George Washington's Blog

Evidence is Growing: Continuity of Government Plan is Currently in Effect

2008-04-11T14:54:00.000-07:00

In two previous posts (here and here), I showed that Continuity of Government (COG) plans were implemented on September 11th, and I argued that it is possible that they have never been suspended.

Now, one of the top investigative journalists in the country, Larisa Alexandrovna (the lead journalist at Raw Story), says:

"it seems to me that this administration has justified its crimes by NOT suspending the state of emergency that went up on September 11, 2001. They are using emergency powers if you look at the whole of the spying, military actions inside the US, etc. I would wager that if asked, this administration will admit that we have been in a state of emergency for their tenure in office."

Remember that Continuity of Government plans -- that is, the measures that go into effect in case of emergency -- suspend the Constitutional form of government, cut elected officials out of the loop, and may even allow the government to tell the media what it can and cannot report.

Remember also that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the government's Continuity of Government Plans even though it has clearance to view such plans (video; or here is the transcript). Indeed, a member of that Committee has said "Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right”.

If we are in a state of emergency and COG plans are in effect, then Congress acting even more obviously like corporate and military lapdogs than normal and totally ignoring the will of the people would make sense. It would make sense that "impeachment is off the table", because Congress would not even be sitting at the table under a non-constitutional COG form of government; and Congress certainly would not be a co-equal branch of government with the Executive branch.

If we are in a state of emergency and COG plans are in effect, then the corporate media's acting even more obviously like the disinformation arm of the government than usual would make sense.

Given the stakes, it is vital that we demand that Congress and the White House state on the record whether or not Continuity of Government plans are currently in effect. We're not going to make any progress on whatever issue is most important to us -- peace, liberty, election integrity/vote fraud, 9/11 truth, etc. -- if we are living under a COG regime and we don't even know it.

And our strategy will be different depending on whether we are living under a COG regime or a Constitutional form of government.

We have to find out one way or another.

For a full discussion on COG, see this.

"The US Air Force Shot Down Flight 93"

2008-04-11T14:27:00.000-07:00

The following comment was posted to my blog today (I do not know who the author is -- he posted semi-anonymously; so decide for yourself whether or not you believe him):

"I am an Air Force veteran. I was serving at Langley AFB, Virginia on Sept. 11. (not to be confused with CIA headquarters at Langley, VA). The "Alert Squadron" of 4 F-16 Falcons also stationed at Langley AFB was scrambled AFTER the "plane" crashed into the Pentagon. Because of my position as a ground equipment mechanic, I had access to the flightline operations that day. My friends were Crew Cheifs and Weapons Loaders, among other professions on the flightline that day. One of my [unusual] duties that day was to drive a Loader (personal friend) along with a rack of live missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) across the active runway to the Alert Squadron and drop them off. I was towing equipment to the flightline, so when it was time to go back and pick up the Loader (and our missile trailer) I was unable to do so, but another member of my Flight (a good friend, and later roommate) did go. According to my roommate (and I later confirmed with the Loader) the Loader was completely silent most of the trip back to our side of the base, after they crossed the active, he spoke. "They shot one down." JJ replied "WHAT?" Loader:"One of those 16's came back with one less missile than it left with" That was all. As they pulled back in to the squadron area, The loader was whisked away by his commanders for debriefing. I didn't see him for a few days, but when I did, he said he couldn't talk about it, but he confirmed that what my roommate had told me was true.

The US Air Force shot down Flight 93. I haven't told this to many people. I told my parents and other family members shortly after I left the military. They didn't believe it. I figured no one else would either. I kept my mouth shut. Everyone was dedicated to the president and the country (not really) And anything that went against the Official, media delivered story was viewed as unpatriotic. I knew that I loved this country, so I kept my mouth shut. I just can't do that anymore. I know that I don't have any documents to prove it, and I have no way of knowing where the others involved are now days, so I can't prove anything. All I have is my word. and with God as my witness that is the truth."

If We Don't Learn Our History, We're Doomed to Repeat It

2008-04-10T23:21:00.000-07:00

Everyone has heard the saying "if we don't learn our history, we're doomed to repeat it".

Let's see if history can teach us anything about 9/11:

Historians agree that the Japanese bombed one of their own railways, and then blamed it on Chinese dissidents, as a justification for war against China

It is widely accepted 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

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

In the early 1950s, agents of an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, in the hope that radical muslims would be blamed as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers). Israel's Defense Minister was brought down by the scandal, along with the entire Israeli government. See also this confirmation

The Russian KGB apparently 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)

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

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

As documented by the New York Times, 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)

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."

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

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 powder for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view)? See also this TV news report

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; and this statement by a distinguished law professor and bioterror expert (and this one). 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

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)

A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative"

Famous leaders have stated again and again that false flag terror is the name of the game:

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

Adolph Hitler said: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death".

Nazi leader Hermann Goering said:
"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".

Josef Stalin said:
"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"

Given the above-described history of false flag terror, it is beyond dispute that we must carefully scrutinize what really happened on 9/11, and that we cannot take the government's word for it.

Global Warming: First Do No Harm

2008-04-10T11:02:00.000-07:00

Whatever you think about global warming, our first responsibility is to make sure that the cure is not worse than the disease. As the father of medicine -- Hippocrates -- put it, "first do no harm".

In other words, if all the patient has is a slight headache, you don't want to bleed him with leeches and then cut out part of his brain.

What am I talking about? Well, initially, liberal pundit Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:

"Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.

Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now." (page 388).

I don't care if Godzilla is about to attack . . . submitting to fascism is always a bad idea.

Moreover, I heard years ago in college that people were debating dropping a nuclear bomb on the Isthmus of Panama (the little spit of land which separates the Pacific ocean from the Carribean), in order to join the two oceans and so - hypothetically - curb the effects of global warming.

Now, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' "

Some people are also suggesting cutting down trees and burying them.

These proposals are insane. They would cause unimaginable damage to human health, and could very well destabilize climate in a manner we haven't foreseen.

Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not, it is vital that we all use our heads and stop our government from doing anything crazy and destructive in the name of protecting us from global warming.

Numerous Structural Engineers Now Publicly Challenge Government's Explanation for Destruction of the World Trade Center

2008-04-09T16:51:00.000-07:00

Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:

"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:

"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:

"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:

"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:

"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ."

Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states

"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.

Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures."

Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:

"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.

We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?"

David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

See this website and this website for further additions.

There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.

See also this.

It Is NOT Too Late

2008-04-04T21:20:00.000-07:00

With the never-ending assaults on our constitutional liberties by the wanna-be fascists . . .

With the constant manipulations of the economy by the powers-that-be . . .

With the mountain of horrific crimes committed by the mega-corporations in Iraq and America
. . .

With the constantly-increasing blizzard of psyops and snow-jobs by the corporate media . . .

It is easy to lose hope

Or to have the fire of righteous anger doused by the dampness of fatigue

Or to ease up on trying to fix things

A Little Perspective

It is vital to put things in perspective:

We are (still) able to share real news on the Internet

We are (still) not locked in prison camps set up for those who criticize the government

We have (still) not bombed yet another country for oil

There has (still) not been a nuclear or bio false flag

We are (still) able to access food and other necessities

Therefore, we still have resources to work with . . .

NOW Is the Time

Indeed, while the forces of darkness are perhaps greater than ever before, we also have more awareness and more resources than ever before. More people understand the history of false flags than ever before. More people understand than ever before that wars are fought for the financial interests of the few (according to Noam Chomsky). More people can access uncensored information on the Net than ever before. More people see the big picture than ever before.

I'm not saying everything is okay and we should relax. I am saying that the battle isn't over yet. Liberty and justice and sanity can still prevail.

NOW is the time to stand up and insist on our freedom.
NOW is the moment to seize victory away from those who want to manipulate us.
NOW is the window of opportunity when the people can throw off the yoke of the tyrants.

We still have everything we need to win.
It is (still) not too late

NOW is the perfect time to take action!

To Keep America Safe, We Must Impeach Bush and Cheney for Their Disregard of Life on 9/11

2008-04-04T12:41:00.000-07:00

Even if you (unlike the military leaders, intelligence professionals, scientists, engineers, and other highly-credible people who question 9/11) -- do not believe that elements within the U.S. government intentionally aided and abetted the September 11 attacks, or let them happen on purpose, you have to admit that the government failed to do its job of protecting the American people.

For example, 9/11 was completely foreseeable. U.S. and allied intelligence services had penetrated the very highest levels of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and heard the hijackers' plans from their own mouths.

However, even the 9/11 Commission found that the Bush administration did nothing to prevent the attacks. For example, 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said:

"The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That's what he said.

Mr. President, you don't need to know that. This is an Islamic jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in '96 and '98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat.

And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign ...."

Indeed, before 9/11, U.S. and allied governments had prevented the arrest of many of the hijackers.

In addition, once the 9/11 attacks were under way, what did the Bush administration do? You might think that I'm going to say "nothing".

Actually, they did worse than nothing. They actively interfered with the ability of the military and civilian air traffic controllers to prevent or minimize the catastrophe.

Don't believe me? The 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 (Col. Robert Bowman) stated:

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive."

What does he mean? He means that the normal airplane intercept protocols were wholly ignored on 9/11.

Of course, President Bush read My Pet Goat for seven minutes after being informed about the second airplane, and then loitered at the school for a long time after that. If he had acted decisively and told the air force to immediately intercept all hijacked planes, lives would have been saved.

Moreover, Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge of ALL of the war games which occurred on and coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks (see this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this essay). The war games had previously been spread out over the course of a couple of months, but someone -- with Cheney in charge -- moved up all of the war games to 9/11. Because of this scheduling, on the morning of 9/11, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony -- see transcript here or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).

Some of the war games included inserting fake radar information onto air traffic controllers screens (pay-per-view article; reprinted here) . Air traffic controllers claim they couldn't see some of the hijacked planes, and that they were still tracking what they thought were hijacked planes long after all 4 of the real planes had crashed. This implies that false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down.

And fighter jets were sent far off-course over the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the attacks (testimony of Senator Mark Dayton), neutralizing their ability to intercept the hijacked airliners.

And people within the U.S. government, including Dick Cheney, watched Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon from many miles out, and watched other of the hijacked planes for many miles, but failed to take any steps to intercept any of the aircraft.

Finally, someone ordered the tenants of the Twin Towers back into the Towers. They died when the buildings collapsed. It is not clear who ordered the people back in; but -- even if Bush or Cheney were not responsible for the order -- given that 9/11 was a national emergency, they had the power to order a full evacuation. Thus, the blood of those who died in the Twin Towers is on Bush and Cheney's hands as well.

Therefore, it is beyond argument that Bush, Cheney and the other leaders of our government failed to protect us on 9/11, and increased the death toll from the attacks.

Bush and Cheney's Criminal Negligence and Wilfull Disregard of Loss of Life on 9/11 is Grounds for Impeachment

According to the former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clarke, criminal neglect is a basis for impeachment. Specifically, in the articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney which Clarke drafted, he lists as one of the grounds for impeachment: "Engaging in criminal neglect".

Similarly, Elizabeth Holtzman, former Congresswoman who served on the House Judiciary Committee during Nixon's impeachment, co-authored the 1973 special prosecutor statute, and co-wrote the book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush, has stated that criminal negligence is a basis for impeachment:

"The president neglected his duty over matters of vast consequence and in situations where the trust placed in him was great. This conjunction of his failure to take care and his reckless indifference to human life provides the basis for impeachment."

Other constitutional experts have also stated that criminal negligence or willfull indifference to loss of human life is a basis for impeachment.

Given the discussed-described facts, it is beyond dispute that President Bush and VP Cheney were -- at the very least -- grossly negligent and willfully indifferent to loss of human life before and on 9/11.

They should therefore be impeached. If we do not impeach Bush and Cheney, it will set a dangerous precedent for future Commanders-In-Chief and Vice Presidents . . . that they can act with gross negligence and callow disregard for human life, and not face any consequences.

Bush and Cheney should also be impeached for falsely linking Iraq and 9/11.

In addition, they are also subject to criminal prosecution for their criminal negligence and disregard for loss of human life.

Why Don't the Democrats ask Mukasey Some Real Questions?

2008-04-04T11:59:00.000-07:00

Its headline news that top Democrats are asking Attorney General Mukasey to explain his comments about a pre-9/11 phone call from a terrorist to the United States.

Why doesn't Congress ask Mukasey some real questions. For example:

Mr. Attorney General, since the U.S. government knew the date and method of the 9/11 attacks, why weren't the attacks stopped?

Mr. Mukasey, because the government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers' own mouths, why wasn't anything done to stop them?

Sir, since U.S. and allied intelligence services had penetrated the very highest levels of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, why wasn't 9/11 stopped?

U.S. and allied intelligence services seem to have actually employed or at least protected many of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Uh . . . why did they do that?

9/11 Truth is Not "Old News"

2008-04-02T12:16:00.000-07:00

Every time an important fact undermining the official story about 9/11 is raised, defenders of the government's version try to label it as an "old story" which is "not news".

Are they right?

Well, the Iraq war is "old" news, right? The fact that Bush lied us into it?

The fact that it was an unnecessary war?

The fact that it is bankrupting the U.S.

Oh wait ... The war is CONTINUING, so it is still news.

Similarly . . .

The entire "war on terror" is based on 9/11.

TRILLIONS have been spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq due to the government's story about 9/11 (and so the U.S. is in a recession, and possibly heading into a depression.

Many, many people have been killed and tortured due to the government's story about 9/11.

America's constitution has been shredded due to the government's story about 9/11. Spying on all Americans. Public dissent cracked down on, free speech stomped on ... due to the government's story about 9/11.

That's all old news, right?

Oh wait . . . all of these things are still ongoing...

Indeed, many former high-level officials are warning that the government might use false "provocations" to start new wars.

Is it therefore remotely possible that it might be worth double-checking what the government says about 9/11, given that hundreds of top structural engineers, architects, scientists, military leaders, congressmen -- and even the 9/11 commissioners themselves -- question the government's version of how the Trade Centers were destroyed?

In modern day America, is checking the government's claims so unusual that that is considered news?

Incidentally, the "old story, not news" label was actually perfected by Karl Rove. Specifically, Rove taught people to "slime" the character of the person accusing the White House of wrongdoing, or otherwise to misdirect the debate. If that that was not possible, or was not working, he advocated labeling any harmful facts as "old news", and thus not worth paying any attention to.

Air Traffic Controllers Do Track Planes Even with Transponders Off

2008-03-31T12:45:00.000-07:00

Before 9/11, no transponder had ever become inactive, and so the military and FAA didn't have any experience on how to track planes with their transponders off. Right?

Well, a Miami-Herald article from September 14, 2001, states:

The transponder [on Flight 77] went off about 9 a.m., the company said.

At that moment, the flight would have been under the control of the Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center, one of 20 regional centers that track flights between airports.

The trouble should have been instantly noticeable, traffic controllers say.

Flight 77, like other planes, at first showed up on radar screens as a short solid line, with a readout that identifies the plane and gives its altitude and speed. When the transponder shuts down, the short line vanishes. The speed number goes away, too.

"It's just something that catches your eye,'' one controller says.

And it's not that unusual. Transponders fail from time to time; commercial aircraft are required to carry a spare. Although it isn't clear what happened in the case of Flight 77, a controller's first move typically would be to contact the pilot, and tell them the transponder wasn't working.

The official hijacking protocols provide that the loss of transponder signal be treated as a "no radio" emergency. On 9/11, that is exactly what happened, at least for some of the flights (The protocols also state: "The NORAD control facility shall be advised if the hijacked aircraft is squawking a different transponder code". In other words, the moment a plane stops broadcasting the normal transponder code, NORAD is immediately notified).

As former air traffic controller Robin Hordon, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says:

It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing “IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES” such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers. The entire “national defense-first responder” intercept system has many highly-trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well-trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations. Jet fighters typically intercept any suspect plane over the United States within 10 - 15 minutes of notification of a problem.
This type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 - 150 times per year for ten years. In the same ten years, there were ZERO "low speed, delayed reaction, and low priority" hijacking scrambles reported, which means that the only time interceptors were ever scrambled for ten years before 9/11, they were using the high speed immediate scrambles.

On 9/11, Flight 77 was in fact tracked on radar, and could have been intercepted with fighter jets. However, the plane was allowed to go on a joy-ride all over the country with its transponder off for three-quarters of an hour. As the above-quoted Miami-Herald article states:

Forty-five minutes. That's how long American Airlines Flight 77 meandered through the air headed for the White House, its flight plan abandoned, its radar beacon silent.

* * *

Who was watching in those 45 minutes?

"That's a question that more and more people are going to ask,'' said one controller in Miami. "What the hell went on here? Was anyone doing anything about it? Just as a national defense thing, how are they able to fly around and no one go after them?''

Even with the transponder silent, the plane should have been visible on radar, both to controllers who handle cross-continent air traffic and to a Federal Aviation Administration command center outside of Washington, according to air traffic controllers.

The FAA, which handles air traffic control, would not discuss the track of Flight 77 or what happened in air-control centers while it was in flight. Neither would American Airlines.

***

But even if the plane remained silent, controllers could still find it -- by switching their screen display to the old-fashioned radar that bounces a signal off the plane's metal skin.
***
Military jets are routinely scrambled in the case of hijackings and "runners,'' planes that do not answer or do not heed air traffic controllers. But FAA officials would not say when controllers detected the errant Flight 77 or whether any fighter jets were able to get into the air to confront it.

Fighter jets are based nearby, in Virginia, and could have reached the White House within minutes, aviation sources say.

Dick Cheney also monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).

Similarly, an ABC News article states:

"Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "

And air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.

Indeed, radar data declassified in 2006 shows that the planes were tracked on radar virtually their entire flight, and that altitude was known for the planes during most of their flight (only flight 77 was purportedly off-radar for part of its flight).

And, as recounted by a high-level Secret Service agent:

"Through monitoring radar and activating an open line with the FAA, the Secret Service was able to receive real time information about . . . two hijacked aircraft as they approached Washington, D.C. "

Norad Admits Planes Show Up on Radar Even with Transponders Turned Off

Even Neads, the Northeastern sector of Norad, admits that the hijacked planes would have appeared on radar as dashes even after the transponders had been turned off:

Because they had been informed its transponder was off, [Neads] knew to look for a tiny dash instead of the usual dot.

A similar report states:

NEADS Staff Sergeant Larry Thornton says, “Once we were called by the FAA, we could find split-second hits on what we thought we were looking for. . . We were looking for little dash marks . . . .”

But the government claims that it could not locate the hijacked planes because the skies were crowded with other planes, and the military air traffic controllers could not find the planes among all of the plane signals. As NEADS' Thornton said:

"But the area was so congested and it was incredibly difficult to find. We were looking for little dash marks in a pile of clutter and a pile of aircraft on a two-dimensional scope.” Each fluorescent green pulsating dot on their radar scopes represents an airplane, and there are thousands currently airborne, especially over the busy northeast US.

However, the hijacked planes flew in many areas which were not high-traffic areas.

Moreover, it makes no sense that air traffic controllers could not focus their radar scopes solely on airplanes without transponder signals. In other words, let's say a Cuban jet flew onto the East Coast of the United States without any transponder signal. Would Norad say "Sorry, we lost the bad guy's nuclear-armed fighter jet amidst all the commuter flights"?

That makes no sense.

Remember that Norad 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. See also this short excerpt of a Peter Jennings newscast on 9/11. Moreover, the military had previously run war games involving multiple, simultaneous hijackings , so this aspect of 9/11 was not as overwhelming as we have been led to believe..

Air traffic control radar, or at least military radar, must -- with the push of a button -- be able to use computer programming to hide all data for planes which have been accounted for as normal, civilian airplanes. In other words, those with working transponder signals. Even if air traffic controllers have to switch from secondary to primary radar, there must be a function for the computer to remove from primary radar signals which include transponder data.

If that were not the case, America's trillion-dollar defense system would be rendered useless.

The 9/11 Stand Down in 2 Minutes

2008-03-27T22:00:00.000-07:00

NORAD, responsible for intercepting errant aircraft over the U.S., has a standard operating procedure for scrambling planes for interception which takes less than 15 minutes

They did this successfully (on time) 129 times in 2000 and and 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001.

Yet, on September 11th, they failed to do their job 4 times in a single day:

NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases

Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds

Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them

You might think that the military couldn't find the hijacked planes because the hijackers turned off the transponders. However, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

As a former senior air force colonel said:

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"

Norad's stand down on 9/11 was so blatant that Norad has been forced to give 3 entirely different versions of what happened that day, as each previous version has been exposed as false. When someone repeatedly changes his testimony after being caught in lies, how believable is he? The falsity of Norad's explanations were so severe that even the 9/11 Commission considered recommending criminal charges for the making of false statements.

In addition, Dick Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon -- one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world -- and yet ordered that the airplane not be intercepted (confirmed here). Given that Cheney was in charge of all of the war games and coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks on 9/11 -- apparently including Norad (see this Department of State announcement, this CNN article, and this essay) -- Cheney's orders regarding flight 77 seem to be part and parcel of the Norad stand down.

Did the Government Entrap the 9/11 Hijackers?

2008-03-26T12:51:00.000-07:00

We've all seen it on television. The defense attorney argues his client was "entrapped". That is, that it wasn't the defendant's idea to commit the crime, but that the police planted the idea and urged him to do it.

Many of us have heard allegations that post-9/11 arrests of suspected Al Qaeda members were based on very thin information. Did you realize that all or virtually all of these arrests occurred due to entrapment? For example:

PBS' Frontline ran a special report focusing on the the alleged Al Qaeda plot in Lodi, California, which showed -- based upon interviews with top law enforcement officials involved in the case -- that the bust amounted to little more than entrapment and coerced and fabricated confessions from two men who, in fact, had nothing to do with the terrorist group

The Washington Post ran a story about one alleged threat entitled "Was it a terror sting or entrapment?", showing that the U.S. government lent material support to the wanna-be terrorists, and put violent ideas in their heads

Raw Story reports that the alleged terrorist group that is alleged to have planned to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower was non-violent before a government informant infiltrated the group and planted violent ideas in their heads

There are numerous other instances of entrapment of peaceful or mentally incompetent people who are then arrested as "terrorists" (see this, this and this)

But surely 9/11 was different, right?. Without doubt, the hijackers were bloodthirsty militant Muslims who, solely due to their crazy beliefs and dark hearts, decided to attack and kill Americans. Right?

Maybe. But let's take a look at the facts before deciding:

One of al-Qaeda’s top trainers in terrorism and how to hijack airplanes, who was a very close associate of Bin Laden, was an American citizen who was an operative for the FBI, the CIA, and the Army (see also this article from one of Canada's largest newspapers). Indeed, while he was acting as an FBI informant, he smuggled Bin Laden in and out of Afghanistan, helped plan the attacks on US embassies in Africa, and apparently played a pivotal role in planning 9/11

An Al Qaeda operative very close to one of the top Al Qaeda leaders was a CIA informant

In an article on the nephew of the supposed key mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Newsday reported in 1995: “FBI officials also are considering a probe of whether the CIA had any relationship with [the nephew], who fought with the CIA-financed mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 1980s.” A classified FBI file also reportedly indicated that the nephew had been recruited by the local branch of the CIA (pages 220-221)

The Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here by the Co-Chair of the Joint Inquiry and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham; and see this Newsweek article)

The president of Pakistan said that one of the masterminds of 9/11 was an MI6 (British intelligence services) agent

The former president of Italy said that U.S. and Israeli intelligence services were behind the 9/11 attack, and that that fact is widely known by the intelligence services of all of the western nations

According to intelligence officials in India, Pakistan's military chief of intelligence wired $100,000 to the lead hijacker days before 9/11 (mentioned here in a news roundup). This is especially interesting because: That particular chief of intelligence was appointed to that position with the approval of the U.S., and the intelligence chief had held "consultations" with his U.S. counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior to September 11

11 of the hijackers received visas to the U.S. through a consular office where, according to the former head of that office, the CIA routinely insisted that visas be granted to terrorists, even when their visa applications should have been rejected under standard operating procedure

According to one of France's most reputable newspapers, the CIA met with Bin Laden in an American hospital in Dubai in July 2001

And several of the hijackers apparently trained at U.S. military bases prior to 9/11

Given the above-described information, and the government's history of entrapping peaceful or mentally incompetent people and placing violent ideas in their heads - and plans and resources in their hands - is it possible that any of the participants in the 9/11 attacks who were not government agents were entrapped by those who were?

Note: I am not arguing that the hijackers' names should be cleared or that they are good people who were victimized. Anyone who took a single life on 9/11 is a murderer and a scoundrel. I am, instead, simply asking who the true masterminds of 9/11 were, and who provided the resources to carry out the plan.

*The nephew was himself one of the planners of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (which is itself interesting, since an FBI informant had infiltrated the cell responsible for that bombing and had offered to stop the 1993 bombing of the world trade center by substituting fake powder for real bombmaking materials, but the FBI allowed the bombing to happen anyway (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) (see also this news report)).

U.S. and Allied Intelligence Services Had Penetrated The Very Highest Levels of Al Qaeda Prior to 9/11

2008-03-25T09:15:00.000-07:00

No one could have anticipated 9/11, right? While the U.S. knew about Al Qaeda, the 9/11 plotters and hijackers were still somewhat unknown and unpredictable prior to 9/11. Right?

In fact, U.S. and allied intelligence services had penetrated the highest levels of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. For example:

In January 2001 -- the French intelligence services gave a report to the CIA entitled "Plan to hijack an aircraft by Islamic radicals". Indeed, "foreign agents had infiltrated Osama bin Laden's network and were carefully tracking its moves" prior to 9/11. The original story from the leading French newspaper makes it clear that such infiltration went to the highest levels of Al-Qaeda's camps, and included listening to the hijackers' debates about which airlines' planes should be hijacked, and t hat allied intelligence services also listened into satellite phone conversations between the hijackers

Moroccan intelligence penetrated Bin Laden's inner circle, and reported on Bin Laden's plans to the U.S.

A longtime CIA officer says, “Egyptians, Jordanians, [and] Palestinians penetrated the bin Laden organization for us. It’s B.S. that we didn’t.” (page 143)

Former CIA director George Tenet says that “a group of assets from a Middle Eastern service”, working for the CIA, penetrated al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan by September 2001. Bin Laden was dropping hints about the upcoming 9/11 attacks to training camp trainees in the summer of 2001, and US citizen John Walker Lindh was told details of the 9/11 attacks within weeks of joining a training camp that summer

USA Today states: "U.S. intelligence overheard al-Qaeda operatives discussing a major pending terrorist attack in the weeks prior to Sept. 11 and had agents inside the terror group"

Indeed, in the summer of 2001, the CIA allegedly told President Bush that the highest levels of Al-Qaeda had been penetrated

In addition, U.S. and allied intelligence services followed the hijacker's every move:

The Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here by the Co-Chair of the Joint Inquiry and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham)

The Pentagon also tracked the hijackers before 9/11

Israel tracked the hijackers' every movement prior to the attacks, and may have sent agents to film the attack on the World Trade Centers

And Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision" prior to the attacks. Saudi Arabia, like Israel, is a very close ally of the U.S.

Moreover, the U.S. intercepted many high-level Al Qaeda phone calls:

The CIA and the NSA had been intercepting phone calls by the hijackers for years

The National Security Agency and the FBI were both independently listening in on the phone calls between the supposed mastermind of the attacks and the lead hijacker. Indeed, the FBI built its own antenna in Madagascar specifically to listen in on the mastermind's phone calls. The day before 9/11, the mastermind told the lead hijacker "tomorrow is zero hour" and gave final approval for the attacks. The NSA intercepted the message that day and the FBI was likely also monitoring the mastermind's phone calls. (The NSA claims that it did not translate the intercept until September 12th; however, the above-mentioned FBI translator said that she was frequently ordered to falsify dates of translations regarding 9/11)

Shortly before 9/11, the NSA also intercepted multiple phone calls from Bin Laden's chief of operations to the United States

Only two days before 9/11, Osama Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her "In two days, you're going to hear big news and you're not going to hear from me for a while.” US officials later told CNN that “in recent years they've been able to monitor some of bin Laden's telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded." Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother

Moreover, the financiers for Al Qaeda were not mysterious and unknown before 9/11:

According to intelligence officials in India and the FBI, Pakistan's military chief of intelligence wired $100,000 to the lead hijacker days before 9/11 (mentioned here in an editorial round-up). It is well known that American and Pakistani intelligence service worked closely together for many years. Indeed, the above-described military chief of intelligence who wired the $100,000 to the hijacker actually met with the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on the very morning of 9/11

Other facts point towards penetration of the highest levels of Al Qaeda:

9/11 family member and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza was told by whistleblowers that -- before 9/11 -- the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets

One of France's largest newspapers claims that the CIA met with Bin Laden in an American hospital in Dubai in July 2001

Whatever you might think about 9/11, it is beyond dispute that U.S. and allied intelligence services had penetrated "the highest levels" of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plotters and hijackers were thoroughly known, monitored, tracked and infiltrated before 9/11.

If a domestic gang were this highly infiltrated and closely monitored by the FBI, and yet the FBI allowed the gang to commit a major crime, it would be obvious that the FBI allowed the crime to be committed. Right? Why is 9/11 any different? Indeed, Al Qaeda was arguably more higly infiltrated and monitored than any domestic gang.

Moreover, something very similar happened in 1993, when a government informant offered to stop the 1993 bombing of the world trade center by substituting fake powder for real bombmaking materials, but the FBI allowed the bombing to happen anyway (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) (see also this news report). It was supposedly Al Qaeda which carried out that attack also.

"The Derivatives Market is Unwinding!"

2008-03-23T13:48:00.000-07:00

A couple of months ago, a financial analyst who sells derivatives told me that fears about a meltdown in the derivatives market were unfounded.

Yesterday, he told me with a very worried look "the derivatives market is unwinding!"

What does this mean?

Well, it turns out that the reason that Bear Stearns was about to go belly-up before JP Morgan bought it is that it had trillions of dollars in derivatives exposure, which were about to go south. (The reason that JP Morgan was so eager to buy Bear Stearns is that it was on the other side of these derivative deals -- if Bear Stearns had gone under, JP Morgan would have taken a huge hit. But the way the derivative contracts were drafted, a purchase by JP Morgan canceled the derivative contracts, so that JP Morgan didn't experience huge losses on the swaps. That is probably why the Fed was so eager to broker the shotgun marriage).

Indeed, the subprime prime loan crisis is related to the unwinding of the derivatives market. Specifically, loans were repackaged into derivatives called collateralized debt obligations (or "CDO's") and sold to big and regional banks and investment companies worldwide. The CDO's were highly-leveraged -- many times the amount of the actual loans. When the subprime loan crisis hit, the high leverage magnified the fallout, and huge sums of CDO derivatives became essentially worthless.

Do you remember when wealthy Orange County, California, went bankrupt in 1994? Yup, that was because it had invested in bad derivatives (and see this).

And, according to one of the world's top derivative insiders, the market for credit default swap ("CDS") derivatives is also unraveling.

And reported just today, Lehman Brothers is now on the edge, due to exposure to derivatives.

Derivatives are the Elephant in the Living Room

Forget about the subprime mortgage crisis. Forget about high oil and food prices. Those are both horrible, and very harmful to the economy. But -- according to top insiders -- derivatives are the elephant in the room as the single largest threat to the U.S. and world economy.

One reason is that, according to Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, the entire modern financial system is based upon derivatives, and the financial system today is entirely different from the traditional American or global financial system because derivatives now underly the entire fabric of the financial system. The current system is a house of cards based upon derivatives.

And yet banks and financial houses have hidden their derivatives exposure off the balance sheets. No wonder almost no one understands derivatives:

"Not only [world's richest man] Warren Buffett, but Bond King Bill Gross, our Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the rest of America's leaders can't 'figure out'" the derivatives market.

Indeed, the government may have actively helped to hide the the derivatives mess since at least 2006. According to Business Week:

"President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations."

Former fed chairman Alan Greenspan has been a huge booster for and defender of derivatives for many years. Did you know that the same guy that pushed subprime loans also aggressively pushed derivatives?

And the other regulatory agencies and Congress have taken a totally hands-off approach towards derivatives.

How Big a Problem?

How big is the derivatives market? Worldwide, it is $516 trillion dollar. The derivatives market dwarfs the real market for goods and services, and acts likes an unregulated black market.

As one writer put it:

"It’s all smoke and mirrors. The financial system has decoupled from the productive elements of the economy and is now beginning to show disturbing signs of instability."

And its not just the U.S. Derivatives salesmen have sold these babies all over the world. Because banks, financial institutions and governments world-wide have bought significant derivatives, the fall out will not be limited solely to the U.S. See this and this.

If the derivatives market is truly unwinding, as my investment advisor friend and some of the top industry insiders say, we could be in for a very bumpy ride.

For further information on derivatives, see these articles:

http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/BearsLairHome

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4419.html
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article1038.html

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4378.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8634

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/23/ccfed123.xml

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/business/23how.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=business&pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/business/23gret.html?ref=business
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/business/23regulate.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/21/markets/dollar/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/803541a6-f78c-11dc-a40-000077b07658.html
http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2008-36a.pdf
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20080519&id=8667647

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/17/cnlibor117.xml

Excuse Me, Mr. Emperor, Sir . . .

2008-03-21T20:30:00.000-07:00

The emperor says he doesn't care if two-thirds of the public is now against the Iraq war (video). The emperor's spokesperson says that the public's input into the Iraq war ended in 2004.

Excuse me, Mr. Emperor, Sir, but:

The Iraq war is bankrupting our country (and see this). Don't we have any say in whether our country remains solvent?

Without massive vote fraud, you would not have "won reelection" in 2004

You lied in saying that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and most of the American people did not learn we had been deceived until after your "reelection"

You lied -- and have kept on lying continuously up until today -- in linking Iraq and 9/11

Excuse me, Mr. Emperor, Sir, but ...

You can stifle our voices in the short run. But all tyrannical governments eventually end, and the tyrants are eventually thrown in jail or forced to flee.

You can silence us for a short while. But, eventually, the American people will have our say.

Numerous Countries Have Recently Dropped The Dollar as Their Reserve Currency

2008-03-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

In the past couple of years, the following countries have stopped using the dollar as their reserve currency or have dropped their currency's peg against the dollar:

China

Japan

Kuwait

Syria

Iran

Libya

Russia

Malaysia

Brazil

Argentina

Switzerland

Norway and some other Scandinavian countries

Some Balkan countries

Many East European currencies

The following countries are rumored to be considering dropping the dollar as their reserve currency or terminating their currency's peg against the dollar:

The arab Gulf States

Saudi Arabia

South Korea

(and see this)

Sudan

As Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and the "Father of Reagonomics", recently said: "The dollar’s reserve currency role is drawing to an end".

See also this article, this article, this report, this essay, this roundup, and this one.

What Caused the Fiery Ground-Level Explosions Right Before the Collapse of Each Tower?

2008-03-14T22:38:00.000-07:00

On 9/11, there were multiple reports by credible witnesses of ground-level fiery explosions right before the collapse of the Twin Towers:

A CBS News reporter on stated: "All of a sudden I heard a roar and I saw one of the towers blow ... I saw from street level as though it exploded up, a giant rolling ball of flame..."

The same reporter stated: "I hear simultaneously this roar and see what appears to be a gigantic fireball rising up at ground level . . . giant ball of fire come out of the earth" (pages 119 & 239)

A Port Authority Police Department officer, who was intimately familiar with the World Trade Center from his years of police duties patrolling there, said that hallway began to shudder as a "terrible deafening roar" swept over him, then a giant fireball exploded in the street seconds before the south tower collapsed

An eyewitness reported a large explosion at ground level right before the collapse of the North Tower

What could have caused ground-level fiery explosions right before the collapse of each tower?

In addition, a paramedic stated that before each tower collapsed, the ground shook (pp. 5-7). What could have caused the ground to shake?

See also this and this.

The Joint Chiefs Chairman, Secretary of Defense and "Almost Every Senior Military Officer ... is Against Launching Military Strikes Against Iran"

2008-03-11T18:10:00.001-07:00

You've probably heard by now that the Commander of Centcom, Admiral Fallon, who has been described as the guy standing in the way of war with Iran, just resigned. The implications are so obvious that the Secretary of Defense was forced to try to calm the public. Today, he "described as 'ridiculous' any notion that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran".

The good news is that, according to NBC's chief Pentagon correspondent, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense and "almost every senior military officer we've talked to is against launching military strikes against Iran".

Let's hope that - even with Fallon's resignation - the wisdom of military leaders concerning the folly of attacking Iran (and starting WWIII) prevails against the civilian chicken-hawk leaders who want to bomb Iran for reasons having nothing to do with the security of the United States.

The Root of the Economic Crisis: Dishonesty

2008-03-11T08:23:00.000-07:00

The economic problem is really a crisis of dishonesty. The problem is that our system is built on a house of cards, divorced from what is true, what is tangible and what is real.

What do I mean?

Well, according to the FBI, mortgage fraud is the fastest-growing white-collar crime in America. While certainly not the sole cause of the subprime mortgage crisis, it is likely one of the causes, as unscrupulous brokers talked unwitting people into buying houses they couldn't afford.

The government has also been using dishonest, short-term fixes to try to whitewash the extent of the economic problems instead of doing something to actually fix them. This makes things look better in the short-run, but damages the economy in the long-run.

And the U.S. government has been hiding and manipulating economic indicators for many years. It stopped reporting the size of the money supply in 2006. The government has also spun the economic data, manipulated the economic indicators, and otherwise manipulated the market and the economy. What's wrong with that? Well, consumers have had an unrealistic view of the economy, and have therefore made bad decisions based on false or hidden information.

And many top economists - such as Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz - are saying that the high cost of war in Iraq is the cause of the current slowdown in the U.S. It is now clear, of course, that the Iraq war was launched under false pretenses (see, for example, this). And the government has hidden the true cost of the war.

In addition, tourism to the U.S. is down, partly due to fascist security measures - which include harassment of travelers - based on false statements exaggerating the threat of terrorism (tourism is a multi-billion dollar industry, so this factor may not be as wholly insignificant as it appears). Even Colin Powell recently stated that the harsh security measures were scaring away foreign tourists.

And, while the size is unknown, people worldwide are apparently organizing boycotts of American products in response to U.S. lies about Iraq, torture and the war on terror. People don't want to buy "Made in the U.S.A." when the U.S. has become associated with torture, wars of imperial aggression, and dishonesty. The company president has been caught lying so many times, that "Brand America" is not as popular as it once was.

The neocons -- the guys running our nation's foreign policy -- have bragged that they disdain reality and that America can just "create its own reality" since it is an empire and the world's sole superpower. Well, it didn't quite work out that way in Iraq or Afghanistan. And if we invade Iran, it won't work that way there, either. The lies which America's "leaders" have been using are so blatant that America has lost its credibility.

Of course, the government has tried to hide the weakness in the economy by devaluing the dollar. But the chickens are coming home to roost: gaming the system only works for so long.

And then there's the "derivatives bubble". The "what?", you ask. Don't worry, you're not alone in your confusion:

"not only [world's richest man] Warren Buffett, but Bond King Bill Gross, our Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the rest of America's leaders can't 'figure out'" the derivatives market.

Basically, the $516 trillion dollar derivatives market doesn't trade in real goods or real services, but abstract ideas and pieces of paper several steps removed from the real goods or services. The problem is that neither the buyers of sellers of derivatives have placed a value on the books of their trades. Indeed, they can't, because no one really knows what a lot of these abstract psuedo-investments are worth: they're so many steps removed from a tangible good or service, and have been re-packaged with a bunch of other derivatives, that even the large banks which hold large amounts of derivatives don't really know what they're holding in their hands.

As one writer put it:

"It’s all smoke and mirrors. The financial system has decoupled from the productive elements of the economy and is now beginning to show disturbing signs of instability."

The world economy is poised to experience the worst financial crash in history because, according to Dow Jones' MarketWatch, the derivatives market dwarfs the real market for goods and services, and because the huge derivatives market is essentially an unregulated black market. In other words, the black market trading in half-truths, and can't-be-verified statements, and backroom deals dwarfs the market based on goods and services which free market capitalism is supposed to be all about, and may take down the latter.

And the flimflam derivatives salesmen all over the world, and the institutional buyers who have tried to stay in the green by buying derivatives (like wealthy Orange County, California, which went bankrupt after investing in derivatives), have been guilty of installing and enabling dishonest governments that lie, cheat and steal, not to mention bombing and exploiting poorer countries with abundant natural resources. In other words, the banks and other huge institutional investors which have been the largest players in the derivatives market have also been the ones propping up dishonest governments and fascist-wannabes worldwide.

Dishonesty is the poisoned tree. The economic crisis is its fruit. We will not be able to get out of the downturn until people are willing to stand up and demand that our economy be based on truth.

Dear Supporter of President Bush and Mr. Cheney: Their Policies Fail On Their Own Terms

2008-03-10T00:04:00.000-07:00

Dear Supporter of President Bush and Vice President Cheney:

The administrations' policies fail even on their own terms.

What do I mean?

Well, the White House says that "we need to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here". However, American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Iraq war increases the threat of terrorism (and see this and this).

And Bush and Cheney say that torture is part of the new reality, and that 24's Jack Bauer is the new American role model. However, a former FBI interrogator said torture doesn't work, and it actually breeds terrorism. Indeed, it is well-known by professional interrogators that torture doesn't work. Moreover, torture by Americans endangers all American troops (if they are captured, it will be pay-back time).

And the guys in charge think that America can control the world (for good) by fighting wars on multiple fronts using the "Rumsfeld Doctrine". Specifically, Rummie replaced the "Powell Doctrine" (going into war with overwhelming force) with a new empire-friendly doctrine of sending in few troops in many theaters with few supplies but a lot of high-tech toys and air campaigns. Guess what? It doesn't work.

Just look at Iraq. We bombed the snot out of them during the initial shock and awe phase, but they did something really sneaky: they hid until the bombing campaign was over. Then they came out and started shooting at our boys. Oh, and those bombs turned the entire population into part of the "resistance", because -- surprise, surprise -- killing and maiming a bunch of kids and innocent civilians seems to do that for some reason.

And our soldiers are getting killed due to Rummie's theory that you can lightly provision the troops.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney's policies fail on their own terms.

How Should 9/11 Truth Activists Respond to Smear Campaign? SUE!

2008-03-09T22:00:00.000-07:00

The Simon Weisenthal Center accused credible 9/11 truth organizations of being terrorists, or at least helping to radicalize people into becoming terrorists.

Fox News Commentator Geraldo Rivera reportedly stated that the New York Times Square bombing was carried out by 9/11 truthers.

How should 9/11 truth activists respond to these smear campaigns?

SUE!

It is illegal to make false claims about people. It is called "defamation" ("slander" if it is a spoken lie; "libel" if it is a written lie). There are very clear defamation laws in the United States.

Given that 9/11 truth activists are thoughtful, peaceful people, it is defamation to call them terrorists. They are not terrorists. It is defamation to accuse them of being bombers. They are not bombers.

Instead of becoming intimidated or scared, I suggest we sue. Perhaps a class action lawsuit. A bunch of prominent 9/11 truth activists can get together and sue the Weisenthal Center and Fox News for defamation.

While truth is a defense to a defamation claim, it should be relatively simple to prove that 9/11 activists are not terrorists or violent people. Let the Weisenthal Center and Fox try to prove otherwise. Indeed, if we add a claim that Fox news has called 9/11 truth activists insane (which it has) then Fox would have to prove that we are crazy. That would open the door for the court to consider whether or not 9/11 was an inside job.

And because being called crazy, or a terrorist, or a bomber will obviously hurt the business reputation of the engineers, architects, scientists, legal scholars, security consultants, congress people and others who question the government's nonsensical version of 9/11, we can sue for defamation "per se", where the people bringing the suit would not even have to prove damage to their reputations.

Note: Consult an attorney before deciding whether or not to file a defamation suit. If you wish to bring a class action suit, consult a class action attorney. This essay is not intended to convey legal advice, there is no legal relationship between the author and reader, and the author does not know the specific factual situation of any of his readers.

We are Powerless . . Or Are We?

2008-03-03T08:41:00.000-08:00

The problem isn’t that we’re powerless.

The problem is that we have allowed those with agendas in government and the media and organized religion to CONVINCE us that we’re powerless. They've confused us, belittled us, distracted us and made us feel like we barely have the power to get out of bed in the morning, let alone challenge those with the biggest arms, megaphones, or pulpits.

The truth is that EVERY one of us has tremendous untapped strength, intelligence and resources hard-wired into us.

The truth -- shown by millions of examples throughout history -- is that people can thrive in the worst imaginable circumstances. Individuals can dig deep and get creative and think of ways to turn things around even when all seems lost. People can succeed against overwhelming odds if they are committed.

The human spirit is powerful, flexible, creative, intelligent and resourceful. It is there within each of us . . . lying dormant. Wake up your inner hero, your inner genius, your inner leader. It is there . . . just under the surface.

And the truth is that, when we come together to talk about what is really happening, and what we want, and how to obtain it, we create a very powerful dynamic and we set powerful forces in motion.

The truth is that, together, we are unstoppable.

There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress.
- Howard Zinn, historian

It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
- Robert F . Kennedy

The power of an aroused public is unbeatable.
- Dr. Helen Caldicott

Let no man imagine that he has no influence. Whoever he may be, and wherever he may be placed, the man who thinks becomes a light and a power.
- Henry George

To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
- Bruce Lee

The most powerful weapon on earth is the human soul on fire.
-Ferdinand Foch

Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now.
- Goethe

A good intention clothes itself with power.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

If you don't like the news, go out and make some news of your own.
- Scoop Nisker, radio personality

But the [people], if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire . . . They need only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies . . .
- George Orwell, 1984

You let one ant stand up to us - then they all might stand up. Those puny little ants outnumber us a 100 to one. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life.
- Hopper (a grasshopper speaking to fellow grasshoppers in the Disney/Pixar movie A Bug's Life)

In times of danger large groups rise to the highest pitch of enthusiasm, courage and sacrifice . . . Mankind will be refashioned and history rewritten when this law is understood and obeyed.
-Helen Keller

From the Pain, come the Dream
from the Dream, come the Vision
from the Vision, come the People
and from the People, come the Power
from this Power, come the Change.
- Peter Gabriel

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead

We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.
-Sonia Johnson

I'm not talking about putting out your fire of righteous anger. Keep that anger alive and channel it into defeating the lies and bringing the bad guys to justice. We need your righteous anger! But anger without love turns into hatred, which weakens you. Anger plus love turns into power, effectiveness and success.
- GW (georgewashington.blogspot.com)

What this power is, I cannot say. All I know is that it exists...and it becomes available only when you are in that state of mind in which you know exactly what you want...and are fully determined not to quit until you get it.
- Alexander Graham Bell

Men habitually use only a small part of the power which they actually possess.
- Williams James

You're in the midst of a war: a battle between the limits of a crowd seeking the surrender of your dreams, and the power of your true vision to create and contribute. It is a fight between those who will tell you what you cannot do, and that part of you that knows -- and has always known -- that we are more than our environment; and that a dream, backed by an unrelenting will to attain it, is truly a reality with an imminent arrival.
- Anthony Robbins

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
- Marianne Williamson

Most of us can learn to live in perfect comfort on higher levels of power. Everyone knows that on any given day there are energies slumbering in him which the incitements of that day do not call forth. Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. It is evident that our organism has stored-up reserves of energy that are ordinarily not called upon - deeper and deeper strata of explosible material, ready for use by anyone who probes so deep. The human individual usually lives far within his limits.
- William James

The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them.
- George Bernard Shaw

In these words lies all his power: He chose the path along which he is walking and so has no complaints.
- Paulo Coelho

Our Friends Are Trying To Tell Us Something

2008-02-24T14:18:00.000-08:00

If I've got something stuck between my teeth, I rely on my best friends to tell me, so I can fix it.

Well, leaders from our close allies in England, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, Russia and elsewhere have been trying to tell us something, but we haven't heard them. Please read what these close allies are trying to tell us about 9/11:

The former Assistant German Defense Minister and a current member of British Parliament (Andreas von Bülow and Michael Meacher)

The former Canadian Minister of Defense (Paul Hellyer)

The former head of Germany's intelligence service (Eckart Werthebach)

The commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)

The former chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov )

The former President of Italy (Francesco Cossiga)

Honorary President, Supreme Court of Italy (Ferdinando Imposimato)

The former Minister of Justice in West Germany, who was also Minister for Research and Technology. Cabinet Member (Horst Emkhe)

A former Member of British Parliament, who is the longest serving MP in the history of the Labour party, also former Minister of Technology, Secretary of State for Industry, Secretary of State for Energy and Postmaster General (Tony Benn)

Members of the German Parliament Heike Hänsel
and Axel Troost, PhD

Member, National Parliament of Japan (Yukihisa Fujita)

Former Member of Parliament, Norway (Berit Ås)

Member of European Parliament, Vice Chairman, Committee on International Trade, member of Committee on Security and Defense (Giulietto Chiesa)

Member of European Parliament, former Vice Chairman, Committee on Energy, Research and Technology, Vice Chairman, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (Paul Lannoye)

Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs, France, former Deputy of the French National Assembly - equivalent to a U.S. Congressperson (Christine Boutin)

Well-known scholar and frequent UN Contributor (Dr. Hans Koechler)

Of course, many Americans have tried to tell us the same thing. But the American media has censored their message.

Peach or Toast?

2008-02-24T07:05:00.000-08:00

Devoted fans of a tv show saved their already-cancelled show by getting creative.

How?

They sent tons of nuts to network executives ("nuts" was a memorable word from the show). The executives reinstated the cancelled show, which has virtually never happened before.

Why not save something a little more important . . . our country?

Just send a piece of toast and a peach to your congressional representative with a note saying "If you don't imPEACH, the fascists in the White House will make TOAST of America (and your re-election efforts will be toast)".

Let's inundate congress with toast and peaches ... so they can't ignore the will of the people.

3 MORE Former Guantanamo Prosecutors Blow the Whistle

2008-02-21T15:57:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, it was revealed that the former chief prosecutor believes the trials are rigged.

Today, it was revealed that three more former Guantanamo prosecutors -- Major Robert Preston, Captain John Carr and Captain Carrie Wolf -- "asked to be relieved of duties after saying they were concerned that the process was rigged. One said he had been assured he didn’t need to worry about building a proper case; convictions were assured".

Multiple corroborating witnesses, all insiders working on the prosecution side for the government (along with countless corroborating witnesses on the defense side) . . . Do you think that the mainstream media might be able to find a story here?

"We Can't Have Acquittals"

2008-02-20T23:06:00.000-08:00

The former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo's military commissions has disclosed that the trials have been rigged to prevent the possibility of acquittal.

Indeed, the current head of the Guantanamo tribunal that will prosecute the defendants -- who is actually in charge of both prosecuting and defending the suspects -- told the former chief prosecutor:

"Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions."

In addition to the former chief prosecutor mentioned above, three other Guantanamo prosecutors -- Maj. Robert Preston, Capt. John Carr and Capt. Carrie Wolf -- "asked to be relieved of duties after saying they were concerned that the process was rigged. One said he had been assured he didn’t need to worry about building a proper case; convictions were assured."

The current head of the tribunal also said that -- even if the defendants are somehow acquitted -- they may not be released from Guantanamo.

No wonder the American Bar Association, "which the Pentagon had said would help arrange such representation, has refused to participate because it objects to the trial procedures." And no wonder the defense attorneys who have agreed to represent the defendants say that the process is completely unfair. See also this interview.

The 9/11 prosecutions were never supposed to be about truth or justice anyway.

The only two things the trials will be good for are: (1) making a spectacle for public consumption, like all good kangaroo court show trials do; and (2) suppressing information the suspects wish to express which is inconvenient for the government prosecutors.

Athletes for 9/11 Truth

2008-02-19T16:43:00.000-08:00

Most guys (and a smaller percentage of women) pay a lot of attention to sports. Most athletes are hesitant to speak out about politics. So when an athlete does speak out, it makes a large impact.

5-time NFL Pro Bowl center Mark Stepnoski (Dallas Cowboys and Houston Oilers) and former NFL running back Bill Enyart (Buffalo Bills and Oakland Raiders) have both spoken out for 9/11 truth.

But we need a lot more star athletes to speak out if we want to get the attention of American men. If we want any chance of reaching the millions of male (and female) sports fans in the U.S., courageous athletes like Stepnoski and Enyart have to pool the goodwill associated with their good names to promote 9/11 truth.

I am therefore calling for the formation of a new group: Athletes for 9/11 Truth.

Athletes for 9/11 Truth will be able to reach a large segment of the population that wouldn't otherwise listen to 9/11 truth.

Ready, Break!

If you are a professional athlete willing to speak out for 9/11 truth, contact us and we'll put you in touch with the right people. Already, hundreds of first-rate architects and engineers have joined Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and hundreds of scientists and other scholars have joined Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (see also Patriots Question 9/11). So you'll be in very good company.

Continuity of Government Measures WERE Implemented on 9/11 . . . Were They EVER Revoked?

2008-02-10T13:58:00.000-08:00

Continuity of Government ("COG") measures were implemented on 9/11. For example, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, at page 38:

"At 9:59, an Air Force lieutenant colonel working in the White House Military Office joined the conference and stated he had just talked to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The White House requested (1) the implementation of continuity of government measures, (2) fighter escorts for Air Force One, and (3) a fighter combat air patrol over Washington, D.C."

Likewise, page 326 of the Report states:

"The secretary of defense directed the nation's armed forces to Defense Condition 3, an increased state of military readiness. For the first time in history, all nonemergency civilian aircraft in the United States were grounded, stranding tens of thousands of passengers across the country. Contingency plans for the continuity of government and the evacuation of leaders had been implemented."

See also footnotes cited therein and this webpage.

You might assume that the COG measures ceased soon after 9/11. However, CNN reports that -- 6 months later --

Because Bush has decided to leave the operation in place, agencies including the White House and top civilian Cabinet departments have rotated personnel involved, and are discussing ways to staff such a contingency operation under the assumption it will be in place indefinitely, this official said.

Similarly, the Washington Post stated in March 2002 that "the shadow government has evolved into an indefinite precaution." The same article goes on to state:

"... assessment of terrorist risks persuaded the White House to remake the program as a permanent feature of 'the new reality, based on what the threat looks like,' a senior decisionmaker said."

Implementation of COG Was Kept Hidden from Congress

As a CBS article makes clear, virtually none of the Congressional leadership knew that the COG had been implemented or was still in existence as of March 2002:

Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know President Bush had established a “shadow government,” moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation's capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.

Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.

An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration's move.

Among Congress's GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.

Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.

Similarly, the above-cited CNN article states :

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said Friday he can't say much about the plan.

"We have not been informed at all about the role of the shadow government or its whereabouts or what particular responsibilities they have and when they would kick in, but we look forward to work with the administration to get additional information on that."

Indeed, a few months ago - in summer 2007 - Congressman Peter DeFazio, on the Homeland Security Committee (and so with proper security access to be briefed on COG issues), inquired about continuity of government plans, and was refused access. Indeed, DeFazio told Congress that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the plans by the White House (video; or here is the transcript). DeFazio concluded: "Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right”.

How They Might Have Maintained COG to the Present

But could the White House have maintained COG operations to the present day? One hint may be contained in the above-cited CNN article:

Concerns that al Qaeda could have gained access to a crude nuclear device "were a major factor" in the president's decision, the official said. "The threat of some form of catastrophic event is the trigger," this official said.

This same official went on to say that the U.S. had no confirmation -- "and no solid evidence" -- that al Qaeda had such a nuclear device and also acknowledged that the "consensus" among top U.S. officials was that the prospect was "quite low."

Still, the officials said Bush and other top White House officials including Cheney were adamant that the government take precautions designed to make sure government functions ranging from civil defense to transportation and agricultural production could be managed in the event Washington was the target of a major strike.

It is well-documented that the administration has been crying wolf about looming terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda ever since 9/11. By claiming that Washington is the target of a major strike, the Neocons may have been able to maintain the COG and the "shadow government" continuously ever since 9/11.

While I have no direct evidence that the COG is still in effect, the fact that key players have said that the measures would be permanent, the continuous exaggeration by the administration of major terrorist threats, and the circumstantial evidence that the COG measures are still in effect all argue for their continued existence.

If they are still in effect, it could help explain why things have been so dysfunctional in the United States recently. Indeed, COG measures can thoroughly destroy the Constitutional form of American government.

Has the Government Already Implemented Continuity of Government Plans?

2008-02-09T20:41:00.000-08:00

As pure fiction, imagine that the U.S. government has already implemented its “continuity of government plans”. As you probably know, the continuity of government (“COG”) plans are contingency plans which create a new government in the case of an alleged threat to the ability of the American government to continue operations. America's COG plans were created to deal with nuclear war, but they have been discussed in many other contexts as well.

What would things look like if the COG plans were already being implemented?

Top leaders of the “new government” called for in the COG would entirely or largely go into hiding, and would govern in hidden locations

Those within the new government would know what was going on. But those in the “old government” – that is, the one created by the framers of the Constitution – would not necessarily know the details of what was happening

Normal laws and legal processes might largely be suspended, or superseded by secretive judicial forums

The media might be ordered by strict laws – punishable by treason – to only promote stories authorized by the new government

Is It Possible?

As everyone jokes about, Dick Cheney has largely been hiding in “an undisclosed location” since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks

Congressman Peter DeFazio, on the Homeland Security Committee (and so with proper security access), inquired about continuity of government plans, and was refused access. Indeed, DeFazio told Congress that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the plans (video; or here is the transcript). He concluded:

"Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right”.

Habeas corpus and other fundamental legal safeguards have been abandoned. More and more people who question the government are being labeled as “terrorists”, and people are increasingly falling into black holes and being subject to judicial decisions made by secret bodies no one has even heard of before. Increasingly, the executive branch is “above the law” (for example, the Attorney General has basically stated that he won’t enforce the law). John Conyers has acted like a schizophrenic off his meds by sitting on his hands on impeachment, even though he has said that Bush and Cheney must be impeached.

The corporate media has censored -- or delayed by years -- stories of the government. While the mainstream American media has always been lousy, it has become exponentially worse since 9/11

No Way

You might ask what could have triggered the implementation of COG plans. Well, 9/11 and the anthrax attacks would almost certainly qualify as large enough events to trigger COG.

You might also argue that the above scenario is impossible because we would know if continuity of government plans had been implemented.

However, consider that the COG plans themselves may order the media, Congress and everyone else under penalty of treason not to discuss the plans. Why?

Because the government can prevent panic and keep control if people believe that the three branches of government are still functioning. It is standard operating procedure for governments to underplay the severity of crises, so as to prevent panic. And if people -- hypothetically – did want to institute martial law, they would be smart enough to institute a police state that looked very different from Nazi Germany. In this age of media manipulation, social psychology, marketing savvy, and psychological operations, planners of a police state in modern America would want to ensure that it looked like America-as-usual, so that people did not realize what was really happening.

Is that why the Homeland Security Committee was denied access to the COG plans? Because they included laws ordering people to keep the COG program secret, and to pretend that it was business-as-usual? Or because they have already been implemented?

Is that why the federal government is basically “deputizing” corporations to act as sheriffs in the event of martial law? And training pastors to preach obedience to martial law?

Remember also that provisions of the Homegrown Terrorism are already being implemented, even though the Senate has not yet approved that law (and see this). How could that happen if COG plans were not in effect?

Shillary

2008-02-08T08:36:00.000-08:00

Why don't I like Hillary Clinton?

Because she's a shill for corporate and imperialist interests:

AIPAC's got her in their pocket

She's backed by a pantheon of foaming-at-the-mouth-radicals such as Rupert Murdoch, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh

She's pro-Iraq war, and enamored with the idea of war against Iran

Let's call her what she is: Shillary.

Lehman: Commission Purposely Set Up So that 9/11 Staff Had Conflict of Interest

2008-02-04T09:07:00.000-08:00

We already knew that the 9/11 Commissioners had conflicts of interest. And we already knew that Philip Zelikow had huge conflicts of interest, which the new book The Commission explores.

But did you know that a 9/11 Commissioner recently said that all of the 9/11 Commission staff had a conflict of interest?

Specifically, 9/11 Commissioner and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman just said on NBC Nightly news:

“We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest" (3:48 into video)

He went on to say:

"All of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest" (4:09 into video)

This is important because many people have assumed that -- even if Zelikow and the Commissioners had conflicts of interest -- the staff would at least do a thorough and unbiased job in investigating what happened on 9/11. We now know this is not true.

Indeed, Lehman strongly implies that the Commission was purposely set up so that every single person involved would have a conflict of interest which would prevent them from conducting an honest investigation.

Lehman himself is a textbook example of conflict of interest. In 1998, 9/11 Commission executive director Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transformative Event. Some two years later, PNAC picked up the Zelikow language, saying that the campaign to convince the public to allow expanded use of U.S. military force around the world "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor". Lehman was a member of PNAC, and a signatory to PNAC's plea for "a new Pearl Harbor". See this video and this essay.

When taken with other facts undermining the Commission's credibility (and see this), Lehman's revelation should completely destroy the idea that there has been any real investigation into 9/11.

Whitewash

2008-01-27T12:19:00.000-08:00

You might reasonably assume that the 9/11 Commission and other government agencies investigated September 11th, and concluded based upon the evidence that Osama Bin Laden and his group of terrorists were solely responsible for that atrocity.

Unfortunately, a quick look at the government's investigations reveals that -- not only has there never been a real investigation -- but the behavior of government representatives in willfully obstructing all attempts at investigation comprises evidence of guilt. Specifically, in all criminal trials, evasiveness, obstruction, and destruction of evidence all constitute strong circumstantial evidence that the accused is guilty or, at the very least, not to be believed. 9/11 is no different.

For example, the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission.

And the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ." 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting" Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up". The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

But let's back up and look at the 9/11 Commission in more detail. Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to "intelligence failures", so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved. The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true, who was involved in pre-9/11 intelligence briefings, and who was one of the key architects of the "pre-emptive war" doctrine. This executive director, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article). The administration then starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky, failed to provide crucial documents (and see this article also), refused to share much information with the Commission, refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly. More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration's official version of events. As stated by the State Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism, who was the point man for the U.S. government's international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration, "there were things the [9/11] commission[s] wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about." For example, the 9-11 Commission report fails to mention the CIA director's urgent warnings to top administration officials in July 2001 of an impending attack (indeed, the 9-11 Commission was briefed on these warnings, but denied they knew about them until confronted with contrary evidence). Moreover, numerous veteran national security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 commission, even though they had information directly relevant to the commission's investigation.

A very well-documented book by a distinguished professor shows that the 9-11 Commission was a whitewash. According to law professor Richard Falk of Princeton, the author of this book "establishes himself, alongside Seymour Hersh, as America's number one bearer of unpleasant, yet necessary, public truths" (Seymour Hersh, as you might know, is the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal). See a synopsis of the book here; and a summary of a portion of the book here. Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now "question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report", and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and "suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts".

Moreover, the former head of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, who is a professor of fire protection engineering, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses. He has called for a new investigation. And a leading firefighters' trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a "half-baked farce". In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center. Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings. And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House?

Or that a former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated"? Or have you heard that the FBI long ago found and analyzed the "black box" recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found?

Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times?

And amazingly, many years after the FBI stated it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11, that agency apparently still does not have hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime.

Still think the government really investigated and disclosed what happened on 9/11? Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.

Bankrupting Our Future

2008-01-25T08:54:00.000-08:00

Okay, here is the winning campaign slogan. Not just for any specific presidential or congressional candidate (although it would win for them also). But also for the campaigns against fascism, corruption, wars based upon lies, 9/11 coverups, voting fraud, and economic problems.

Before I tell you the slogan, though, let me remind you that the economy is now more important to people than the war in Iraq. And the subprime meltdown and other economic problems are 0bviously on peoples' minds.

In addition, right or wrong, among many Americans who believe that wealth is a sign of favor from above, "bankruptcy" is thought of as failure.

Moreover, the phrase "morally bankrupt" is one of the worst insults that can be hurled at someone. Among "values voters", ethical integrity is the most important issue. Even among the secular left, corruption is one of the ultimate negatives in a leader.

Finally, phrases like "bankruptcy" and "future" trigger all portions of a person's brain (logical, emotional, and survivalist) and so are very persuasive.

Okay, So What's the Slogan and How Do I Use It?

The slogan is, simply, "bankrupting our future".

Use it as appropriate according to the issue you are discussing. For example:

"Unnecessary wars are bankrupting our future" (you can cite the fact that Bush is pushing funding of the Iraq war off on future administrations, and that our children and grandchildren will likely still be paying off the wars that Bush started)

"Fake intelligence is bankrupting our future" (you can start with the false intelligence about Iraq and other aspects of the "war on terror", move into recent admissions by the government about the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, and then move onto broader histories of faked intelligence and false flag terror)

"Government corruption is bankrupting our future" (you can cite examples of how the boys are pilfering the treasury to pay their buddies, bribe everyone in sight, and line the pockets of mega-corporations)

And one of the most powerful uses of the phrase is: "Bush and Cheney are morally bankrupt . . . they are bankrupting our future". The focus on morals is very powerful because it will evoke a strong response in conservative Christian "values voters", secular liberal humanist voters, and everyone in between.

Marketing experts and political psychologists can verify the power of this phrase.

Drive Up the Cost of Fascism

In addition to using the powerful phrase "bankrupting our future" in our campaigns to save America, I recommend that we take actions that will actually make fascism more expensive.

What do I mean?

Well, even though our free market is not really a level playing field (and the government and mega-corporations manipulate the free market in ways both large and small), there still is a market, and the government still needs to pay for services it uses. If following the Constitution and the rule of law is far cheaper than implementing fascism, then the wanna-be fascists will receive feedback for their illegal behaviors: higher costs.

True, the government will probably just print another boatload of money to cover up these costs (hey -- they stopped reporting the M3 money supply -- so who cares?), but eventually all of the funny-money they print will cause such severe inflation and devaluation of the dollar that they won't be able to hide it from the American public.

How can we make fascism more expensive?

One example is to encrypt your computers (both pc and laptop), and to store the decryption software and the passwords on a portable memory drive. As thought up and explained by Michael Rivero in the context of laptops:

1. Encrypt the data on the laptop.
2. Put the decryption software AND the keys on a jump disk [i.e. portable storage device] attached to the keys of the person using the laptop. Some jump disks now have built-in encryption and fingerprint readers.
3. In order to use the data, the user has to insert the jump disk into the laptop. Like a key.
4. If the jump disk is removed, the data on the laptop becomes unreadable.
5. For a cyber-crook to get access to 600,000 records, they have to steal not only the laptop but the jump disk as well, a considerably more difficult proposition.

While Rivero was raising this as a security method to protect the information on your laptop, this method also raises the costs of fascism for the powers-that-be. Why? Because the Patriot Act gives the government the right to break and enter your home or office and look at what's on your computer, without a search warrant, and without even letting you know they've been there.

It is more expensive to try to decrypt the information on your computer (especially using Rivero's method) then to read unencrypted files. So if everyone used Rivero's security procedure, not only would it help protect your data from thieves, it would also make it more expensive for the government to ignore the Constitution and try to implement a fascist state.

There are many other things we can do to make fascism more expensive than the rule of law. If we get creative, we can drive up the cost of fascism to the point that the powers-that-be incur a real cost every time they try to do something unAmerican.

In short, we can bankrupt fascism.

So use the power-phrase "bankrupting our future" and get creative in taking myriad actions that will drive up the cost of those trying to shred the Constitution.

ATTENTION BLOGOSPHERE!

2008-01-24T21:00:00.000-08:00

As of November 2006, only 26 million Americans watched any nightly news program on television (down from 52 million in 1980). And the percentage of people who believed "all or most of what news organizations say" fell dramatically between 1996 and 2006.

On the other hand, social sites like Digg, Reddit, Del.icio.us, Technorati, StumbleUpon, Propeller, Newsvine etc., and alternative news websites on both the left and the right have attracted huge numbers of eyeballs. Indeed, there are currently at least 112.8 million blogs and over 250 million pieces of tagged social media.

We are actually on the verge of becoming bigger than the audience for tv news. Don't believe me? Check out this poll, which found that nearly half of Americans turn to web for news, and almost 70% think traditional journalism is out of touch. And this poll, which shows that more people trust internet news than the traditional news media.

And we are certainly much more involved and active than the couch potatoes passively consuming the drivel coming from the MSN.

In fact, mainstream news is a misnomer. Why? Because the corporate, controlled news does not reflect the views of mainstream Americans. Instead, it reflects the views of the government and the large corporations which own or advertise on the news networks.

The blogosphere, on the other hand, runs insightful and uncensored stories. The blogsphere gives voice to, and reflects the views of, mainstream America. In other words, I would argue that the blogsphere is now the "mainstream" news source.

Attention Blogosphere . . . We are now the mainstream news.

Making News of Our Own

There are now enough of us reading and writing political and news blogs that we can affect history.

Instead of rolling our eyes at the newest inept and cowardly act of the politicians, or getting hot under the collar at the latest attempt of the White House to turn America into a monarchy, or yelling at our monitors over the latest corrupt and illegal act of our "leaders", or twitching over the latest spin by the "mainstream" media, we can -- together -- actually make some news of our own.

Like what?

Well, that's for us to decide. I'm not the spokesman or the leader, but just one member of the very large blogosphere.

But if we pretend we are just passive spectators, the inept, cowardly, fascistic and/or corrupt politicians and media are going to run our country into the ground. You know it, I know it, the entire blogosphere knows it.

The one-way model of television news -- where the talking heads talk at us and tell us what to believe -- is dead. The power of the blogosphere is that it is two-way:

With social networking sites, by definition the most important news stories (as determined by the users) get voted up

With alternative news sites, those sites which carry the important stories which the MSM censors get the most readers; that's why such sites have grown exponentially while the mainstream news is losing viewership

All of us in the blogosphere collectively have the power to change the course of events, to keep our country from plunging off of the cliff, and to restore sanity in a nutty time. If we just embrace and accept our role as active participants, rather than passive consumers of bad news, we can make things right.

Attention Blogosphere . . . The future rests in our hands.

But the [people], if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire . . . They need only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies . . .
- George Orwell, 1984

You let one ant stand up to us - then they all might stand up. Those puny little ants outnumber us a 100 to one. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life.
- Hopper (a grasshopper speaking to fellow grasshoppers in the Disney/Pixar movie A Bug's Life)

There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress.
- Howard Zinn, historian

To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
- Bruce Lee

The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them.
- George Bernard Shaw

If you don't like the news, go out and make some news of your own.
- Scoop Nisker, radio personality

World's Largest Bond Insurers in Danger of Collapsing

2008-01-21T22:03:00.000-08:00

The two largest bond insurers are in imminent danger of collapsing. If they collapse, it could mean a body blow to the U.S. financial system and economy, at a time when they are already getting hammered by the mortgage and stock market crashes.

See this short video for more context.

Will the Economic Crash Wake People Up?

2008-01-21T12:01:00.000-08:00

Preface: I am truly sorry for the suffering of those Americans who will lose their home, their job, or their life savings as a result of the economic crash. This article focuses on one potential silver lining -- an opportunity to promote truth and justice.

Will the crash wake Americans up from their comfortable slumber and make them question their government? Stalin said that dictatorships only last so long as the dictators keep their people well-fed. Americans have been strongly motivated not to question the government because they have been led to believe that if they just follow the party line, they'll get nice jobs, make a bundle of dough, buy into "the American dream". A crash has the possibility to awaken Americans from their dangerously cozy nap. It has the potential to get Americans to open their eyes and start questioning the lies they have been told about everything from the "war on terror", to "provocations by hostile foreign nations", to voting in the U.S.

On the other hand, will the financial crash will lower people on the Maslow pyramid to the point that they have no energy to think about political truth or the acts of criminal brutality and fascism of their government? Will they be so preoccupied with holding onto their house and job, their ability to keep the heat and lights on and buy food, that they just hunker down in survival mode?

Unlike the citizens of prior fascist regimes, the current politicians are the ones who caused the economic problem, so they can't pretend they will rescue us from an economic crisis caused by their predecessors. In other words, it might be harder for the Neocons to whip up a "rally around the strong leader to solve the economic crisis" dynamic.

The trick will be to link the pain people feel from economic mismanagement with the pain caused by other destructive acts by the powers-that-be.

As one example, 9/11 truth activists can link 9/11 truth with economic truth, because:

Neither the 9/11 murders or the economic crash occurred due to the causes the government claims

Neither are "no one could have foreseen it" situations

The government had much more control and input into both scenarios than it has admitted

Just as the government used 9/11 as an excuse to carry out its pre-planned anti-American agenda, we have to be on-guard that the government doesn't use the crash as an excuse to implement a "fix" which hurts the vast majority of Americans (and lines just a handful of pockets)

I'll leave it to people with a better economics background than I have to explain the real causes of the market crash. Please don't get speculative. Just stick to the basics of how the government manipulates the economy.

Why We'll Win

2008-01-16T12:05:00.000-08:00

History proves that ideas are more powerful than weapons. Sure, in the short-term, those who possess the strongest military and the deadliest weapons will prevail. But powerful new ideas bring greater change over the span of a couple of hundred years than military might.

The wannabe-fascists in America, England, Israel and other countries have won in the short-term. For example, there already is soft fascism in America and England. Wars have already been launched just because America -- as sole superpower -- had the military strength to do it. The elections are already rigged, with only those hand-picked by the powers-that-be standing any chance of winning.

But people world-wide are waking up to the facts of manipulation of intelligence, false flag operations and rigged elections. This is a huge development.

Why?

Well, these things have been going on for thousands of years. These ideas -- which have never before been understood by so large a proportion of the population, are very powerful. Previously, people have believed that their form of government -- whether capitalism, or communism, or socialism, or any other ism -- would basically protect them.

But with an understanding of false flag terror and faked intelligence, people can see that the elite have been playing an entirely different game: the blame-the-enemy-for-your-own-brutal acts-of-murder game.

Once people understand that the powers-that-be in every country and every culture will wrap themselves in the nation's flag, dominant cultural expressions, and prevailing religion and then manipulate the population through the creation of boogeymen, something amazing will happen.

People will rise up and demand new forms of government that cannot be distorted through false flags, cooked intelligence and rigged votes to serve the elite at the expense of the people. Tweaks on the old forms of government, brought about by constitutional Convention (or even new forms of government) will be implemented which will prevent the abuses of the last couple of thousands of years from recurring, and which will create true democratic republics which actually embody the vision of the Founding Fathers. Because America, for example, has become so corrupted, and because anti-freedom forces sought to sabotage the Constitution from the first, the new governments will be better than the world has ever seen before.

I believe that the elites overplayed their hand. I believe that by carrying out the brutal act of cynical murder on 9/11 and by using overt forms of power to try to stifle dissent and truth, the elites have not only sewn the seeds of their own downfall from power, but have also paved the way for an awakening of humankind to the realities of how people have been manipulated by the elites for millennia.

9/11 was a brutal act of murder on innocent Americans. Nothing will ever wash the horrible taste of that treasonous act from my mouth. But I believe that we can make lemonade from the lemon -- and with the ugly truth so obviously displayed for all to see -- use the 9/11 murders to awaken humanity so that the people of the world demand true mechanisms to protect our freedom in a fashion that cannot be destroyed by games of manipulation.

The truth will out. And when the truth is known, the idea generated by that truth -- of the need for true liberty protected from the manipulation of false flag attacks and fake intelligence -- and the action generated from that idea can sweep away the tools of repression and usher in a golden age of liberty and justice better than anything before.

But that will only happen if we are committed to turning the lemons of 9/11 and the gathering clouds of fascism into the lemonade of the best system the world has had, one which comes much closer to carrying out the Founders' intent and which will actually deliver on the promises enshrined in the Constitution.

Obviously, it is difficult to create procedures than can withstand attempts at manipulation. If the demand of the people is strong enough, ingenious methods can be implemented which discourage manipulation.

Moreover, new technologies and new insights into biology, psychology, and related fields will lead to new forms of psychological warfare and manipulation by the elite.

That is why a "vigilant" public is the strongest protection because -- when the public is paying attention -- the elites know they have to behave themselves. That is why informing and waking up the population is the key to protecting freedom in the long-term.

Secrets of Persuasion for Truth Activists

2008-01-14T12:46:00.000-08:00

Truth activists have all the facts on our side, but how do we persuade people who stubbornly refuse to listen to those facts? I read a book recently which provides expert marketing and psychology advice for political activists¹. This essay summarizes principles of persuasion for use by truth activists.

Those promoting a fascist agenda have long been using advanced marketing techniques and psychology to manipulate people. We must understand these techniques in order to shield ourselves from manipulation.

In addition, using these tools in our work to protect our liberties, spread truth and promote justice will make us more effective.

3 Brains

The first thing to understand about persuasion is that every person actually has 3 brains. Top-notch communicators appeal to all 3 brains.

The 3 brains are:

(1) The reptilian brain, which focuses solely on survival, fight-or-flight, and getting away from pain.

(2) The mammalian brain, which handles emotions: love, indignation, compassion, envy, hope, etc.

(3) The human brain (neocortex), where we handle logic, abstract thought, words, symbols and time.

Most people incorrectly assume that if enough facts and logic are presented, people will believe the truth. In fact, psychologists, marketing experts and trial lawyers have found that facts are less persuasive for most people than emotions in reaching decisions.

Why?

The reptilian and monkey portions of our brain reach decisions based upon survival and emotion before the neocortex can make rational decisions. So facts alone won’t convince most people. Instead, stories, images and emotions are what sway most people.

For example, one political psychologist writes:

If you appeal primarily to people's reason without first getting them to feel the significance of the issue you're talking about, they're not going to be interested. From an evolutionary standpoint, our emotions play two major roles. One, our emotions appear to capture our attention, so if you don't make emotionally compelling arguments, if you don't use stories or examples to grab listeners, they won't hear important things you have to say. The other role of emotion, which is probably most crucial, is that emotions motivate us -- positive feelings pull us towards things that are generally good for us, and negative emotions move us away from things that are generally bad for us.

Framing

Associating an issue or person with an emotion is called “anchoring”.

Some words convey strong positive or negative emotions, and act as powerful anchor words. For example, Newt Gingrich pushed the following positive words for use by politicians (I have deleted the anchor words which are not appropriate to truth activism, such as "crusade"):

share... change... opportunity... legacy... challenge... control... truth... moral... courage... reform... prosperity... movement... children... family... debate... compete... active(ly)... we/us/our... candid(ly)... humane... pristine... provide...

liberty... commitment... principle(d)... unique... duty... precious... premise... care(ing)... tough... listen... learn... help... lead... vision... success... empower(ment)... citizen... activist... mobilize... conflict... light... dream... freedom...

peace... rights... pioneer... proud/pride... building... preserve... pro-(issue): flag, children, environment... reform... confident... incentive... hard work... initiative... common sense... passionate

Just using these words to describe one's position helps to persuade people towards that position. For example, for those who work to expose the fact that the 9/11 Commission did not provide a complete accounting of what happened on September 11, both "truth" and "activist" are positive anchor words, but "truther" doesn't appear on the list, and is not a good anchor. "9/11 truth activist" is a lot more powerful a phrase than "9/11 truther".

Gingrich urged the following negative words be describe one’s opponent:

decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... they/them...betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...

endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten... devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissive attitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed... ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant...

stagnation... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... status quo... shame... disgrace... punish... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse of power... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... red tape... patronage

So labeling those who apologize for those who carried out the 9/11 attacks "radical traitors who are anti-truth and anti-flag" would be very powerful.

What should we do when we come face-to-face with a negative but powerful frame promoted by the other side? The best solution is usually to reframe it. Find a better, more powerful frame which encapsulates the truth.

Primary Drive

People are driven primarily by one of two emotions:

(1) Moving away from pain. People whose primary drive is to move away from pain usually believe that the world is primarily a scary and dangerous place, and that people are basically bad

(2) Moving towards pleasure. People whose primary drive is to move toward pleasure usually believe that the world is fundamentally a fair and good place, and that people are basically good.

If someone falls into the first category, discussing how truth will help them avoid pain will be effective. For people in the second category, stressing the pleasure that truth will bring will be useful.

Of course, if you are communicating with more than one person at a time, you should mix both messages.

One piece of good news: Motivating people through a moving away from pain/fear strategy works very effectively in the short run, which is why those running the U.S. have been able to manipulate the American people so well. This is because the reptilian brain reacts first and overrides the higher thinking functions. But, over time, it stops working, and the moving away from pain strategy eventually becomes ineffective. In the long run, hope and a positive vision works better than fear.

Seeing, Hearing, Touching

Most modern people process information primarily through their visual sense. Some process information through hearing. Other process information kinesthetically (through touch and feeling).

People not living in modern societies process information primarily kinesthetically, as that is how we are biologically wired. As stated above, we are wired to make decisions largely based on feeling and emotion.

So what does this mean on a practical level?

Unless you communicate using a person's primary mode of learning (called "submodality"), you won't be speaking in his language, and so probably won't be able to persuade him.

Moreover, studies show that communications which rapidly switch back and forth between visual, auditory and kinesthetic cues best help the listener focus on the message.

Therefore, the world's top communicators will frequently and rapidly switch between "seeing", "hearing" and kinesthetic words.

Some examples of visual words and phrases are:

"I see what you mean."
"Look at what's happening."
"Can you picture that?"
"What's the big picture?"

Some examples of hearing words and phrases are:

"I hear you."
"If you listen carefully, you'll notice . . ."
"Can you hear their cries for justice?"
"That's the sound of democracy."

Some examples of kinesthetic words and phrases are:

"What would that feel like?"
"Pulled the rug out from under us."
"Tearing a hole in the Constitution"
"Getting tripped up on . . ."
"They're stabbing us in the back . . ."

An example switching submodalities could be as simple as: “I want to talk with you about the stories that we tell ourselves, the way we view the world and the way we feel as Americans.”

“You” Statements

The unconscious mind hears any statement using the word “you” as being directly at that particular listener.

Using a "you" statement when you are in a confrontational situation with someone will usually polarize the listener and destroy any possibility of influencing him.

A trick for getting around this is to use an “indirect you”; that is, speak in the third person. Here are some examples:

“[third person] was saying ...”

“He said ‘you wouldn’t believe’ . . .”

“She said ‘you can’t imagine how difficult . . .”

“He said ‘you would have to be, you know, disconnected from life to ignore . . .”

“She said ‘you’d have to be almost criminally disconnected from humanity to . . .”

“He said ‘you wouldn’t believe’ . . .”

“And I said to him, ‘you know, I agree.”

“Many people tell me that what they would like to say to [listener or listener’s group] is ‘you guys are . . . .’”

Pacing

If you shift the rhythm of your speaking or writing, or the pace of your video or movie, the listener or viewer will have pay attention to follow you. This draws him in, and forces him to pay attention (and thus be receptive to your message). If you listen to a world-class speaker, they will pause more than you might assume, and speak quieter in parts.

Pacing your presentation is important.

Future Pacing

It can be powerful to tell a story in the future, as if its happening now. Then work your way back to the present, to connect the future and the present.

Masterful speeches can work back and forth and back forth among different time frames, interweaving present, future and even past events to make one's point and give the listener a feeling of continuity in one's vision.

Switch Levels

Similar to switching between timeframes, one can switch between levels of complexity: from the individual, to the group, to the societal, to all of humankind.

Tell how something will benefit the individual and also society. Don't just get stuck on one level or another.

Avoid Negatives

The unconscious mind usually doesn't hear negatives. It hears “not” as “is” (how do you react to "I am not a crook"?). And it doesn’t hear “un” or “dis”, or even "I will stop" or "I will end" sometimes.

As summarized in an article in the Washington Post:

The psychological insights yielded by the research, which has been confirmed in a number of peer-reviewed laboratory experiments, have broad implications for public policy. The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.
This phenomenon may help explain why large numbers of Americans incorrectly think that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi. While these beliefs likely arose because Bush administration officials have repeatedly tried to connect Iraq with Sept. 11, the experiments suggest that intelligence reports and other efforts to debunk this account may in fact help keep it alive.

The Post concludes that the studies show that "rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth".

So try to avoid negatives and stick to positive statements.

Putting It All Together

Thom Hartmann summarized successful and persuasive communication as follows:

“Tell a story to capture their attention. Build into the story visual and auditory metaphors and elements, each designed to evoke emotional responses. Embed into the most emotional parts of the stories the information you want remembered. And pace the story so that listeners and viewers move to your beat . . . .”

Throw in some indirect you statements, future pacing and level-switching, frame the issue in your own, positive way, and use strong anchor words, and you're on your way to becoming a highly effective truth activist.

¹ The book is Cracking the Code by Thom Hartmann. While I disagree with Hartmann's assessment of conservatives and liberals, I respect his knowledge of communications and marketing. Indeed, Hartmann studied with one of the leading experts in this field, and taught advertising agencies some of their modern tricks of persuasion.

This summary cannot provide a full taste of how to apply these methods. I highly recommend that everyone read Cracking the Code to learn more about these persuasion techniques.

If you have any ethical reservations about using these techniques, please note that I am only advocating using them to promote the truth. I am completely opposed to using psychology or marketing techniques to spread disinformation.

Will the Iranian "Provocation" Ruse Be Allowed to Succeed?

2008-01-10T21:11:00.000-08:00

The navy showed a tape of what they claimed were Iranian speedboats "harassing" a U.S. warship, along with audio of foreign-sounding bad guys making very threatening statements.

However, after a blogger pointed out that the accents of the supposed speed boat passengers could not have been Iranian, the government changed its story:

"the spokesperson for the U.S. admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet clarified to ABC News that the threat may have come from the Iranian boats, or it may have come from somewhere else.

'We're saying that we cannot make a direct connection to the boats there,' said the spokesperson. 'It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by. However, it happened in the middle of all the very unusual activity, so as we assess the information and situation, we still put it in the total aggregate of what happened Sunday morning. I guess we're not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we're not saying it absolutely didn't.'"

In other words, the audio could have come from anywhere. It could even have been a pre-recorded message played from a U.S. war ship!

Iran released its own version of the audio for the incident, wherein the speed boats properly identify themselves, saying "Coalition warship No. 73 this is an Iranian navy patrol boat". I don't know if this is authentic, but its more likely than the U.S. version of the incident.

Especially given that it has now been definitely admitted by the U.S. government that "US officials faked an incident to escalate the war" in Vietnam, will the U.S. get away with using the less-than-credible Iranian speedboat tape to create a pretext for war with Iran?

The media has shown over hundreds of years that it will support the false claims of the government to justify war. Will the media act truthfully this time?

Military and Intelligence Officers: Your Country Needs You!

2008-01-09T12:25:00.000-08:00

If you are a current or former military or intelligence officer, you just may be able to save your country.

Blowing the whistle on a false flag attack is obviously crucial (and see this).

But there's something else you can do to save the country.

What?

Meeting with as many state troopers, marshals, police captains, national guardsmen, soldiers and other folks who would actually be tasked with implementing martial law if and when the powers-that-be decide that velvet-gloved "soft fascism" is no longer working or moving their plans along fast enough.

Many police officers, guardsmen and military personnel are good people who simply don't know what's really going on in America.

As former officers, it is possible that they will respect and look up to you. If you educate them with the most well-documented facts about our country's descent into fascism, then you will be planting vital seeds of truth.

One day, the people you talk to (and those they speak with) just might say "no" if they are asked to carry out illegal orders to imprison, kill or torture Americans simply for exercising their lawful, constitutional rights to criticize the government.

Who knows? By talking to them with respect and truth, they may one day even help to expose the crimes or arrest those criminals who are using their positions within the U.S. government or the defense industry to destroy the nation and line their own pockets (for example, these guys).

Fascism Is Over ... If We Want It

2008-01-07T08:26:00.000-08:00

Many times, when I explain to people what's going on in our country today, they at first argue that things aren't really that bad, and that America could never go fascist.

After a couple of examples about what's been happening recently, and a brief overview of what fascism actually means, they get it.

But then they shrug their shoulders and say "there's nothing I can do", hoping that that's the end of discussion.

Are they right? Is there nothing we can do about fascism? Should we just hunker down and try to survive it?

Well, first of all, there is something we can do to break free of the fascist concrete which has been poured over America, before it really hardens.

Here is just one example:

2 million Americans could all peacefully surround the White House and Capitol Hill, and hold signs saying "we're not leaving until the Constitution and the rule of law are restored".

1 million people surround the White House. 1 million more surround Capitol Hill. Everyone wears red, white and blue to show that we are pro-America (and because it will be such a sight to see that the news cameras will be attracted like flies to honey).

If that happened, the spell of fascism would be broken, things would start to get done, and America would be freed. Says who?

Well, its happened repeatedly throughout history whenever people have been willing to stand up. The Ukranian people stood up to tyranny and won. The East German people stood up to tyranny and won. The people of the Philippines, Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Indonesia and other countries around the world have won against tyranny whenever ordinary people have poured into the streets in massive numbers and demanded freedom.

And here in the U.S., even though Nixon said he didn't care what the American people thought, he backed off on dropping a nuclear bomb on Vietnam when hundreds of thousands of people turned out to protest an escalation of the war (and see this).

But, but . . .

Now you might raise all sorts of potential problems with this option. I'll get to that in a minute. However, I want to stress that if 2 million people did this, it would work, and the fact that we're not doing it is only proof that we're too lazy or lack the commitment to do anything.

Okay, here are some possible objections and rebuttals to the objections . . .

1. There has never been that large a protest. We can't organize that many people.

With the web, we can do it.

2. If we use the web to organize, it would be infiltrated.

Well, with government already spying on our web usage, emails and phones, of course it would be infiltrated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

3. Police might try to disrupt the protest.

Yes, they probably will try. That's why everyone should bring cellphone cameras or videocams. If police turn violent or use agents provocateur to incite violence, we film it all, and broadcast it worldwide on the web. That would make the government look really, really bad. Also, everyone should sign paper pledges in advance to be peaceful and not use any violence under any circumstance. And if you see anyone trying to incite violence, have a group of people escort them away from the protest.

4. Too busy, don't have the time off from work, or don't have the money to participate.

Yes, we might have to call in sick to work, spend some scarce funds, rearrange or cancel some commitments. It might be a sacrifice, but we could do it if we really wanted to.

There are many other possible objections, but there are responses to all of them. In short, it is doable and would be effective.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that it is not true that we are powerless or that there is nothing we can do to prevent fascism from consolidating its hold on the United States.

The option of surrounding the White House and Capitol Hill with millions of peaceful protesters is only one of many options which would turn things around. If we are not implementing such options, it is because we don't really care, or don't want to be bothered, or are not really committed to saving our country. It is not because there is nothing we can do.

9/11 Stress Increased Risk of Heart Problems

2008-01-07T08:22:00.000-08:00

A new study says that stress from the 9/11 attacks increased the risk of heart problems, even if they had no personal connection to the events.

A class action lawyer could file suit on behalf of Americans who have suffered heart disease as a result of the government's failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. A lawsuit would allow subpoenas and discovery into what really happened on 9/11.

CIA Tape Investigation: Another Whitewash in the Making

2008-01-02T14:58:00.000-08:00

After the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission said that the CIA (and the White House) "obstructed our investigation", attorney general Mukasey appointed a prosecutor to conduct a criminal probe.

Sounds good, right?

Well, the prosecutor:

"will not serve as a special prosecutor such as Patrick Fitzgerald, who operated autonomously" (AP)

There's nothing really "outside" about [prosecutor] John Dunham. He's a career DOJ prosecutor, the number two official in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Connecticut. . . ." (former DOJ official Marty Lederman, )

The prosecutor "will report to the deputy attorney general", acting Deputy attorney general Craig Morford (Washington Post)

The prosecutor will lack independence, contrary to the Justice Department's own regulations:

"While I certainly agree that these matters warrant an immediate criminal investigation, it is disappointing that the Attorney General has stepped outside the Justice Department's own regulations and declined to appoint a more independent special counsel in this matter. . . .
The Justice Department's record over the past seven years of sweeping the administration's misconduct under the rug has left the American public with little confidence in the administration's ability to investigate itself. Nothing less than a special counsel with a full investigative mandate will meet the tests of independence, transparency and completeness. Appointment of a special counsel will allow our nation to begin to restore our credibility and moral standing on these issues." (House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers)

Bottom line: Just another whitewash.

Note: Hat tip to Salon for its many useful updates.

New Strategies for Challenging the Propaganda Machine

2007-12-29T14:22:00.000-08:00

Two ideas have surfaced today about how to stand up to the mainstream media companies which censor real news and solely act as cheerleaders for the powers-that-be:

Buy put options or short-sell stock -- that is, bet that the stock will go down -- of the offending companiess (just call a stockbroker and say you want to buy put options)

Put pressure on the FCC to deny license renewal for the offending companies by writing a letter to network affiliates stating that the company is not serving the public interest

Both of these tactics come from Ron Paul supporters as a way to challenge Fox News' decision to exclude Dr. Paul from its presidential debate. However, these tactics can be used by anyone who is frustrated that the giant news corporations (owned by neocons, defense contractors, and others who do not share the interests of the American people) are censoring the truth and instead acting as the lapdogs and stenographers to the powers-that-be. Don't just target Fox news, but all of the media companies suppressing truth.

Of course, people can also boycott the sponsors of the offending media. For example, here is a list of Fox News' sponsors. And more ideas for boycotts are here.

And for those who already own shares of stock in an MSM company, another option is simply to sell them. If enough people sell, that will drive the price down and hit the MSM in its bottom line.

Each of our Individual Voices Is More Important Than We've Realized

2007-12-27T17:56:00.000-08:00

I just read a study which says that even one dissenting voice can give people permission to think for themselves. Specifically:

Solomon Asch, with experiments originally carried out in the 1950s and well-replicated since, highlighted a phenomenon now known as "conformity". In the classic experiment, a subject sees a puzzle like the one in the nearby diagram: Which of the lines A, B, and C is the same size as the line X? Take a moment to determine your own answer...
The gotcha is that the subject is seated alongside a number of other people looking at the diagram - seemingly other subjects, actually confederates of the experimenter. The other "subjects" in the experiment, one after the other, say that line C seems to be the same size as X. The real subject is seated next-to-last. How many people, placed in this situation, would say "C" - giving an obviously incorrect answer that agrees with the unanimous answer of the other subjects? What do you think the percentage would be?

Three-quarters of the subjects in Asch's experiment gave a "conforming" answer at least once. A third of the subjects conformed more than half the time.

Get it so far? People tend to defer to what the herd thinks.

But here's the good news:

Adding a single dissenter - just one other person who gives the correct answer, or even an incorrect answer that's different from the group's incorrect answer - reduces conformity very sharply, down to 5-10%.

Why is this important? Well, it means that one person who publicly speaks the truth can sway a group of people away from group-think.

If a group of people is leaning towards believing the government's version of 9/11, or believing the official mythos of the war on terror, or that the U.S. holds "free and fair elections", or that impeachment should "stay off the table", a single person who speaks the truth can help snap the group out of its trance.

There is an important point here regarding the web, as well. The above-cited article states that:

when subjects can respond in a way that will not be seen by the group, conformity also drops.

What does that mean? Well, on the web, many people post anonymously. The anonymity gives people permission to "respond in a way that will not be seen by the group". But most Americans still don't get their news from the web, or only go to mainstream corporate news sites.

Away from the keyboard, we are not very anonymous. So that is where the conformity dynamic -- and the need for courageous dissent -- is vital. It is doubly important that we apply the same hard-hitting truthtelling we do on the Internet in our face-to-face interactions; because it is there that dissent is urgently needed.

Bottom line: Each person's voice has the power to snap entire groups out of their coma of irrational group-think. So go forth and be a light of rationality and truth among the sleeping masses.

9/11 Commission Report: Second Edition

2007-12-26T12:19:00.000-08:00

Preface: Now that it has been discovered that the Pentagon, CIA, Vice President and other agencies and officials lied to The 9-11 Commission about the timeline of the military's reaction to the hijackings, the interrogation of alleged members of Al-Qaeda, orders given regarding response to the hijackings and other issues, the Commission has decided to issue a revised, Second Edition of our Report.

Our revised Second Edition removes all material based on false or unverifiable information provided to us by the United States government.

As such, we hope that this revised Second Edition will lay to rest once and for all the distrust in the government that so many Americans have expressed, and will remove all controversy concerning the events of September 11th.

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States.

Recommendation: Keep monitoring the weather.

Notes to the Second Edition: Because the government has refused to give the Commission access to any of real sources of unbiased information concerning the 9/11 attacks, obstructed our investigation, failed to fund the investigation in any meaningful fashion, and sabotaged our investigation from the first day, the weather for 9/11 is the only thing our Report can really discuss.

[GW's comment: The above is, of course, parody. The first sentence of the "Second Edition" is the first sentence from the original report, and the "recommendation" is just satire -- the Commission's series of "Recommendations" end their Report.

It is true, however, that I couldn't read much past the first sentence of the Report without running into claims based upon alleged confessions made by alleged members of Al Qaeda, concerning which information the government wants us to simply take its word, since it has destroyed any videotapes which would show what these people actually said, if anything.

In addition to the supposed interrogation information, there is also the false information about military reactions to the hijackings, Dick Cheney's provably false statements about when he entered the PEOC command center and what orders he gave there, and many other demonstrably false assertions.

So, while this may be parody, it is - unfortunately - not far from the truth.]

With McCain's Affair Public, Ron Paul Is Back In The Race

2007-12-22T21:18:00.000-08:00

Now that the New York Times has gone public with John McCain's affair, Ron Paul has a real shot at picking up a lot of McCain's supporters.

Ron Paul announced that he was temporarily scaling back his campaign; but he did not say he was dropping out. Indeed, Dr. Paul decided several weeks ago to:

"Stay in the presidential race in the hope that a scandal would cripple McCain and leave Paul going head to head with Huckabee but essentially shift all campaigning efforts to focus on his Congressional seat which is now under threat."

With the Times' revelations about McCain, this may have been a very wise strategy indeed. The race may suddenly be wide open again.

9/11 "Confession" Falls Apart

2007-12-18T22:15:00.000-08:00

An article in the Washington Post quotes "FBI officials, including agents who questioned [alleged Al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaida] after his capture or reviewed documents seized from his home" as concluding that he was:

[L]argely a loudmouthed and mentally troubled hotelier whose credibility dropped as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding and to other "enhanced interrogation" measures.

***
even though he knew some al-Qaeda players, he provided interrogators with increasingly dubious information as the CIA's harsh treatment intensified in late 2002."

For example:

Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, who led an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida's capture in early 2002 and worked on the case, said the CIA's harsh tactics cast doubt on the credibility of Abu Zubaida's information.

"I don't have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted," Coleman said, referring to the harsh measures. "He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn't believe him. The problem is they didn't realize he didn't know all that much."
***
"They said, 'You've got to be kidding me,' " said Coleman, recalling accounts from FBI employees who were there. " 'This guy's a Muslim. That's not going to win his confidence. Are you trying to get information out of him or just belittle him?'" Coleman helped lead the bureau's efforts against Osama bin Laden for a decade, ending in 2004.

Coleman goes on to say:

Abu Zubaida ... was a "safehouse keeper" with mental problems who claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did.

***
Looking at other evidence, including a serious head injury that Abu Zubaida had suffered years earlier, Coleman and others at the FBI believed that he had severe mental problems that called his credibility into question. "They all knew he was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone," Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. "You think they're going to tell him anything?"

The article also says that Abu Zubaida might have been tortured for months.

Bottom line: According to the FBI, the information which formed the basis for the 9/11 Commission Report was based on the ramblings of a literally crazy guy after he had been tortured for many, many weeks in a manner that was guaranteed to destroy his trust in his interrogators and which was contrary to effective interrogation techniques.

Disclaimer: The government also allegedly received information from other people who were severely tortured. Maybe they weren't crazy before they were tortured (although they probably were afterwards). It doesn't matter though . . . torture is a notoriously inaccurate way to obtain information. Moreover, since the government destroyed the tapes, we don't really even know what they said or who they were.

Government's Evasiveness about 9/11 is Proof of Guilt

2007-12-16T13:51:00.000-08:00

When a suspect who is confronted with a direct question repeatedly tries to change the subject and refuses to answer the question, that's evidence that he's guilty.

For example, if a suspect is repeatedly asked "did you stab Mr. Roberts?", and he replies "I didn't take the money!" every time he is asked, that is strong incriminating evidence that he did in fact stab Mr. Roberts. That's especially true if no one asked him whether he took any money.

NIST is doing the exact same thing in regards to the basic questions which 9/11 activists keep asking.

For example, NIST's new factsheet contains the following question and response:

2. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analysis of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?

Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.

In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.

What NIST is saying is that -- when the airplanes hit -- the Towers oscillated for a short time, and then the movement quieted down, so that NIST didn't have to account for the movement in its analysis.

But that's not the question that 9/11 victim's family members, scientists, engineers, architects, military leaders and lawyers are asking. When 9/11 activists talk about "conservation of momentum" or "conservation of energy", they're not talking about the oscillation from the plane impacts.

What they're referring to is:

(1) The speed of the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 should have been slowed much more than actually observed by the still-intact portion of the buildings below the collapse zones; and

(2) Once the upper 30-story block of the South Tower started toppling over sideways, it should have continued to fall sideways well away from the base of the South Tower.

See Dr. Steven Jones' paper for details.

In other words, 9/11 activists have been asking a very clear and direct question:

"Aren't explosives necessary to explain why WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed at virtually free-fall speeds, and why the upper block of the South Tower started toppling over and then straightened itself out during the last phases of the collapse?"

NIST's response that the oscillations from the plane impacts soon straightened out is answering a totally different question. The fact that NIST is answering a question referring to something that occurred around an hour before the collapses -- which is what the 9/11 activsts' question refers to -- shows that NIST is intentionally avoiding a direct question. NIST is, in essence, saying "I didn't take the money", when we've been asking " whether Mr. Roberts was stabbed.

In addition, everyone knows that when a witness is caught lying or changing his testimony, it effectively discredits him. If the witness is himself the accused criminal, then perjury, inconsistent testimony or destroying evidence tends to implicate the defendant's guilt. See this and this.

As I pointed out yesterday, NIST makes the ridiculous claim that it did everything it could to preserve evidence from the destruction of the World Trade Centers, when everyone knows -- even NIST's own former head of fire science and engineering -- that evidence was intentionally destroyed.

An agency trying to accurately research what really happened would not destroy evidence, falsify results, and repeatedly try to change the topic by addressing straw men and red herrings.

NIST's New Factsheet: Not Based on Fact

2007-12-14T16:09:00.000-08:00

NIST has just released a new factsheet in response to pressure from 9/11 activists (especially the petition by family members and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice).

Scientists, engineers and architects will pick apart the factsheet in detail in the coming weeks. However, I'd like to address one particular misleading statement by NIST in the meantime.

The factsheet claims NIST did everything it could to preserve evidence from the destruction of the World Trade Centers. Specifically, in response to question # 4, "Why was physical evidence not collected immediately following the collapse of the WTC Towers?", NIST responds:

The complete collapse of the WTC Towers destroyed virtually all physical evidence except the major pieces of steel and mechanical equipment. In the initial days and weeks following the WTC disaster, the emphasis was on rescue and later on recovery, necessitating the removal of steel and disturbing the collapse site. FEMA, which had launched its Building Performance Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards. These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation. Beginning in February 2002, NIST, on its own initiative, began identifying additional steel pieces of potential interest at the salvage yards and transporting them to NIST to preserve and secure the evidence in anticipation of launching its own investigation, which it did in August 2002. NIST did not receive the legal authority to collect and preserve physical evidence from a disaster/failure site until the National Construction Safety Team Act became law in October 2002. NIST NCSTAR 1-3 fully documents the steel recovered from the site.

Makes NIST sound like they did everything possible to collect and preserve evidence, and then make the evidence available to the public, right?

But it's just not true.

In fact, NIST's former head of fire science and engineering, who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), wrote that evidence necessary to determine the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Centers was being destroyed.*

In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the World Trade Center.

Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and NIST has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.

* He also called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

1993 Bomb Was Planted In Secret Service Parking Area

2007-12-14T15:45:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows that the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but -- 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)? See also this TV news report.

I just found another interesting fact about the 1994 bombing. As one of the leading websites for building-related information states:

"The immense blast happened at 12:18 PM local time in the Secret Service's section of the car park underneath and between what are New York's tallest buildings."

Note: Is it possible that the Secret Service -- the premier security agency in the U.S. -- left their cars totally unprotected? If so, that would have been very sloppy security.

Co-Chair of Congressional 9/11 Inquiry and Former Head of Senate Intelligence Committee Confirms White House Cover Up

2007-12-13T12:13:00.000-08:00

The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, revealed that the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview one of the most important witnesses imaginable:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence that might have linked Saudi Arabia to the Sept. 11 hijackers.
* * *
The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.
In his book "Intelligence Matters," Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.'' On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."

This isn't some fresh-face kid talking. This is a consummate insider: the former head of senate intelligence and co-chair of the congressional 9/11 inquiry.

If the White House refused to allow an interview of a government informant who was landlord to two of the hijackers -- one of the most valuable leads it could possibly pursue -- what other investigations did it spike? And if the White House killed an investigation to, allegedly, protect its Saudi friends, how much more motivated would the White House have been to kill investigations into areas which implicated elements of the U.S. government itself?

Only Fascism Can Liberate America!

2007-12-12T11:21:00.000-08:00

Because some people are too stubborn or too stuck in dysfunctional thinking patterns to hear the truth about fascism when it hits them over the head, I suggest that we try a different approach: Parody.

When a comic does satire -- an exaggeration of what we're thinking -- it can wake us up, so that we can see the truth and laugh at how we've been acting. That can give us the freedom to stop doing the same dumb thing and to try something new.

So put satirical slogans on freeway blogs or bumper stickers to snap people out of their coma, like (by way of example only):

Only Fascism Can Liberate America!

Torturing People Makes Them Like Us!

We Need to Destroy America in Order to Save Her!

A "Decider" King is What Our Founding Fathers Wanted!

Supressing the Truth is What Makes Us American!

Big Brother Is Our Friend!

Don't Investigate 9/11 . . . The Truth Might Be Scary!

Free Speech is Anti-American!

We Need a Dictator In Order To Save Our Freedom!

Good luck waking people up . . . and have some fun doing it.

Pelosi and Harman Aided and Abetted 9/11 Cover Up

2007-12-12T11:19:00.000-08:00

House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is blocking efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney, or to take any other real steps to save America. One of the grounds for impeachment is that the government made knowingly false claims about 9/11.

Congresswoman Jane Harman chaired the hearing of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security which pushing for the labeling 9/11 truth sites as terrorist incubators.

What do these two congresswomen have in common? They were both part of the 9/11 cover up.

Veteran reporter Robert Scheer gives the background in his opinion piece today in the San Francisco Chronicle. The first two lines of the piece set the stage:

"When the CIA destroyed those prisoner interrogation videotapes, were they also destroying the truth about Sept. 11, 2001? After all, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day - and the nature of the enemy in this war on terror that Bush launched in response to the tragedy - comes from the CIA's account of what those prisoners told their torturers.

Scheer then moves on to Pelosi and Harman' role in the cover up:

But what about those congressional leaders who were briefed on the torture program as early as 2002? That includes Democrats like Nancy Pelosi . . . .

Pelosi claimed that "several months later" her successor as the ranking Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman of Los Angeles County, was advised the techniques "had in fact been employed" and wrote a classified letter to the CIA in protest, and Pelosi "concurred." Neither went public with her concerns.

Harman told the Washington Post "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four . . . an insider reference to the top members of the House and Senate intelligence committees . . . .

Not only did the congressional Gang of Four fail to inform the public about the use of torture by our government but they also kept the 9/11 Commission in the dark.

Pelosi testified before the commission on May 22, 2003 but uttered not a word of caution about the methods used. However, more than two years later on Nov. 16, 2005, Pelosi stated correctly that on the basis of her "many years on the intelligence committee," she knew that "The quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is ... uncorroborated and it is worthless."

***
As matters now stand, they not only concealed torture but, more significantly, they abetted the waterboarding of our democracy.

Pelosi and Harman played an instrumental role in the 9/11 cover up by keeping their knowledge about the interrogation videotapes secret from the 9/11 Commission and from the American people (they weren't the only ones who knew). This is made all the worse because Pelosi knew that intelligence "collected by torture" is worthless, and yet she never even hinted to the Commission or to anyone else that the CIA's version of events should be questioned. They could have stopped the whole farce cold -- but they chose to go along with it.

These two congresswomen -- who are fighting against 9/11 truth -- previously aided and abetted the 9/11 cover up. Is that why they don't want the truth to come out?

The White House and Congress Knew about the CIA Interrogation Videotapes

2007-12-11T12:32:00.000-08:00

According to a former "senior intelligence official", the White House knew of the existence of the CIA interrogation tapes since 2003, at the very latest, and tacitly approved the destruction of the tapes in 2005.

Indeed, former CIA agent and State Department counterterrorism official Larry Johnson said that it was “highly likely” that President Bush himself had viewed the videotapes of the 2002 interrogations that were later destroyed. And the White House counsel knew in advance about the planned destruction of the tapes. Is that why the White House has instructed its spokesperson not to answer any questions on the subject?

And according to the Director of the CIA, Congress was also informed about the existence of the tapes, and -- later -- of the CIA's intention to destroy them.

Indeed, Senator Rockefeller has confirmed that the Senate Intelligence Committee knew of the existence of the videotapes in 2003. And Congresswoman Harman has confirmed that the House Intelligence Committee also learned of the existence of the videotapes in 2003. Is that why Senator Rockefeller opposes any real investigation into the destruction of the tapes, saying “I don’t think there’s a need for a special counsel, and I don’t think there’s a need for a special commission"?

The obstruction of justice regarding the tapes appears to have been orchestrated by the very highest levels of the U.S. Government.

Are the Wheels Coming Off the Government's 9/11 Myth?

2007-12-09T23:28:00.000-08:00

The 9/11 Commission Report states:

"[This report relies] heavily on information obtained from captured al-Qaida members . . . . Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports . . . . We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting."

One of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005:

The only point on which I fault Kean, Hamilton, and the other commissioners is their reluctance ever to challenge the CIA's walling off Al Qaeda detainees. The agency gave us all interrogation reports bearing on September 11. It even put to the detainees some questions sent them by commission staff. But the CIA refused to permit any direct access either to the detainees or to the interrogators and their interpreters. We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources.

Given that the Commission could not even speak with the interrogators about what the alleged detainees said, let alone the detainees themselves, it is not surprising that even the Commissioners did not have confidence in the veracity of the interrogation reports.

Now that the CIA has revealed that it did film videos of the interrogations, but lied to the Commission about the existence of videotapes, and that it destroyed the tapes, even the co-chairs of the Commission, Kean and Hamilton, admit that the whole thing was a farce, and that the government obstructed justice. Here's Lee Hamilton:

"Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton.

Chairman Thomas Kean said the CIA's destruction of the videotapes "hampered the panel's investigation into the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington". He also said "They told us we had everything they had on the detainees .... You don't expect not to be told the truth, but we weren't told the truth."

As previously reported, the Commission's executive director said that the Commission had requested interrogation videos, and the Commission's general counsel said that destruction of the tapes amounted to obstruction of justice.

While the mainstream media is studiously ignoring the deeper issues raised by the destruction of the tapes, there are signs that truth may be slowly rising to the surface after having been held underwater for a long time.

For example, while ignoring the real players behind 9/11, even Huffington Post and Digg- which normally avoid any story questioning 9/11 -- have picked up on the possibility that the tapes were destroyed because they showed that people other than a guy on dialysis living in a cave and his 19 pals were behind the 9/11 attacks.

Are the wheels are coming off the government's 9/11 myth?

Offense and Defense in 9/11 Truth

2007-12-09T21:45:00.000-08:00

The best quarterback in the NFL can't score if he's getting sacked every play. He's got to have good offensive tackles to keep the hounds away from him long enough to make the play.

The same principal applies in 9/11 truth.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and 911Truth.org are helping to spread the truth about 9/11 in an effective way. And yet both groups have been accussed of being "homegrown terrorists", or at least radicalizing people and tending to create terrorist sympathizers. See this and this.

If we don't get some offensive tackles in to support ae911truth.org and 911truth.org, they won't be able to keep on spreading truth and demanding a new investigation.

What to do?

To start with, please consider pitching in to a 9/11 defense fund so that defamation and civil rights lawyers can sue anyone who falsely accuses these groups of supporting terrorism simply for speaking the truth. Please consider donating directly at ae911truth.org and 911truth.org. These are not the only groups doing good work, and any other groups or individuals who are harassed for speaking truth should be supported.

In addition, we should support all of the websites that are calling "foul" when the defenders of the official version use illegal and immoral tactics to try to suppress the truth from coming out.

We've got to know how to protect our quarterbacks so that we can win. While it is true that the best defense is a strong offense, it is also true that -- without offensive tackles -- no quarterback would complete a single play.

Ready, break!

New York Times Bestselling Author Aims at 9/11 Coverup with Both Barrels Blazing

2007-12-09T09:44:00.000-08:00

New York Times bestselling author Steve Alten is releasing a novel January 22nd which addresses the 9/11 stand down, the injection of false radar blips into air traffic controllers' screens, PNAC, the 9/11 Commission whitewash, the Anthrax attacks, and related issues.

Written in the exciting, cloak-and-dagger style of Tom Clancy, the novel -- The Shell Game -- has a shot at educating a large segment of the American public who would otherwise remain in the dark about some aspects of 9/11.

Alten is well-aware of media censorship of 9/11 truth (for example, he agrees with this analysis, he also sent me an advance copy of the book), and is trying to break through the media blockade using his resume as bestselling author to spread his message.

I just finished reading The Shell Game, and caught up with Alten by email.

GW: I really like The Shell Game, Steve. It had me on the edge of my seat, and I stayed up later than I should have a couple of nights to finish it.

SA: My books tend to be ... page-turners. The Shell Game does that and adds another twist ... it's all real, or it predicts what may really happen unless we stop the insanity. To stop it you must first be aware of it.

GW: If enough people read The Shell Game, it could bypass media censorship regarding 9/11 and reach people who would otherwise not be exposed to the facts. But if it doesn't sell well, then it will simply be an entertaining read for those already aware of the facts behind 9/11. So how are your efforts to promote The Shell Game going?

SA: We've been getting copies into the hands of key 9/11 groups over the last six months. Now it's up to them to create a buzz ... along with my mainstream fans.

GW: The Shell Game reads like a mix of Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum and Dan Brown. Are those 3 authors all influences on your writing?

SA: Clancy, Thomas Harris, Ian Fleming...among others.

GW: Your discussions about 9/11 will be familiar to those who have studied the issue. In addition to Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon and David Ray Griffin's writings, what other 9/11 writings do you like?

SA: 9/11Truth.org. And videos like Loose Change.

GW: My father-in-law says that people predicted Peak Oil decades ago, and were proven wrong. Does the discovery of the massive new oil reserve in Brazil change your conviction that Peak Oil is upon us?

SA: Unless it is as big as Ghawar ... no. Oil IS running out. If not, do you seriously believe we'd have invaded Iraq?

GW: I've heard before that many of the world's top microbiologists have been killed under suspicious circumstances, but I've never heard anyone link their deaths to an alleged plot to reduce world population through biological warfare. That was the scariest part of the book for me. Do you have any evidence that the elites are really planning a massive depopulation of this kind?

SA: Read Rubicon and extrapolate Peak Oil.

GW: Well, I hope you're wrong. In any event, thanks, Steve. I hope the book does well.

SA: With your help it will ... for all of us.

UPDATE: Bill Douglas, Janice Matthews, David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Dr. Robert Bowman and several other prominent 9/11 activists have signed the following endorsement for Shell Game:

We, the undersigned, urge everyone seeking truth, peace and justice, to not only purchase this new novel, "The Shell Game," but also to email out this appeal to all you know who seek truth, peace and justice in the form of 9/11 truth coming out. In turn, please urge them to do the same with all their contacts and urge them to do the same. We can break 9/11 truth open if we work together and focus on this project for the next 30 days.

Yours in 9/11 truth, peace and justice,

Bill Douglas, 911 Visibility Project
Co-Signatories:
Janice Matthews - 911Truth.org Executive Director
David Ray Griffin - 9/11 Researcher and Author
Kevin Ryan -former UL chemistry laboratory manager & NIST report whistle blower
Dr. Robert Bowman - Rtd. Colonel US Air Force, 9/11 truth leader; thepatriots.us/
Cosmos - TruthAction.org "The Eleventh Day of Every Month" Campaign
Carol Brouillet - Organizer of 1st National 9/11 Truth Conference in San Francisco
Mike Berger - "Improbable Collapse" Documentary Producer - 911Truth Spokesman
David Kubiak - 911Truth.org Board member
Kevin Barrett – Muslim/Christian/Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth

More Evidence of Obstruction of Justice in 9/11 Investigation

2007-12-06T22:57:00.000-08:00

By now you've heard that the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of alleged Al Qaeda members. The interesting part of this story is that the 9/11 Commission claimed that it obtained most of its information about the attacks from these interrogations (and then only indirectly as reported by the military to the Commission; the Commission never met the alleged detainees, was not allowed to submit questions to them directly, nor was it allowed to question the alleged interrogators to assess their credibility).

The New York Times confirms that the government swore that it had turned over all of the relevant material regarding the statements of the people being interrogated:

“The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission ....
“No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings,” he said.

But is the destruction of the tapes -- and hiding from the 9/11 Commission the fact that the tapes existed -- a big deal? Yes, actually. As the Times goes on to state:

Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.
If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

Indeed, 9/11 Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton says:

"Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton.

And co-chairman Thomas Keane said “I’m upset that they didn’t tell us the truth.”

This isn't the first evidence of obstruction of justice by the government regarding the 9/11 investigations. For example:

The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (although they never bothered to tell the American people about that fact)

The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times

Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House

A former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated"

The FBI long ago found and analyzed the "black box" recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found

The former head of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, who is a professor of fire protection engineering, wrote that evidence necessary to determine the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Centers was being destroyed

In addition, the official investigators themselves were denied access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center . The blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.

Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.

Of course, even had the government told the truth to the 9/11 Commission, the Commission was set up as a whitewash anyway.

Propel the Truth

2007-12-05T21:15:00.000-08:00

As you know, Digg buries 9/11 stories (see Hunting Down Digg's Bury Brigade, Proof Digg's Bury Feature Abused to Suppress Controversial Content, Time To Fight Back Against Online Disinfo Agents and Trolls and Bury The Bury Brigade).

But Netscape has just launched its own version of Digg called "Propeller". After only a couple of weeks, it is already listed as about the 1,500th most popular website on Alexa.

Use Propeller to spread 9/11 truth.

To see how it works, please vote up my 9/11 story by clicking here.

Former President of Italy: 9/11 was an Inside Job

2007-12-03T12:57:00.000-08:00

On November 30th, the former President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, wrote in Italy's largest newspaper:

[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.

Mr. Cossiga joins a very long list of top military leaders, intelligence professionals, scientists, structural engineers, architects, members of Congress, 9/11 Commissioners, legal scholars, heroic first responders, family members of 9/11 victims and psychiatrists who question the government's version of 9/11.

The above is a rough translation using Babelfish. Someone who speaks fluent Italian will be able produce a much more accurate translation.

Mr. Cossiga previously stated, in 2001:

The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.” (p. 36-37)

Note: Criticizing Zionism, as Mr. Cossiga does, is not the same as being anti-semitic. See this, this and this.

2007-12-01T13:34:00.000-08:00

Former Air Force Colonel and Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski -- who was the key whistleblower who revealed that the Pentagon had a special division producing cooked intelligence on Iraq -- recently wrote:

"The republic is dead. Not sick, not dying, not failing, or in a gradual decline, not waiting to be resuscitated, but already stone cold dead."

Is she right?

Well, there are some indications that America as envisioned by the the Constitution and the Founding Fathers doesn't just need our help. Is not merely in trouble, or fragile, or under attack. But rather, there are indications that America is already dead. That we lost. That its over.

Mushy-Headed America

Is it really that bleak?

I'm not sure. But I do know that the very mushy-headed optimism of many Americans blinds them to the fact that their own government could be ruthless enough to create baseless propaganda, manipulate intelligence, and pull off false flag attacks on American and allied citizens.

I believe that hope is vitally important. But if we don't see the situation as it really is, then we just have our heads up in the clouds then and we're not standing on the ground. We first have to see things as they are, and then use the power of hopefulness.

For example, if you don't discover that your house has mold, you can't fix it and make it healthy. If your doctor doesn't tell the patient he has cancer, the patient has no chance of getting better.

If you put all of your eggs in a basket without noticing there is a hole in the bottom, you're going to lose your eggs. And unless we acknowledge when something we like is broken, we can't fix it or -- if beyond repair -- build a new one.

Albert Einstein said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." If we do the same thing over and over, and it hasn't worked, we should wake up and acknowledge it isn't working. Otherwise, we cannot fix it.

America of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution is not yet dead . . . but that it is mortally wounded.

Instead of separation of powers, we have a tyrannical executive branch. Instead of a free market economy, we have massive subsidies, credits, manipulation of the stock market, and other things which skew the system so that there is not a level playing field.

The leaders we have now and the way things work are wholly corrupt. The structures are rotten and moldy, and have to be ripped out and rebuilt. The pipes are clogged, and nothing will move unless they are totally cleaned out.

The neocons and neoliberals, the imperialists and military-industrial complex, the lobbyists and dual loyalists have all cannibalized America to the point that it is hardly breathing.

The drafters of the Constitution would not recognize this place, except perhaps as a repeat of tyranny under the British crown.

America is mortally wounded. I'm calling a code blue.

Who's Going to Save Us?

Mad King George and the loyalists in the legislature are not going to voluntarily give us freedom or liberty or allow us any real input and a representative government. The Supreme Court (which handed the election to Bush) isn't going to do it.

Many liberals who still hope that the Democratic congress has some intention of impeaching Bush and Cheney, investigating 9/11, fixing the voting system, ending the Iraq war, or preventing war against Iran. They are hopelessly naive.

Did writing letters to our Democratic representatives work to stop the Iraq war? Has it worked to force a new 9/11 investigation? Is it working to prevent a war against Iran?

Many people voted for a Democratic congress and then trusted them to fix things. But they didn't, and it has now become apparent to those paying attention that the Dems are part of the problem.

Those who still naively trust that the Democratic congress members are good folks who are trying to stop the Neocons is blinding them to the fact that the Democrats don't want to do anything between now and the next election (and most of the Democratic presidential candidates don't want to do anything to change things even after the election).

On the other side, most Fox news watchers hope that the Iraq war will turn out okay. Or that the "terrorists" are certain brown-skinned people that we can defeat. Or that the destruction of liberties in the U.S. is temporary.

Their rose-colored glasses are preventing them from seeing the truth as much as the liberals.

Only massive civil disobedience has the chance to re-start America's pulse and save our country.
The patient is mortally wounded and the prognosis is grim. Only heroic measures can save the patient. Massive civil disobedience is the only thing with the power to re-start the heart of our nation. .

Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires Cooler

2007-11-29T08:30:00.001-08:00

People assume that the jet fuel which ignited the fires in the Twin Towers made the fires quite hot. However, Thomas Eager, a Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT and a defender of the official story explains that the jet fuel actually made the fires cooler:

" . . . the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual . . . .

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range."

Indeed, jet fuel can only burn at a maximum temperature of 599 degrees Fahrenheit under normal conditions (other than a controlled burn using a high-oxygen mixture).

Obviously, the jet fuel was a source of fuel, and so contributed to the ignition and spreading of the fire in the first place. However, there was actually very little jet fuel in the overall scheme of things. Moreover, that jet fuel and office supplies were the sources of fuel for the fire almost guaranteed that it would be a fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire, which burns cool.

While the title may be slightly flip, the purpose of this essay is merely to show that jet fuel -- contrary to most people's assumption -- would not have created a hot fire. See this.

Finally, it is true that the soot from the jet fuel and other burning hydrocarbons may have raised the temperature somewhat. However, as Professor Eager points out, the fact that it was a fuel-rich fire -- at least while the jet fuel was still burning -- decreased the temperature of the fire "by a factor up to two", which would more than offset the increase due to reduction of radiative heat loss. Again, the bottom line is that the WTC fires were not very hot.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

2007-11-28T08:56:00.000-08:00

There is an old legal saying: "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. It means that someone accused of a crime he didn't commit -- even if eventually acquitted -- is deprived of justice if he rots in jail for a long time before he is able to prove his innocence.

This is also true for the crime of state sponsored terrorism. Because previous incidents of assassination and false flag terror have been covered up, rogue elements within the U.S. government have been emboldened to carry out larger and more deadly attacks.

If the elements of the U.S. government who aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks are not quickly brought to justice, then:

The people of the U.S. will rot in a police state before they are able to prove that the Bill of Rights is innocent of the claim that it undermines American security

The American people will be buried under a mountain of debt to fund the many trillions of dollars spent in wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. as part of a phony war on terror

A lot of people living in the countries attacked as part of the "9/11 wars" will be killed, maimed and tortured

It is standard operating procedure for all U.S. dirty tricks to be covered up for 30 years or more, or until all of the players are dead. But in the case of 9/11, we can't wait.

Delaying justice for the 9/11 attacks would deny justice to the American people and to the world. Indeed, delaying justice would guarantee that the criminals kill again, and that America as we know it is destroyed, and the American people and the rest of the world suffers as a result.

DUCT TAPE EVERYONE'S MOUTH TO STOP TERRORISM!

2007-11-28T08:15:00.000-08:00

The government has discovered that terrorists are using their mouths to promote anti-American sentiments. (People are questioning the government, so they must be terrorists). The mouth has been determined by patriotic Americans to be a bad, radical and terrorism-encouraging structure. It is bad, bad, bad.

Therefore, everyone's mouth must be covered with a strip of duct tape at least 2 inches long and at least 1 inch wide at all times (other than mealtime).

We must keep all Americans' mouths closed to protect America, land of freedom! Do it for the sake of liberty! Do it to protect our cherished free speech which terrorists hate so much!

Ridiculous? Of course it is. If someone promotes or incites criminal activity, that individual can be arrested.

But trying to "fight" or shut down the entire internet to "protect" our country is like trying to duct tape everyone's mouth shut because a few people say bad things.

No, HE Couldn't Fly Either

2007-11-27T09:24:00.000-08:00

The fact that Hani Hanjour -- the alleged pilot of the Boeing airplane which crashed into the Pentagon -- could not fly at all is now being challenged by apparent CIA informant Louai al-Sakka, who says that it was actually Nawaf al-Hazmi who piloted the plane. Al-Sakka explains that al-Hamzi was a "a veteran operative".

However, al-Hamzi was also a terrible pilot.

According to the New York Times, al-Hamzi's flight instructor, Rick Garza, said:

''They had zero training before they got here, so I told them they had to learn a lot of other things first,'' Mr. Garza said.
* * *
Mr. Garza said that their aptitude for flying was poor from the start, and that it never improved.
''It was like Dumb and Dumber,'' Mr. Garza said. ''I mean, they were clueless. It was clear to me they weren't going to make it as pilots.''

Similarly, according to the CBC:

The two men [Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi] signed up for lessons at a local flight school, but they were completely lacking in natural abilities. After a few sessions their instructor, Rick Garza, told them there was just no point in continuing, "They seemed to have a very strong interest in flying larger aircraft and that's when they brought up the subject of flying Boeings. 'Where can we learn to fly Boeings?' I just kind of chuckled a little bit and said -'It's a long road before you get to Boeings. Several years from now, but you have to start out in a smaller aircraft. If you can't fly the little four-seat aircraft, there is no way you are going to be able to fly a Boeing.'"

The two men reported back to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that learning to fly was a lot more difficult than expected. He was surprised, "Bin Laden and I never considered whether any special skills or talents were needed to pilot an aircraft. We thought that learning to fly an airplane was much like learning to drive a car; it was easily accomplished with the correct instruction. It was a mistake in judgment."

So the official story cannot be rescued by this "new" information from a CIA operative.

Do 9/11 Conspiracies Stem from a Distrust in the Government?

2007-11-25T23:37:00.000-08:00

Why do two-thirds of all Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks, but took no action to prevent those attacks?

The defenders of the official version of 9/11 argue that "the high percentage is a manifestation ... of an American public that increasingly distrusts the federal government." In other words, they argue that the approximately 200 million people who say that the emperor has no clothes have an illogical distrust of the emperor, and so they are seeing things.

They've got the whole cause-and-effect backwards.

In fact, the American public increasingly distrusts the federal government because it is becoming more and more obvious that elements of the government carried out -- or at the very least -- aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks. Despite the say-nothing media, the American public is getting the fact that the government's story about 9/11 just doesn't add up and that the vast majority of people in every relevant field who have examined 9/11 say so.

The reason two-thirds of the American public believe the emperor has no clothes is because he doesn't . . . and yet he and his cabinet are demanding that we compliment him on his clothes. That's why we distrust him.

What do we trust? Our eyes and our brains.

And for those who think that the majority of Americans who question 9/11 are crazy, psychoanalyze THIS!

Are People Who Question 9/11 Afraid of Al Qaeda?

2007-11-25T23:17:00.000-08:00

Defenders of the official story about 9/11 argue that people who question that account are too scared of the threat from terrorism, and so create false conspiracies which are less scary . . . in order to reduce their anxieties.

For example, Time Magazine says questions about 9/11 won't go away because "the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting." Similarly, the BBC, in trying to sweep questions about 9/11 under the rug, says "we take comfort in complicated stories about wider conspiracies, usually involving remote, distant figures." And John McCain, in his forward to Popular Mechanic's book Debunking 9/11 Myths, says "We want to believe that 19 men could not murder our citizens, destroy our grandest buildings, and terrorize our country. Surely, something more was at work."

Are they right?

No. Its scarier to believe that the government who we've always believed would protect us was complicit in the mass murder of American citizens than to believe a bunch of foreigners did it.

How Scary is Al Qaeda?

Moreover, the BBC documentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares" shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype).

And a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".

Indeed, many of the so called "Al-Qaeda" terrorists turn out to be operatives from Western governments.

How Scary would a Government Conspiracy Be?

On the other hand, how scary would it be if powerful elements within the U.S. government carried out (or at least aided and abetted) 9/11?

Well, the U.S. :

Is the most powerful country in history

Has access to every weapon of mass destruction in existence

Has many billions of dollars at its disposable

Frequently runs war games and terror drills, which are often the cover for false flag operations

Has carried out false flag attacks on numerous occasions in the past

Has a lapdog press that will rally to defend and cover up the crimes of the U.S. government while it instead blames every problem -- even the California wildfires -- on Al Qaeda

Has a militarized police force, the ability to spy on all Americans, torture facilities all over the globe, and a legal framework which can brand anyone who disagrees with the government as a "terrorist"

What's scarier, the threat from a bunch of ragtag idiot wannabes from across the pond who fancy themselves as terrorists . . . or having people who murdered 3,000 innocent Americans with their fingers on the levers and resources of the world's largest police state and sole superpower?

I wish that it really had been Al Qaeda that carried out 9/11 by itself (we could easily stop such people if the government actually tried). A conspiracy involving the government is a lot scarier.

Indeed, psychologists and psychiatrists say that people who do not question the government's version of 9/11 are in denial -- that is, that they are too afraid to look at the facts.

The River Always Wears Away the Boulder

2007-11-21T19:43:00.000-08:00

Those who are trying to force fascism, injustice, and repression on America are using raw power to try to stop the truth from becoming widely known. They are intimidating, harassing, torturing, and imprisoning those who recite the facts and name the crimes.

The good news is that "Trouthe wil out. Ryghtwysnesse may nat ben hid." (Lydgate). Or to put it in slightly more modern language, "Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son may, but in the end truth will out."(Shakespeare).

Schopenhauer said, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." We are in the second stage: opposition to truth through the use of raw power.

But truth is an unstoppable force. Truth will defeat raw power over time, just as a stream wears away the biggest boulders. A boulder may crash into the river and divert its flow, for a while . . . but eventually, the river will win.

As Jim Watkins says, "A river cuts through rock, not because of its power, but because of its persistence".

Those who speak out against the government's crimes and injustices are like hundreds of millions of drops of water, while those who are attempting to crush the truth are really only a handful with a score of minions. No matter how big the boulder, we will prevail in wearing away the dam of fascism, draining the swamp, and re-establishing freedom.

Our efforts to spread truth are ongoing, and not one-time affairs. So a more accurate analogy than drops of water might be that we are like hundreds of millions of tributary streams pouring into a raging river of truth. What boulder can stand in the way of that kind of force?

Standing Up to the Schoolyard Bully

2007-11-21T12:29:00.000-08:00

U.S. Congressman John Olver (D-MA) said recently that he

"is deeply concerned whether we will actually have an election in Nov. '08, as he believes this administration will likely strike Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, and cancel the '08 elections".

As Ralph Nader describes it, Olver and the rest of Congress are afraid that -- if Bush or Cheney are impeached -- they might declare martial law and suspend the 2008 elections:

How is Congress failing to remove Bush and Cheney from office based upon such fears any different from Neville Chamberlain trying to appease Hitler so Hitler would not attack?

Appeasing bullies only encourages them to become more aggressive. Appeasing criminals only guarantees that they will strike again and commit bigger crimes.

Don't Americans remember that the only thing that works is standing up to the schoolyard bully?

The River Always Wears Away the Boulder

2007-11-21T12:18:00.000-08:00

Those who aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks and their bootlickers are using raw power to try to stop the truth from becoming widely known. For example:

• They are labeling as terrorists anyone who questions 9/11

• The government is ordering the media to censor all questions about 9/11

• People have been fired, punched, referred for psychiatric treatment, spied upon and maybe even killed for speaking 9/11 truth

The good news is that "Trouthe wil out. Ryghtwysnesse may nat ben hid." (Lydgate). Or to put it in slightly more modern language, "Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son may, but in the end truth will out."(Shakespeare).

Schopenhauer said, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." We are in the second stage: opposition to truth through the use of raw power.

But truth is an unstoppable force. Truth will defeat raw power over time, just as a stream wears away the biggest boulders. A boulder may crash into the river and divert its flow, for a while . . . but eventually, the river will win.

Those who question the government's version of 9/11 are like hundreds of millions of drops of water, while those who are attempting to crush the truth are really only a handful with a score of minions. No matter how big the boulder, we will prevail in wearing away the dam of fascism, draining the swamp, and re-establishing freedom.

Our efforts to spread truth are ongoing, and not one-time affairs. So a more accurate analogy than drops of water might be that we are like hundreds of millions of tributary streams pouring into a raging river of truth. What boulder can stand in the way of that kind of force?

Are Those Who Question 9/11 Anti-Semites?

2007-11-21T00:22:00.000-08:00

Anti-semitism is one of the most frequent allegations levied by defenders of the government's version of 9/11 against people questioning that account.

Is it true? Are 9/11 activists 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 many of the leading members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and other groups questioning 9/11 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.

Moreover, 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.

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.

As former Secretary of State Colin Powell once stated, “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel.” Presumably, criticizing illegal acts by Mossad or other Israeli services would also be acceptable.

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with having a debate based upon whether or not there are credible facts justifying the hypothesis that portions of the 9/11 attacks were subcontracted out by rogue elements within the U.S. government to people associated with Mossad or other Israeli intelligence services, just as it is reasonable to discuss whether or not there are facts implicating British or other allied intelligence services in aiding and abetting the attacks.

There are admittedly a very small number of people claiming that they are for 9/11 truth but making anti-semitic remarks. However, they are shunned by the overwhelming majority of 9/11 activists who abhor anti-semitism. People who say "the Jews did it" and then use a bunch of anti-semitic and derogatory language are probably government infiltrators. Again, however, debating factual evidence one way or the other concerning the possible involvement of people affiliated with an allied intelligence service -- British or Israeli -- is not anti-semitic ... it is Constitutionally-protected free speech.

Ellsberg Confirms 9/11 Censorship

2007-11-19T00:06:00.000-08:00

Former government official and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that Sibel Edmonds' case is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers".

Ellsberg also confirmed the media's censorship about 9/11:

Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today's American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations.
As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome."

"There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us.
* * *
"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told 'don't touch this . . . .'"

Let's recap:

High-level government personnel (the media would not take low-level people seriously) are calling the media threatening to prosecute anyone who reveals that U.S. politicians and other insiders committed crimes in connection with 9/11 for violating national security

The failure of the media to cover the Edmonds' story is so normal and routine, that Ellsberg isn't even seem surprised by it

And if the New York Times refused to run a story revealing that the NSA had been illegally spying on Americans for over a year until after the election was held, how much more likely is it that the media would cover up -- for political reasons -- the greatest crime committed by the U.S. government in its history?

Edmonds herself sums it up pretty well when she says: "The only way they got away with it was because of the mainstream media."

The media can't pretend that they are trying to protect national security, as Edmonds confirms:

"I am not about to expose any methods of intelligence gathering. I am not going to expose any ongoing investigations, or even any investigations that may be ongoing," she told us, explaining that all relevant investigations about which she has information were long ago shut down by the government.

"I am not going to name any informant's name. I am not going to jeopardize any ongoing intelligence. Anything I'm going to be talking about, I know they are investigations that have been shut down by January and February of 2002."

And the media can't feign ignorance. Edmonds says "I know [the media] have it because people from the FBI have come in and given it [the information] to them. They've given them the documents and specific case-numbers on my case."

To a Fascist, ALL Americans are Terrorists

2007-11-15T12:34:00.000-08:00

According to the wannabe-fascists:

The majority of Americans who question the White House's "endless war" strategy are giving aid and comfort to the enemy

The many millions of Americans who support presidential candidate Ron Paul are terrorists

The vast majority of Americans who question the government's version of 9/11 are also terrorists

Together, that adds up to pretty much the entire American population! Why don't they just come right out and say it? They view all Americans as terrorists . . . except, of course, the handful of sociopaths who support dictatorship.

Ideas like liberty, justice, representative government, free speech, and the open debate of ideas are terrifying to fascists and their agenda, and so they label those who hold these American values as enemies.

To Pick the Winning Team, You Have to Know Who The Players Are

2007-11-09T23:39:00.000-08:00

You have to know who the players are before you can pick the winning team, right?

So take a look at what the top military leaders, intelligence professionals, scientists, structural engineers, architects, members of Congress, 9/11 Commissioners, legal scholars, heroic first responders, family members of 9/11 victims and psychiatrists say before you make up your mind about who's on the winning side of the 9/11 debate:

MILITARY LEADERS

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (bio)

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 (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11

U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."

Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious

Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism."

Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack on the Pentagon

U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:

"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....

Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.

We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"

U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:

"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ...

Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ....

Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ..."

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says "When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story".

The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:

Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)

Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)

Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)

Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)

INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS

Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible , that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.

A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11." (and see this).

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 (David Steele) 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).

A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .

The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."

Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency. Former military attaché in China. 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army)
questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.

The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"

A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored).

9/11 COMMISSIONERS

The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

SCIENTISTS

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:

"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:

"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].''

A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition

An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."

A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11

A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this" (translated)

A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives."

A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.

The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.

A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)

LEGAL SCHOLARS

Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see petition.

Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:

"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) 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?"

Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) 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"

Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11

Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS

A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being "disrespectful to the victims and their families".

However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.

Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).

And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real investigation is necessary.

PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS

Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:

Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD

Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk

Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser

THOUSANDS OF OTHERS

The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a few additional people to consider:

The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview)

Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else (pages 5-6).

Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."

Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required) (Sibel Edmonds), 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

Given the unbelievable strength and depth of the roster of people who question 9/11, now who do you think the winning team is?

If you are a reporter, news editor or publisher, and you do not cover the strength of the team questioning 9/11, then you are part of the cover-up and no longer a part of a free, democratic press.

Who are the Terrorists - 9/11 Truth Activists or Those Who Promote False Flag Terror?

2007-11-09T22:21:00.000-08:00

People who question 9/11 are being labeled by some as terrorists (and see this). Are they?

Initially, that means calling at least a third of the American public -- including millions of high-level military leaders, members of Congress, 9/11 Commissioners, intelligence professionals, legal scholars, heroic first responders, family members of 9/11 victims, and other patriotic Americans -- terrorists.

Moreover, according to the Department of Defense's Military Dictionary, terrorism is "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear. Terrorism is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

Are those who question 9/11 using or threatening violence in order to cause widespread fear to achieve political changes?

No.

Those who question the government's version of 9/11 are peaceful, intelligent grandparents, children and parents. They are peaceful, patriotic people. They are neither using violence or threatening the use of violence (if anyone advocates violence in the name of 9/11 truth, they are most likely government infiltrators).

Indeed, what motivates many 9/11 truth activists is the desire to prevent future acts of violence.

On the other hand, those who carried out or aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks may very well carry out additional acts of terror unless their past terrorist activities are revealed.

Indeed, those trying to stifle questions about the events of 9/11 are actually threatening the use of violence to stop the discussion. Neocon bootlicker Danny Bonaduce called for Rosie O'Donnell to be executed for questioning 9/11. Bill O'Reilly said "This is going to lead to death" and makes all kind of threats stating, "If they are not reigned in by the authorities, and they should be...somebody is going to get hurt." Such statements are, in fact, a form of terrorism, and also constitute the criminal felony of "inciting violence".

So who are the terrorists?

Update: Apparently one of the commentators labeling those who question 9/11 as terrorists is now also implying that everyone who supports Ron Paul is also a terrorist. Why doesn't he just come right out and say that all Americans are terrorists . . . except, of course, the handful who support dictatorship.

Shafted

2007-11-09T21:16:00.000-08:00

Mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, in his July 2007 talk on the destruction of the Twin Towers, pointed out that:

“Those [core] columns which were situated adjacent to and accessible from inside the elevator shafts failed at an early stage of the collapse.

Those columns which were remote from the elevator shafts, and not accessible from the elevator shafts, survived the early stages of the collapse."*

Well, that's a coincidence. According to USA Today: "On Sept. 11, ACE Elevator of Palisades Park, N.J., had 80 elevator mechanics inside the World Trade Center".

And NIST itself says that, on 9/11, "Elevators 6A and 7A were out of service for modernization". (NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p.43).

In addition, Ace worked in and around structural steel:

"A run of approximately 80 vertical feet, employed over 300 running feet of 2-1/2" x 8" and 2"x 2" trough raceway. This run traveled through plaster ceilings, concrete floors and around structural steel."

In addition:

The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11

Workers in the Twin Towers observed heavy work taking place on supposedly empty floors in the weeks before 9-11; supposedly, the work took place on floors the elevators would not stop on without a special access key (toward the end of the video).

There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things. unobserved

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

So there could have been plenty of opportunities to use the elevator shafts, evacuations, special-access floors, and power-downs to access and plant bombs on the core columns of the Twin Towers.

* Ross also pointed out that the columns accessible from the elevator shafts were stronger than those which weren't accessible. Therefore, they should not have been the ones which collapsed first.

I'm not accusing ACE Elevator of any wrongdoing. Bad guys could, of course, have forged maintenance badges or otherwise piggybacked onto legitimate maintenance efforts.