at times been a great system. And it could be again.

So I WILL pledge my allegiance to the ideals of the United States of America.

Commander in Chief

But I will not pledge my allegiance to George W. Bush and his band of truly un-American wanna-be fascists. These people want to trash the Constitution which they are sworn to uphold and defend. These people want to defile the graves of the Founding Fathers in order to destroy our democratic republic, and turn America into a tin-pot dictatorship. Leaders are only as good as the faithfulness with which they follow their nation's common ideals. These people do not pledge their allegiance to America, and so I do not pledge my allegiance to them.

I call on all Americans to pledge their allegiance to the Constitution, but not to the usurpers and pretenders who are hell-bent on destroying it.

I also remind the good and honorable people in the military remember -- especially those in leadership positions and also those who come from military families -- that they have sworn an oath to protect and defend the U.S. from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I pray that they remember that they have sworn their allegiance to the ideals of the Constitutional form of government which their ancestors fought so hard - and, in many cases, made the ultimate sacrifice - to defend. If those who never served a day in the military - the people who got us into the messes in Vietnam and Iraq, who have destroyed the reputation of the U.S., and who have created many more terrorists than they have killed - are calling on you to do something which will fundamentally weaken the security of the United States, such as invading a foreign country which has not attacked the U.S. first, or helping to carry out a false flag attack on Americans, then you must decide whether such act is contrary to your solemn oaths. If you decide that it is (and how can you not?), then you must act appropriately.

Similarly, if you are asked to torture an American citizen solely because he or she is criticizing the current administration or its policies or working for liberty and justice, you must ask yourself whether you wish to be a good little soldier "just following orders", like the Nazi police did.

If you think I'm being overly-dramatic, please note that the newly-passed torture law states:
"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

According to a Yale law professor, "The [torture] legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

According to the New York Times, the legislation introduced, "A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."

And according to another law school professor, "Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of 'terrorist' organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an 'unlawful enemy combatant' and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens." And even peace protestors are being labelled as "terrorists".

And given that the White House's National Strategy for Combating Terrorism labels "conspiracy theorists" as terrorist recruiters, just about anyone who says that 2 or more people within the Bush administration have done anything wrong could conceivably be labelled an enemy combatant.

And that's all before even discussing the "Homegrown Terrorism" act.

It is time for all of us, civilian and military, to remember that our pledge of allegiance, our sworn oath, is to the Constitution, and not to the Commander in Chief and his compadres. The Commander in Chief is only legitimate to the extent that he follows the Constitution. His orders must be disobeyed to the extent that they are contrary to the Constitution, and certainly if they will undermine the security and defense of the country in the short or long-run. And when the President has breached his allegiance and duty to the United States, when he is acting like a domestic enemy of the Constitution, then he should be given about as much legitimacy as Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or Saddam Hussein would be given if they ran for President of the United States of America.

It is time to remember the pledge of allegiance, and to reflect on its true meaning. And then to act to uphold our pledge and sworn oath, and to save the United States of American from its so-called leaders.


Tuesday, October 17, 2006

9/11 Truth Has the Power to Unravel Fascism

Numerous prominent gatekeepers have recently said that 9/11 truth is a "distraction", and "takes energy away from working on more important issues". Are they right?

Actually, 9/11 is the core issue, the central knot which holds all of the other tyrannical actions of the last 6 years together. When the central knot of 9/11 lies is pulled, it will cause the entire fascist mess to unravel.

Here's why:

• The administration's false claims linking Iraq and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. At the time, the Iraq-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as the fake WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq.

• The trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration, to close ranks in a time of peril, and to give the commander in chief his supposed "mandate" (there was obviously election fraud).

Ever since 9/11, the American people have been terrified -- and thus irrational -- based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues -- including withdrawal from Iraq -- until "we get the bad guys". Numerous scientific studies show that people whipped into a state of fear can't make logical decisions. Unless we unwind the source of their fear -- the false belief that a guy living in a cave defeated all of America's defenses and that he's out to get us again -- people will keep on acting irrationally.

• The government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any costs.

• The Bush administration has also used 9/11 as an excuse for domestic spying without warrant, and will use 9/11 as an excuse for every other unconstitutional, undemocratic, unAmerican destruction of civil liberties which it undertakes.

• Even after all of the government's lies have come out, Americans are still terrified about Arabs with weapons. Moreover, since Americans are still largely ignorant about the use of "false flag operations" by governments to justify wars, Americans will fall for a faked provocation. In other words, the fact that 9/11 has not been exposed as a false flag operation will enable the neoconservatives to use another faked terror incident in order to justify a war against Iran.

Put Yourself in the Shoes of a German Citizen in the 1930's

Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. Do you believe:

• You could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans were a generous and good people who do not torture others?

• You could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of other countries by reminding Germans that war is bad and peace is good?

• You could have stopped the brownshirts and loss of domestic rights by writing about the desirability of civil liberties?

The German people were whipped up into a state of hysteria and fear, because they thought they were under attack by communists, and Poles, and "bad guys" in general. The German's were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader. Without first exposing that the Reichstag fire and Operation Himmler - the two things which were the source and root cause of the German people's fears, and which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power -- the sweeping away of worthy causes by the wave of fear could not be stopped.

Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist and Polish terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to their leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.

The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time. The German people might have snapped out of their false-flag-induced state of hysteria which prevented them from thinking clearly. They could have been spared the horrors inflicted on their nation and the world by the Nazis. And sanity could have been preserved in 1930's-era Germany.

Would that have been a mere "distraction" for the Germans? Is it today for the people of America? The answer is clearly no.

9/11 Truth Has the Power to Unravel Fascism

9/11 truth has the power to unravel fascism. By proving that our country cannot so easily be attacked without the complicity of insiders, 9/11 truth will pull the rug out from beneath the fear-based hysteria which has gripped our country and our world. As the fear decreases, people will start to emerge from their mental bunkers, and to reassess whether they are willing to tolerate fascism, injustice, and imperial wars based upon false pretenses.

Rather than being a distraction, 9/11 truth is thus crucial for anyone who cares about America, liberty, justice or peace.

Note: Technically, the word "fascism" refers to bundling together a group of rods which are individually weak to increase their strength, that is, the word is a symbol of strength in unity, or the people rallying around the strong leader. But the image of "unravelling fascism" by pulling the thread of 9/11 truth sounds better to the modern ear than "unbundling fascism".


Sunday, October 15, 2006

Poisoning the Well and Cutting the Cheese

Two highly effective forms of disinformation are spreading crazy theories and acting in a crazy manner.

Poisoning the Well

Most of us have heard the term "poisoning the well" in connection with false 9/11 theories. If you haven't, the idea is that people trying to discredit the 9/11 movement will intentionally spread false theories to discredit everyone who questions 9/11.

Spreading theories that are obviously nutty right-out-of-the box paints the entire movement with a negative color. But other theories that may at first appear to be attractive -- but are flawed or based on incomplete evidence and so can be definitively debunked by the government at a later time -- can also end up pulling the rug out from the entire 9/11 truth movement.

Many 9/11 activists have assumed that the well-poisoners are so small in number that they are not very effective. However, some of these people might have, right after 9/11 , started sending emails and making phone calls to congress critters, reporters and other high-powered people bombarding them with crazy theories, so as to poison the well from the start. In other words, these folks might have been a lot more effective than any of us have realized in poisoning the well. (I am not excusing the congress critters, reporters, etc. for failing to do their job).

Cutting the Cheese

I've recently come to believe there is a related disinformation tactic which I'll call "cutting the cheese". To continue with this humorous but unsavory analogy (I apologize for its crudeness), people can be driven away from a seminar, party or other gathering if someone really cuts the cheese.

I have run across some characters in the last couple of years who are self-proclaimed 9/11 truth activists, but who are so crazy, sleazy, slimy and plain old weird that everyone just wants to get away from them. I'm not talking about people who have less-than-ideal social skills, or who are nerdy, or who are not in the right clique. I'm talking about people who threaten to kill others, or who dress like homeless people, who accuse effective 9/11 activists of being terrorists, who yell loudly and disrupt 9/11 truth gatherings, who throw rocks at peaceful rallies, or who put out videos on you tube showing Satan and Godzilla and other bizarre images while the sound track talks about 9/11.

I have come to believe that these kind of people are paid to "cut the cheese" and "clear out the room". Newbies to 9/11 truth who run across these folks are going to want to steer clear of them, and anything associated with them. Because these folks are many newbies first introduction to 9/11 truth, they will just stay away from anything having to do with 9/11 truth.

Poisoning the well means spreading theories which are crazy. Cutting the cheese means acting in a crazy manner. They are related, but separate, forms of disruption.

Have you had any experience with well-poisoners or cheese-cutters? If so, you know what I mean. If not, keep these tactics in mind so that you will know them when you see them.


Thursday, October 12, 2006

If It Quacks Like A Duck . . .

9/11 activists spend a lot of time trying to figure out who is a government "disinformation agent" and who is not.

I would argue that it is a total waste of time.

If someone is being disruptive, or seems to pursuing one of the 5 goals of disinformation, then he or she is causing problems and should be avoided -- or at least not given a megaphone. It doesn't matter what the motivation is: whether ego, confusion, or a government paycheck.

Sure, some people might want to understand someone's motivations to know whether or not to give him or her a second chance. That's fine.

But if it quacks like a duck, its probably a duck. Its a waste of time to try to figure out why it quacks, or whether its a mandarin duck or a mallard. Just treat it like a duck.

This is part 3 of my 3-part introduction to disinformation for busy people. Part 1 is here, and part 2 is here.


Israel and 9/11: Thou Does Protest Too Much

Anti-semitism is one of the most frequent allegations about people involved in the 9/11 Truth movement. Is it true? Are 9/11 truthers really anti-semites?

Well, prominent Rabbi Michael Lerner and other Jewish leaders are calling for 9/11 truth. Indeed, Rabbi Lerner says that uncovering the truth of 9/11 has the power to bring positive, lasting change to our nation and to our world.

And some of the leading members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth are Jewish.

As are some of the other prominent individuals who have called for a deeper investigation into the events of 9/11.

Indeed, some of the most committed and hard-working 9/11 activists, such as Jon Gold and many others, are Jewish.

So that must mean that these are "self-loathing" Jews, right? No, actually. I know many of these people quite well, and they are wholly comfortable being Jewish. Many are proud of their heritage and their faith.

In fact, the charges of anti-semitism are clearly illogical. For example, a book has been labelled as anti-semitic even though its co-editor is Jewish and it contains contributions from 4 Jewish writers.

While there are a very small number of people claiming that they are for 9/11 truth but making anti-semitic remarks, they are shunned by the overwhelming majority of 9/11 truthers who abhor anti-semitism.

Given these facts, I would say this to anyone who claims that the 9/11 Truth movement is anti-semitic:

Thou Does Protest Too Much.


5 Minute Strike

The 9/11 General Strike was a great idea, but it didn't work.

Why not? Because not enough people participated. It didn't send a message loud enough for the tyrants to notice. It didn't put a dent in the corporate machinery or the "bottom line" or the machinery of government.

The problem wasn't getting the word out. The General Strike was advertised really well. The problem, instead, was that many people (including most Americans) were too comfortable and not motivated enough to take a whole day off from work, from shopping or from school.

But if we don't strike and protest in large numbers, then -- given how worthless both blue and red politicians are -- the slide towards fascism will continue until it is complete.

So are we helpless? No. I think people just aren't pissed off enough yet to pour out into the streets. We have to do a better job of educating people about what's really going on.

And I would would argue that, by thinking smaller (at least in the short-run), we may actually get bigger results.

Instead of taking a whole day off, let's take 5 minutes off. Almost everyone can sneak away from work for 5 minutes. Everyone can stop shopping for 5 minutes. Many students can make an excuse and get away from their class for 5 minutes.

If, instead of a couple of thousand people engaging in a general strike, we can get a lot of people to take 5 minutes off, it will send a clear message to the wanna-be emperors in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere that we're here, we're awake, and we know that we have the power to shut down the whole economic, social and political machine if we want.

I propose every Tuesday at 10:03 a.m. local time. Why 10:03? That is the time that the 9/11 attacks ended, and the last hijacked plane crashed, according to the 9/11 Commission. Because many of our freedoms have been taken away since the horrible attacks of 9/11, and two wars (and counting) waged based upon 9/11, and because numerous highly-credible people question the 9/11 Commission's findings, the Tuesday at 10:03 a.m. time is appropriate.

So take 5 minutes once a week to walk out of work or school (and don't buy anything for those 5 minutes). EVERYONE can spare 5 minutes. And if enough of us do it, we will send a message loud enough to be heard by the powers-that-be.

Context: The Indonesian people stood up to tyranny and won. The Ukranian people stood up to tyranny and won. The East German people stood up to tyranny and won. The people of the Phillipines, South Korea, Bangladesh, Serbia, Czechoslovakia and other countries around the world have won against tyranny whenever ordinary people have poured into the streets in massive numbers and demanded freedom.

What about present day American people? The U.S. has turned or is close to becoming fascist. Are we standing up to the tyranny in our country?

America taught the world something about the fight for liberty back in 1776. But we've forgotten what it means to be free people. We've forgotten that we have the power to make the government start representing us and respecting our freedom. Perhaps looking at modern people in other countries who have stood up to tyranny will help us to remember our power.

Spending 5 minutes once a week peacefully protesting is a good place to start. It might not sound like much, but it will get people in the habit of taking action to protect their rights and liberties, and will help wake people up from their stupor and inertia of passivity.


Wednesday, October 11, 2006

The 5 Goals of Disinformation

The 5 goals of infiltrators of the 9/11 truth movement (or any movement challenging fascism) are to: Distract, Disrupt, Divide, Discredit and Derail.

Specifically, avoid people whose actions mainly have the effect of:

* Distracting, disrupting, or derailing 9/11 truth efforts;

* Dividing the truth movement; or

* Discrediting leading 9/11 activists

To remember this list, just think of "the 5 D's of Disinformation".

his is part 2 of my effort to provide a very brief introduction to disinformation for busy people. Part 1 is here.


Monday, October 09, 2006

Everything You Need to Know about Disinformation in 2 Minutes

The topic of disinformation is a very complicated one. Essays, lengthy papers and whole treatises have been written on the subject. But the very length of most discussions overwhelms people, so that they never get an accurate picture of what disinformation looks like.

So I thought I'd take a crack at a very simple definition of disinformation, something that is short enough to read in two minutes.

Disinformation is:

* Repeating the same factual claims over and over even when people have proven that such claims are contrary to the evidence (for example, the claim that no planes hit the Twin Towers)

* Spending more energy causing in-fighting and disruptions then helping to promote the truth, and causing dedicated activists to waste time rebutting obviously false claims and theories

* Unnecessarily alienating large sections of the population by attacking victims' families, certain religious or ethnic groups, or political parties with no reason

* Calling someone names instead of addressing that person's theories or claimed facts

* Making knowingly false statements about someone

* Threatening people or their families with violence, job loss, or other forms of intimidation or harassment

* Acting as provocateurs to disrupt peaceful groups or gatherings

People who repeatedly do one of the above things even after people have pointed out what they are doing, are spreading disinformation -- consciously or unconsciously. Indeed, because disinformation may be an unconscious activity, I prefer to call it "disruption". These actions disrupt the ability to spread 9/11 truth and to obtain justice against all of those who carried out the attack.

No matter how much seemingly good 9/11 truth work someone has done in the past, if someone starts causing more disruption than good, than he or she should not be followed any more. This is especially true if people have pointed out that person's disruptive behavior, but he or she has carried on disrupting 9/11 truth work anyway.

This is part 1 of a 3-part introduction to disinformation for busy people. Part 2 is here, and part 3 is here.


Saturday, October 07, 2006

Government Knew Attacks could be WITHIN the U.S.

Condoleezza Rice and other Bush administration players argue, in response to the revelations about George Tenet's July 2001 briefings of pending attacks, that everyone assumed the warnings were about attacks on U.S. interests outside of the U.S. However, a quick look at the facts undermines this argument:

Richard Ben-Veniste said the following to Condoleezza Rice the following question during her appearance before the 9/11 Commission:
"The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well documented, and Richard Clarke's testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well documented. You acknowledged that Richard Clarke told you that Al-Qaeda cells were in the United States.
(or watch the video).

The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".

The CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 "that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected" according to a broadcast on National Public Radio

Newsweek stated "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns" (pay-per-view; cached version of article here)

It was widely known within the FBI shortly before 9/11 that an imminent attack was planned on lower Manhattan.

An employee who worked in the south tower stated "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on"

And a guard who worked in the world trade center stated that "officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks"

According to MSNBC, "There have been a slew of reports over the past decade of plots to use planes to strike American targets".

For example, a 1998 report forwarded from the FBI to the Federal Aviation Administration concluded that "a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane . . . into the World Trade Center".

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the military air defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. mainland, had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run.

And a pre-9/11 National Intelligence Estimate was entitled "Islamic Extremists Learn to Fly", and was apparently about Islamic people taking classes at U.S. flight schools.

So the administration's story that they thought the warnings in the months leading up to 9/11 had to do with U.S. interests outside of the U.S. is not credible.