L.A. panel discussion on 9/11 on c-span saturday, 8 pm EST

Cspan's schedule now confirms that the L.A. panel discussion on 9/11 will be broadcast Saturday night at 8 p.m. EST. This is the main CSpan channel, not book tv or another, less-viewed, channel (even David Ray Griffin's talk wasn't broadcast on the main CSpan channel).

Webster Tarpley has this message to the 9/11 truth movement (via email):

Dear Friends --

The Sunday panel discussion from the Alex Jones Los Angeles conference will reportedly be telecast on C-SPAN this coming Saturday evening at 8pm and 11pm eastern time.

This discussion includes Alex Jones, Professor Steven Jones, Col. Robert Bowman, Professor James Fetrzer, and myself.

The mere fact that it has been scheduled pays tribute to the
growing strength of our 9/11 truth movement.

I urge you to build the maximum audience for this important event, which represents our best opportunity of counteracting the escalation of the Middle East and North Korean crises towards thermonuclear World War III, by means a strong dose of 9/11 truth.

I call upon each of you to put aside other considerations for the next 48 hours and to mobilize all available forces to make this a turning point in world history. Let it be seen by 100,000,000 Americans, and we can turn the world back from the brink of the abyss.

Webster G. Tarpley"

Let's rally behind Webster's call to maximize viewership.

posted by George Washington (at 911blogger.com)

Link <--click and watch now!

David Griffin Replies to NY Times "Conspiracy Theories 101"

Conspiracy Theories 101

David Griffin Replies to NY Times "Conspiracy Theories 101"

In “Conspiracy Theories 101” (Op-Ed, July 22), Stanley Fish gives an idiosyncratic interpretation of academic freedom, limiting it to the freedom to decide what to study. It does not include, in his view, the freedom to “embrace and urge” a viewpoint in the classroom, because to do this is to “proselytize,” to “indoctrinate,” to engage in “partisan advocacy.”

If universities were to enforce this restrictive interpretation, it would mean that biology professors could not explain their reasons for accepting evolutionary theory rather than “creation science”; physics professors could not profess their belief in (or against) the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory; and so on.

Fish would surely protest that he did not mean anything so absurd. He meant his restriction to apply only to political questions, as shown by his indications that what professors cannot do is promote “partisan political ideals” and “urge political action.” It is on this basis that he would argue that professors should not be allowed to tell their students that they believe the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration.

However, even with this less obviously absurd interpretation, Fish’s position is untenable. The question of who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks is a purely factual question, and if professors are prohibited from giving their answers to some such questions, academic freedom has been seriously curtailed.

Fish would presumably reply that answering this factual question by pointing the finger at the Bush administration would have political implications (“throw the criminals out”). This would mean, however, that professors could not endorse the official theory, because this endorsement would also have political implications (“don’t throw them out, because they are not criminals”). Would Fish really suggest firing all professors who have let their students know that they accept the official account?

Fish has raised a red herring. All sorts of questions about which professors routinely and rightly express opinions, such as the evolutionary nature of our universe, have political implications. Fish’s criterion would result in professors being gagged on most questions of importance.

The appropriate question to ask about professors who give their opinions about 9/11 in the classroom, whether to embrace or reject the official theory, is the standard one: Do they do so in an academically responsible manner, supporting their opinions with evidence in a way that could be defended before their peers?

David Ray Griffin

Project Censored: Widow Brings RICO Case Against U.S. Government for 9/11

(#9) Widow Brings RICO Case Against U.S. Government for 9/11

SCOOP.CO.NZ, November 2003
Title: “911 Victim’s Wife Files RICO Case Against GW Bush”
Author: Philip J. Berg

SCOOP.CO.NZ, December 2003
Title: “Widow’s Bush Treason Suit Vanishes”
Author: W. David Kubiak

Faculty Evaluator: Andy Merrifield, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Amelia Strommen

Ellen Mariani lost her husband, Louis Neil Mariani, on 9/11 and is refusing the government’s million-dollar settlement offer. Louis Neil Mariani, a passenger, died when United Air Lines flight 175 was flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

Ellen Mariani has studied the facts of the day for nearly two years and has come to believe that the White House “intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen” in order to launch the “War on Terrorism.” Her lawyer, Phillip Berg, former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, who filed a 62-page complaint in federal district court charging that President Bush and officials, including but not limited to, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Ashcroft: (1) had adequate foreknowledge of 911, yet failed to warn the country or attempt to prevent it; (2) have since been covering up the truth of that day; (3) have therefore abetted the murder of plaintiff’s husband and violated the Constitution and multiple laws of the United States; and (4) are thus being sued under the Civil Racketeering, Influences, and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act for malfeasant conspiracy, obstruction of justice and wrongful death.

Berg plans to call former federal employees with firsthand knowledge and expertise in military intelligence to provide a foundation for the RICO Act charge. Mariani intends to prove that the defendants have engaged in a “pattern of criminal activity and obstruction of justice” in violation of the public trust and laws of the United States, thrusting our nation into an endless war on terror in order to achieve personal and financial gains.

The suit documents the detailed forewarnings from foreign governments and FBI agents; the unprecedented delinquency of our air defense; the inexplicable half hour dawdle of our Commander in Chief at a primary school after hearing the nation was under deadly attack; the incessant invocation of national security and executive privilege to suppress the facts; and the obstruction of all subsequent efforts to investigate the disaster. It concludes that compelling evidence will be presented in this case, through discovery, subpoena power and testimony, that defendants failed to act to prevent 9/11, knowing the attacks would lead to an international war on terror.

Berg believes that Defendant Bush is invoking a long standard operating procedure of national security and executive privilege claims to suppress the basis of this lawsuit.

On November 26, 2003, a press conference was set up to discuss the full implications of these charges. Only FOX News attended the conference and taped 40 minutes, however, the film was never aired. W. David Kubiak asks, “When you present documented charges of official treachery behind the greatest national security disaster in modern history, and the press doesn’t show, doesn’t listen, and doesn’t write, what is being communicated?”

UPDATE BY W. DAVID KUBIAK: Three thousand unresolved deaths, strong evidence of treason, and a horizon of endless war still remain matters of capital concern. To this date, the scenario of complicity alleged in Ellen Mariani's landmark RICO suit remains the most cogent and credible 9/11 narrative ever offered to an America raised on Court TV.

Her case lays out the facts and logic so clearly that even ordinary folks can "get it" and start waking up their own. That is this story's unique and mortal danger, and the reason Big Media still shun it to this day.

The 9/11 Commission's maximal presumption of "failure" and "incompetence" spawns wildly more trivial questions than an inquest that does not rule out foreknowledge or complicity. The commission perforce dithers over policy issues, miscommunications, organizational defects, and a tragic litany of regrettable (but blameless!) bureaucratic mistakes.

Examining those same 9/11 facts from a detective's point of view — as an unsolved and as yet quite successful crime —exposes far deeper concerns. The prime questions now become prosecutorial and focus attention on the critical issues of Motive, Opportunity and Means. Who ultimately gained most from the attacks? Who had the power to commit, permit or abet them? Who spotted or created the chance for them to occur?

Ellen's case is historic simply because it was the first to apply these obvious questions, especially "cui bono?" —who really profited? — to all the 9/11 news of recent years. Last summer her reading of the official story's lies and contradictions sparked an unprecedented "racketeering!" shazam, but given her elemental Law & Order approach to the facts at hand, any country sheriff might have made the same call.

Today in light of this year's revelations from Paul O'Neill, Richard Clark and Sibel Edmonds, Ellen's early attempts at connecting the dots — between the war-hungry neocons' public longing (in September 2000) for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" and the subsequent ignored warnings, quashed inquiries and crippled air defenses that finally made their dream come true — all appear pattern perfect thus far.

Since Ellen's charges imply not just criminal conspiracy, but also literal treason, they are fast reviving a long ailing impeachment debate. An April 2004 national Retro poll showed that 39% of the public favored a Bush impeachment if only for his Iraq war lies. This growth of popular outrage was remarkable but hardly actionable since Impeachment Articles must issue from the same feckless House of Reps that signed off on the war. However, as Bush's polls and credibility continued to plummet and GOP solons watched his coattails turn to lead, it became more plausible that a survivalist few might recognize that in 9/11 at least, they shared no collective guilt, and be more willing to swap doomed leaders for their own electoral skins.

By May 2004 such intuitions were starting to bubble up in the anti-war zeitgeist, partially inspired by loud 9/11 truth demands from Ed Asner, Howard Zinn, the US Green Party, theologian David Ray Griffin, and Commission-disillusioned victim family groups. These lofty calls were further reinforced by rather amazing facts on the ground. On May 26th the Toronto Star reported on a national poll showing that 63 per cent of Canadians believed the U.S. government had "prior knowledge of the plans for September 11th, and failed to take appropriate action."

To galvanize this awareness into action, movement leaders turned to Ellen's RICO suit as an ideal impeachment template because it could flush the entire puppeteer crew and not just Howdy Dubya from the stage. It also held the promise of a national "teachable moment" as the whole military-petro-industrial backdrop of the crime at last heaved into view. Finally, 9/11 impeachment offered progressives a far more energizing course of Bush-lethal action than half-hearted huzzahs for the stay-the-course mantra and globalization banzais of the Kerry campaign.

All of this ferment will doubtless be peaking as Project Censored 2005 hits the stands. If you want to join in and help remake history, first read Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor," or Nafeez Ahmed's, "War on Freedom." Then check in at , and find something patriotic (in the old sense) to do.

UPDATE BY PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ.: The tragedy of “911” is the most significant event of our lifetimes. It is a great honor for this story to be selected. It is our firm belief that the RICO lawsuit we filed is one of the most significant cases in our history. To date, the Bush Administration has done more to diminish individual rights than any other administration in 225 years. With the enactment of the Stabilization Act and Patriot Act I, the attempted enactment of Patriot Act II, the photographing and fingerprinting of individuals entering the United States from certain countries and the planned “color coding” of everyone in the United States by the summer of 2004, “1984” is becoming a reality today, twenty years after the date it was projected. “911” has provided the pretext for the global military expansion we are seeing today, with its enormous costs in lives, federal funding and environmental damage.

After speaking around the country, we have found that people are amazed at the lack of media coverage of the RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] lawsuit filed on behalf of Ellen Mariani and all law-abiding citizens of the United States and the world. The mainstream press has ignored our RICO lawsuit as well as most aspects of “911” until recently. But Bush’s arrogance in placing pictures of “911” in his re-election ads, along with the continued stonewalling of the “911 Commission” and the ineffectiveness of the “911 Commission,” has now brought this story to the forefront.

RICO was created in the 1960s by Congress to go after the mafia, the mob. It is our position that there is a “mob” in the Bush White House. When the events of “911” are investigated and when the “right” questions are posed, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that “911” occurred with the complicity of Bush and his administration.

The RICO lawsuit is the best available vehicle for bringing all of the overwhelming, independent research concerning “911” to the point where the “truth of 911” will be revealed.

During the six months since the RICO lawsuit was filed, we have been involved in procedural issues. We have therefore withdrawn the case from Philadelphia and re-filed it in Federal Court in Washington, DC, so that the events of “911” can be in front of the Court as soon as possible.

Our updated website can be reviewed daily for developments in the RICO lawsuit. Our petition, available on the website, is important for two reasons: 1) signing it shows support for the “truth of 911;” and 2) more important, reading the comments from the hearts of individuals around the world serves – like the writings of Anne Frank - to help people realize the actual effects of “911.” We feel it is essential for the mainstream and independent media to report the “truth of 911,” the most important event of our lifetimes. It must be reveled now, not for forty years from now, as has occurred with other major events in history.

Other pro-active groups where the RICO lawsuit is referenced, include:
www.911truth.org, www.911visibility.org, www.septembereleventh.org, www.digitalstylecreations.com, www.tomflocco.com, www.cooperativeresearch.org, www.911citizenswatch.org, www.911independentcommission.org, www.fromthewilderness.com, www.unansweredquestions.org, www.askquestions.org, www.scoop.co.nz.

INSIDE JOB: Unmasking the Myth of 9/11, by Jim Marrs
Preface by Ellen Mariani
With major excerpts from the Mariani RICO filing in the Appendix
www.InsideJob-911.com
The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin
-Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11

Widow's Bush 911 Treason Suit Vanishes In Blink of Media Eye

Widow's Bush 911 Treason SuitVanishes In Blink Of Media Eye
by W. David Kubiak

"The decision 'not to do the story'appears to be multiplying all over the nation."

Fred Powledge, ACLU

"Whoever said `no news is good news,'was badly misinformed."

Dan Rather

Think you're already amazed, alarmed or appalled enough by the state of US journalism today? Chew on this a while and think again.

Grieving New Hampshire widow who lost her man on 9/11 refuses the government's million dollar hush money payoff, studies the facts of the day for nearly two years, and comes to believe the White House "intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen" to launch a so-called "War on Terrorism" for personal and political gain.

She retains a prominent lawyer, a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, who served with distinction under both Democrats and Republicans and was once a strong candidate for the governor's seat.

The attorney files a 62-page complaint in federal district court (including 40 pages of prima facie evidence) charging that "President Bush and officials including, but not limited to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft and Tenet":

1.) had adequate foreknowledge of 911 yet failed to warn the county or attempt to prevent it;

2.) have since been covering up the truth of that day;

3.) have therefore abetted the murder of plaintiff's husband and violated the Constitution and multiple laws of the United States; and

4.) are thus being sued under the Civil RICO (Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organization) Act for malfeasant conspiracy, obstruction of justice and wrongful death.

The suit text goes on to document the detailed forewarnings from foreign governments and FBI agents; the unprecedented delinquency of our air defense; the inexplicable half hour dawdle of our Commander in Chief at a primary school after hearing the nation was under deadly attack; the incessant invocation of national security and executive privilege to suppress the facts; and the obstruction of all subsequent efforts to investigate the disaster. It concludes that "compelling evidence will be presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power, and testimony [that] Defendants failed to act and prevent 9/11 knowing the attacks would lead to?? an 'International War on Terror' which would benefit Defendants both financially and politically."

Press releases detailing these explosive allegations are sent out to 3000 journalists in the print and broadcast media, and a press conference to announce the filing is held in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia on November 26th (commemorating the end of the first futile year of the independent National 9/11 Commission).

Imagine the world-churning implications of these charges. Imagine the furor if just one was proved true. Imagine the courage of this bribe-shunning widow and an eminent attorney with his rep on the line. Then imagine a press conference to which nobody came.

(Well, more precisely, imagine a press conference at which only FOX News appears, tapes for 40 minutes, and never airs an inch.)

Now imagine the air time, column inches and talk show hysteria that same night devoted to the legal hassles of Michael, Kobe, and Scott Peterson, and divide that by the attention paid to our little case of mass murder, war profiteering and treason. (OK, this is really a trick question because no number divided by zero yields any answers whatsoever, which evidently in this case is the result preferred.)

When you present documented charges of official treachery behind the greatest national security disaster in modern history and the press doesn't show, doesn't listen, doesn't write - just what in fact is really being communicated? That despite all the deaths, lies, wars, and bizarre official actions that flowed from 9/11 there's actually nothing there to be investigated at all? That addressing desperate victim families' still unanswered cries for truth is not a legitimate journalistic concern? That news will now be what the corporate media say it will be, so drink your infotainment Kool-Aid and kindly shut up?

(While the 9/11 blackout is the most flagrant sign of current media dysfunction, it hardly stands alone. Where, for example, was our free and fearless press when Pentagon powerbroker Richard Perle confessed to a London audience last month that yes indeed, our war on Iraq was illegal as hell? He calmly explained that "in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing?? [it] would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone, and this would have been morally unacceptable."

(Guardian/UK, 11/20/03) And what news have we seen of the thousands of Depleted Uranium deaths and birth defects now desolating Afghanis, Iraqis and our own Gulf War troops? And whose looking into the $1.2 trillion the Pentagon admits is "missing" or the half trillion in laundered funds now propping up our banks? And how many times have you seen it reported that unbid Iraq contracts have pushed the worth of VP Cheney's 433,333 Halliburton stock options to $26 million plus? But to return to 9/11, the funny business has just begun. If you thought press performance after JFK's death was a cynical farce, you ain't seen nothing yet.)

A few years back Harold Evans of the London Sunday Times, observed that the challenge facing American newspapers "is not to stay in business -- it is to stay in journalism.'' As corporations' authoritarian, profit-driven consciousness comes to dominate both media and governance, you can expect a lot more serial celebrity scandals and even less news on the way things work or anything that really counts.

There is a clear method and message in this obscurantist madness. All this media consolidation and tightening control is strategically aligned with deregulation, privatization, social program-gutting deficits and free trade regimes. They are all convergent tactics to enforce corporations' full spectrum dominance over democratic humankind. If your progressive or conservative instincts bid you to arise against this coup, standing with our 9/11 widow is a good place to start. Her name is Ellen Mariani, her lawyer is Phillip Berg and their complaint is now online at

http://911Timeline.net/marianivsbush.htm

Read it and weep, wail, or whack out a dozen letters to the editors around your town, but for god's sake make some noise. When 9/11 bombshells fall silent in the corporate media's forest it's up to us to make them resound.

W. David Kubiak is director of Big Medicine, a research and education institute studying the corporate takeover of our country, culture and consciousness.

Source: http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=46171

I, Mark R. Elsis, wrote the 911Timeline.net and StandDown.net for historical and legal reasons. Let us get behind this Federal Lawsuit brought by Ellen Mariani, for her husband Louis Neil Mariani, and the other 3055 people who were murdered on 911.
Federal Lawsuit: Ellen Mariani (911 Widow) vs. Bush
The "Summary of Facts" will set the foundation to support Plaintiff Counts as set forth herein.

However, a complete highly researched timelines of "911" by American Citizen Mark R. Elsis ( http://www.911timeline.net/ and http://www.standdown.net/ ) who has agreed to testify to his research on behalf of Plaintiff, and believed to be one of the "most comprehensive minute by minute accounts of the events of "911".
http://911Timeline.net/marianivsbush.htm

My story: Making sense of the senseless

On 9/11/2001, I along with most of the world, witnessed the worst crime ever committed in my country in my lifetime.

I awoke that morning and in the middle of going through my regular routine, switched on the Today Show. I saw the World Trade Center tower 2 in flames. A jet crashed into the building and it didn't seem as if they knew what had happened. The news came in bit by bit.

After sending my children off to school, I sat down to watch the drama unfold. As America watched, another jet slammed into WTC 1. The panic set in immediately. I was stunned, afraid for all those people, horrified at what I was seeing, dumbfounded and awed. Even now, those words seem understated. In incremental blocks, we learned that another plane went down in Pennsylvania and yet another was lost from radar. Before it was over, our Pentagon, arguably one of the most if not the most secure building on the planet had been attacked.

If all that wasn’t surreal enough, we watched the two mighty towers collapse before our eyes…after which my fear level had risen to the point of wanting to run out of my house and down the street to my children’s school as visions of imploding buildings across America flashed through my mind.

As the mother of 6 children, I have always been interested in world politics. Although I never liked what I was reading about, I always felt secure being in America, the strongest nation on earth. I felt that whatever came our way, it would be addressed and taken care of. But on 9/11, that sentiment collapsed along with those towers.

Later in the day I learned another Trade Center building collapsed. It was WTC 7. I watched the news 24/7 for days after.

The threat grew more ominous. The media told us in a surprisingly short time who was responsible for this act. On 9/14/2001, we learned the names of 18 hijackers and were told that the mastermind was Osama bin Laden.

On September 16, 2001, Osama bin Laden denied any involvement in the 9/11 hijacks. His statement was broadcast by Al Jazeera television. He said, "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons."

Source

So although I was told that this man was the monster who perpetrated that horrible crime, here he was telling everybody he wasn’t. Sure, I thought…all criminals deny their crimes. There are more “innocent” people in jail than guilty. When president Bush was asked if he believed that bin Laden was behind the attacks he stated, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that."
Source

Since 9/11 the world has changed drastically and many might argue not for the better. We are headed toward a one-world government. Torture, warrantless domestic spying and heavy-handed police tactics have become policy. It seemed all too convenient for the PNAC crowd that they got their “new Pearl Harbor” which made forwarding their agenda possible. The Patriot Act was soon part of our lives and fear ruled.

In March of 2006, I was channel-surfing and learned that a CNN program called “showbiz tonight” had aired some very controversial statements from Charlie Sheen questioning the official account of what happened to us on 9/11. After the character assassination started on this man who was the star of a hit tv show at the time, it intrigued me that he came out when he had so much to lose and nothing really worthwhile to gain.

I started to research the phenomenon of 9/11 truth. I first googled Charlie Sheen and 9/11 to see what I could find and nothing came up except old news about Sheen and nothing about his 9/11 statements. I started to suspect that google was censoring these searches and a little more digging after switching to other search engines confirmed it. “What the heck is going on,” I wondered.

In my search I found information about 9/11 I hadn’t even considered. Some people were claiming that the towers and especially WTC 7 had the characteristics of controlled-demolition. I searched for videos and photographs of the collapse and was surprised to find that I didn’t remember how explosive it seemed. I started reading about eyewitness accounts from firefighters and workers from the WTC that explosions occurred before and after the planes hit. I read a story in a fire-fighter magazine that the clean-up efforts were criminally negligent in that not enough investigation was being conducted at the scene and the evidence was being removed too quickly to get a proper one.

I learned about stock trades that spiked for the airlines involved in the hijacks days before 9/11 that bet on these companies’ stocks to fall. I learned so much that it soon caused me to consider the unthinkable, entities within our own country may have known enough to have at least prevented the attacks while others may have even had a hand in them.

I’m a college student with a 3.83 GPA and when I discovered the website, Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org) I requested membership and was accepted. After accessing their private forum, I found that although there is a little dissent among these dissenters, we are basically all looking for the same thing, how to make sense out of that which doesn’t make sense.

It’s not an easy thing to come to the conclusion that we were not told everything we needed to hear.

It makes this country look like a bunch of ignorant buffoons to run off half-cocked because we’re fearful of what happened here. It’s illogical to put our defensive resources so far from home after we were attacked on our own soil. We didn’t think things through. We rushed through everything even before a proper investigation into 9/11 was conducted.

I had never been a political activist before, and I am still wary about having to go public with it, but I’ve taken those first steps by associating myself with a very eminent group of people who have chosen to study the situation as thoroughly as possible. Instead of condoning policies that take away freedoms around the world, this ethos-laden group has decided to question the event that got us to this point.

It is time for the world to lay down their weapons and talk. We cannot survive if we do not address all the problems we face as a planet which no amount of military intervention will solve. There is a reason for why the world is such a tinderbox today and 9/11 in my opinion, is key.

The changes that have occurred in my life as a result of 9/11, I consider a gift. I have been shown that my own personal problems pale in comparison to the problems that face the world. I enjoy more the love of my family and friends and although a sadness stays with me there is also optimism because there are people who recognize a need to address 9/11 in the way that it should have been right after it happened.

I haven't listed my sources for the information I've found, but if anybody so inclined who is reading this does the searching him or herself, they will find many mainstream sources to the evidence I've cited. It's not an easy journey to get to this place, but it is comforting to know that you at least care enough to open your eyes.

Previously in this post I quoted the president as saying that no question bin Laden was the mastermind, yet the FBI says there is no hard evidence linking him to 9/11 and on their website, they do not even cite 9/11 as something he's wanted for. I will provide a source for that one. Click this link.

Why We Fight

Interesting video available that explains our reasons for war and how it all ties to the military industrial complex. Link to excerpts here.

Zionism, Jews and the anti-semite labels

Anybody who criticizes the Israeli government is immediately labeled an anti-semite. The worst offenders seem to be the Jewish Zionists. I have friends who will criticize the government of the United States all day long yet whenever the government of Israel becomes the subject of criticism, like hipocrits they become blinded by nationalism. Never, EVER criticize Israel! That's being anti-semitic, you don't understand our people's suffering! You are a holocaust denier!(Which incidentally, isn't the only holocaust that's occurred on this planet.) We are constantly being attacked. Have you not been paying attention to the news? They kidnapped two of our soldiers! We are well within our rights to bomb the hell out of Lebanon in retaliation. Then they go into some kind of tirade about filthy arabs which actually makes them the anti-semites. Ironic, isn't it?

By definition of the word, a zionist is merely somebody who recognizes Israel's right to exist. Bill Clinton, who would die for Israel, is a zionist. Many Jewish people are not zionist. They say it isn't yet time to have a state of Israel. Most are orthodox jews who follow their faith to the letter. It's a safe bet to say that there are more non-jew zionists than Jewish ones.

Please check out this link. After I finish reading it, I'm going to get myself educated even more

Pro-Israel lobby heavily influencing US policy, academics say <--click

Join me in pursuing an education. Click here

Still think the Israeli government is innocent? Watch this

Hezbollah website hosted by a US defense subcontractor?

As you can see below, I was asked to remove this post from my site. The link to the original article has also been removed. I apologize for any misunderstanding in my pursuit of an iota of truth. I would have deleted the entire post, but can't figure out how.

In defense of the conspiratorial world view

July 13, 2006 at 05:46:15
In defense of the conspiratorial world view

by Jay Esbe



A lot of effort goes into "debunking" conspiracy theories, and certainly there are many which are absurd, and poorly defended. But the tendency to find conspiracies to explain events, is anything but rooted in ignorance.

One of the things which separates man from the rest of the Animal kingdom, is his intellectual capacity to recognize patterns. A human being sees a square peg and a square hole, and knows they go together. A monkey presumably has trouble unless taught.

The tendency to skepticism is not always a sign of intelligence. Sometimes, when otherwise intelligent people dismiss the connection between a square peg and a square hole, it's because they've been conditioned to ignore it. I believe this is the case with much of the self-proclaimed intellectual elite's disdain for so-called "conspiracy theories"; people have to be taught, or otherwise pressured not to see the pattern.

A person who holds a conspiratorial world view, is generally a person who demands that the world make more sense than he's told it does. They're someone looking for the laws of cause and effect, the fit between square peg and square hole, the connectable dots, to justify a narrative which makes more sense to them than something that doesn't make sense to them. Now while one may in fact be so stupid, that ordinary events are inexplicable, the events which generate conspiracy theories do not usually fall into that category; they are attempting to explain extraordinary events.

We use the concept of conspiracy every day in our legal system, and there would be many thousands more criminals walking our streets were we not to recognize and include the concept of conspiracy in trials. Yet somehow, a vastly different standard has been applied to certain historic crimes over the decades when the public demands a logical explanation for the extraordinary events in question.

Current polls now show that a majority of Americans believe the government is not telling them the truth about 9-11. That fact now makes the majority of Americans "conspiracy theorists" regarding the issue. It is now a minority of the public who believes they were told the truth by the Bush appointed 9-11 Commission, but such is not the case among the so-called "mainstream media". It is nearly universally hostile to any question of a cover-up by the government. Those who need the world to make sense do not find the disparity between public opinion and the media elite's contempt for suspicion to be meaningless. They reasonably look for a vested conflict of interest on the part of the corporate media to explain why presumably intelligent professionals go soft in the head, and they do not have to look far to find one; a media which sits in an unelected advisory capacity to the President of the United States through the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), innumerable "think tanks" funded by corporate interests all assuming a global model is "inevitable", and directly attached special interests which include the world's biggest defense contractors raking billions of dollars in for share holders as they pursue the war profits of 9-11. People who point out the obvious are not wearing tin foil hats, they're simply...pointing out the obvious.

Self-proclaimed debunkers pull out every trick in the book to discredit the now flourishing "9-11 Truth movement"; pointing out the most improbable theories as though they were representative (straw men), pointing out the unrelated UFO believers who may also believe them, all in an attempt to portray "idiocy by association" and to make a soup so thick with the stench of lunacy, that anyone who dares tread in it is sullied by association.

But governments exist as defacto conspiracies to control their peoples, it's only a question of which people need to be controlled. The government of North Korea exists to protect itself and control it's population by keeping them in the dark through continual disinformation. The governments of China, The United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, all have one thing in common; despite varying in the availability of information, they all exist as rival nations with militaries, presumably military strategies, and a requirement to keep their own people in the dark to one degree or another if their long term global military strategy has any chance of succeeding. All one needs to understand about so-called "conspiracy theories" is that the only thing in any question when dealing with a nation of significance on the world stage, is which particular theory fits the conduct. The conspiracy is a given. But the requirement of secrecy can manifest itself overtly as in the case of China, or more artfully in the case of the United States; one nation will take you out and put a bullet in your head for questioning the regime, the other will simply create a culture of derision for those who dare to ask the wrong question in the midst of plenty. It's no coincidence then, that peoples outside any particular country can more clearly see the dark side of a nation's agenda than those within it; the Chinese government's primary motive is to lie about it's own ambitions, just as the United States is. Both the Chinese and American people probably get the truth more often than not about each other respectively if the truth is damning of the other, and almost never if it's good.

Another frequent charge laid against the conspiratorial world view is that conspiracies of such magnitude take too many people to be probable or even possible. Nothing could be further from the truth; they actually take remarkably few people. I'd like to use the American space program as a good example. To the unthinking, it's simply the space program, and any given launch of the shuttle has it's purpose in nothing much further than the idea that man has an innate desire to explore. But applying the conspiratorial view point paints a far more accurate picture of reality; the space program is in fact a quest by the United States to control the space above the earth for military purposes, and any so-called civilian purposes, are only there for public relations purposes. Now NASA is a conspiracy: how many day to day people are "in on it" in the usual understanding of the term? Possibly none. No one needs to be in on it within the agency itself because the autocratic power structure of the organization and it's controlling overseers precludes -or at the very least- does not require each individual from knowing the entire mission; they only need to know their job. The planners in the Pentagon, unseen and un-elected are now free to engage the macro conspiratorial benefits of the plan, and the workers are simply people doing their job who mind their own business if they'd like to keep it. Such I believe was the case with 9-11; a veritable handful of people in an autocratic top-down human structure, decided to facilitate the event. The average New York Port Worker who thought it was suspicious that certain policies were being changed, that cameras were turned off as the WTC was "powered down" before the attacks only had the choice to believe it was perhaps curious, or to ask questions and put their job in jeopardy. This isn't complicated. Like a NASA employee, he decides it's none of his business, and of course once the crime has gone down, it's no trick to make him lay awake in fear should he talk to anyone about the "problems" he saw.

The individuals who participate in deriding so-called conspiracy theorists, are generally of two ilk; those who've been manipulated into it through what is commonly referred to as 'peer pressure', and those who's rabid nationalism is held as a higher value than any possibility that their nation just might not be the paradigm of moral virtue in a sea of evil that the evidence tells them it isn't. Some of these people may even act as conscious gate-keepers if they're individually corrupt enough as "party loyalists".


Any decent sleuth who witnesses a crime and wants to solve it however, begins with an open mind and a first question; who stood most to gain from the crime? Applying this question to September 11th generates some very immediate exclusions, first among them being the Arab world, followed by an immediate inclusion: an aging super-power which has exhausted it's previous colonizations of treasure and which has suddenly found itself uncomfortably at peace.

Public opinion outside the United States is statistically overwhelming of the view that the attacks of September 11th were an inside job. It's not that the rest of the world is worthy of being labeled "paranoid" that they should have arrived at such a consensus. They are simply not subject to the social forces and media which would prevent such a first question and conclusion.

We are currently residing in a kind of peril most Americans are unaware of. Although the rampant law breaking of George W. Bush is openly discussed, the notion that a demonstratedly criminal administration would commit every crime imaginable and lie about virtually everything with the sole exception of the one event that enables them to continue to commit the crimes, is still something which will result in rabid attacks on anyone who dares to ask the obvious question. The nationalistic intimidation campaign we've all witnessed after September 11th continues, although crippled by the exposures regarding Iraq and the so-called "intelligence failures", and 9-11 is the last taboo question remaining which can still get you fired from your job or simply ordered off a television news interview if you dare to ask. But given the magnitude of the crimes in office which have already been exposed, allowing one's self to be pressured out of asking the hard questions about September 11th almost eliminates any meaning to any other recognition by the public of all the other crimes in evidence; 9-11 is the cornerstone of every so-called justification for every illegal act commited by the administration, overt or occult, and until 9-11 is confronted with the same level of skepticism as WMD in Iraq and phony claims of "intelligence failure" have been, the American people are still residing on a fulcrum who's tipping point is in the hands of a criminal mad-man. The failure of the Democrats to face down ridicule and to demand answers on the issue has not only crippled their capacity to stop all of this, but on a day to day basis forces them to remain complicit in the insane foreign policy which naturally resulted from the biggest crime in history; there is no chance to reverse the course when the "war on terror" is assumed to be a given. But -of course- if 9-11 was what most of the world believes it was, that war is as phony as everything else manufactured by the administration and will continue unquestioned. Once lead down the daisy path, the Democrats will once again have placed themselves in the untenable position of either having to admit they were duped, or continue to play the Republican game. Guess which one has immediate undesirable political consequences. If they couldn't admit regretting their vote for the attack on Iraq on false pretenses, how in the hell are they going to admit to regretting the entire last 6 years of the "post 9-11 world"? They're not going to do it unless dragged kicking and screaming, and at the end of the day, who else are you going to vote for if they won't admit it?

It is thus that we arrive at the mother of all conspiracies; the myth of American democracy. It's never existed apart from an onslaught of propaganda which claims otherwise. It's only a feel-good story line accepted by most people because they're comfortable amid the wealth generated by it's undemocratic foreign policy. As usual, the people with the most are the people which have the most to lose by questioning the regime. There's no need for a conscious conspiracy, not when an unconscious or negligent complicity with the status quo will suffice. It will and it does.

The culture of derision against the conspiratorial world view has real consequences today. If 9/11 was in fact the inside job so much evidence indicates that it was, unless that evidence is taken seriously, we risk continuing down a path that has no basis in reality. Self-proclaimed debunkers are fond of the axiom "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". If this is true, then do not extremely serious accusations warrant extremely serious investigations? But the majority of Democrats and independent voters in this country who oppose the innumerable abuses of power undertaken by the Bush administration are in fact only hurting themselves when they fall victim to the debunker's tactics to dissuade them from further examining the evidence for government complicity. They want a new administration, but one competent to carry out the "war of terror". This is the strict equivalent of the people of NAZI Germany who opposed Hitler, wanting a new leader to deal with the Jew's burning of the Reichstag. The bottom line on 9-11 is that if you don't know the truth, everything you do based upon the lie is going to be dead wrong.

There also exists a school of thought by too many in the opposition, that although 9-11 smells bad to them, they can not successfully oppose the Republican agenda by talking about it, fearing that the right will hammer them with charges of "conspiracy whackos" if they do. And indeed they will, for those who've spoken out are excoriated by responses that the term "hysterical" is not too strong to describe. Witness one Jeremy Glick's appearance on the O'Reilly factor as exemplary of the kind of treatment one can expect if they publicly implicate the government. But as long as the opposition allows itself to be cowed by these kind of tactics, they will remain crippled; forced to acknowledge the need for a "war on terror", their representatives pressured to support an agenda the nature of which always entraps them. Like their disastrous vote to allow Bush to attack Iraq, each step down the daisy path makes any chance of political extrication for the so-called "mistake" increasingly difficult, creating a political calculus of maintained artifice vs. "I went along to get along". As to which decision is chosen, we don't have to guess.

It may well be that we are so far down this ruinous path based on our own subjection to government deception that there is no longer any possibility of escape. We've started two major wars, alienated the entire world community, and provoked nations which are actually capable of causing us great harm, all on account of an event which may well have been done to us as the pretense to empire it appears to be, by our own government. Unless the point of origin for all of this is actually seriously investigated, and suspects questioned under oath, America's fate appears to have a good chance of becoming the nightmare so many of us are all having. If 9-11 was accomplished by people inside our own government, the magnitude of this crime is going to define the quanta of desperation on the part of those responsible as these subsequent events go from bad to worse. These may well be people who've already gone so far, that they will do anything to avoid exposure, including starting a global thermonuclear war to eliminate their would be accusers.

I happen to believe that 9-11 was an inside job. That has many possible definitions, ranging from TLIHOP (they let it happen on purpose) to TMIHOP (they made it happen on purpose). I believe the attacks were actually orchestrated by government operatives in conjuction with other nations, including Pakistan. I don't believe this because I want to, I don't. No one does. I believe this because despite my natural desire to see the bad guys paraded before me immediately after the attacks, the "official story" has a counterpart narrative which is far more credible, both in respect to 9-11 itself, and the historical patterns of deception engaged in by this government over the decades. Anyone who doesn't believe that high ranking officials within the United States government do not conspire to harm the people of the United States as a pretense for military actions, is someone denying facts, not "theories". From the Tuskegee Experiment, Operation Northwoods, The Gulf of Tonkin, LSD experiments on unknowing subjects, prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor, to the overt lies about weapons of mass destruction as pretense to occupy Iraq, and so many more, the government has demonstrably acted in accordance with the charge of conspiracy. These are not "theories". So what's really appears to be a theory? The notion of the pattern continuing, or the notion of the pattern being interrupted, all evidence to the contrary aside? There does come a point at which when the record is examined, there is cause to abandon the presumption of innocence as a finding precluding further investigation. What can one really say when those who opposed any independent investigation into 9-11 and attempted to block it, then refused to testify under oath? Only a fool or someone who's had their brain washed one too many times fails to find their suspicion. But that is in fact the pitiable condition which most Americans find themselves in as they're lead ever further down the path to global Armageddon on the foundation of an official story told by those who so much evidence and history points to as perpetrators of the biggest mass murder in history.

It is not my purpose here to recount the various theories which have been set forth by those who believe the government's hand is behind September 11th. Some are more plausible than others, and some are inevitably way off the mark. It is the climate of repression, the psychology of a national condition which is being imposed which I hope to shed light on, by exposing the fundamental falsity of those who would immediately leap to defend the government against the basic charge. Those who would do so find their best defense to be an engagement in debate over the details of the most improbable theories set forth, chosen by them to distract from the bigger picture they intend to obfuscate. Their success at this is only temporary, for eventually, a generation or two down the road when the paradigm no longer requires the cover-up, their shrieking at their exposure fades, and sure enough, we find out that the cover-up alleged, was rightly alleged. The problem we currently face however is that given the global nature of this conspiracy's impact, and the lethality of the weapons being readied, we can not afford to keep our heads in the sand until a new generation uncovers the crime; there just might not be a tomorrow if the lie is not challenged today.

To deny conspiracy simply because it's conspiracy is to deny a fundamental truth about human nature; We desire, we covet. And with desire begins the quest to seek advantage for gain. Human beings conspire all the time, every day. Those who exclude people in positions of power have twice engaged in an absurdity; they've denied human nature, and they've denied it in those most capable of acting. The person willing to embrace the conspiratorial world view derives no comfort in it, on the contrary, it's very uncomfortable. The motive therefor does not exist on the side of the conspiracy theorist, but with those who dismiss him. History has not been kind to them. "Conspiracy" explains the world, it's actors and human events better than randomness and it always has. Who covets? Who stood to gain? Who stood to lose? Who attempts to excuse themselves from cross examination? These are not questions generated by well placed tin-foil hats, nor are otherwise natural suspicions which arise when they're answered. To take the conspiratorial world view is simply to engage in reason as evidence presents itself in the light of known history.

Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts

Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts

by
Bill Douglas

I began researching the mainstream media coverage of the controversy regarding the attacks of 9/11/2001, when reading an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Newspaper, dated June 29th, 2006. It was titled, "Sept. 11 claim stirs UW probe -- Instructor says U.S. planned the attacks to provoke war." This led to my discovery of some wild conspiracy theorists that endanger our government and media establishments, with quite frankly insane assertions. I'll address this in full in the final paragraph.

Then by using a "google video 9/11" search, I recently viewed a FOX News interview on Hannity and Colmes with an Arab Studies teacher from the University of Wisconsin named Kevin Barrett. I had earlier seen an interview with another, a professor named James Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth. A few weeks earlier I had seen an interview on MSNBC Scarborough country interviewing a Mike Berger representing 911Truth.org.

Some of these guests referred to an organization called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" with a website www.st911.org, which offered a physics research paper questioning the official explanation of the events of 9/11/2001. While visiting this site, I read that they pointed to the temperatures of the fires in the WTC buildings, and construction of the buildings, and the speed they fell, as evidence they claimed proved that what we saw on 9/11/2001 when the towers fell had to have been the result of a controlled demolition. Like the ones we've seen with Las Vegas hotels being brought down. Their claim was that the WTC buildings could not have been caused solely by the aircraft hitting the WTC buildings that day.

Then, I contacted the office of a Wisconsin State Legislator, Rep. Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater), and asked to speak to someone in the office who could speak on this issue. I asked if he was familiar with the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, and he replied they had learned of it this week. I asked him if he and the Representative could comment on the charge that the fires on 9/11/2001 in the WTC buildings did not burn hot enough to bring down the buildings, and if he'd read the scholars organization's charge that thermate traces had been found on debris from the fallen towers (thermate indicating demolition type explosives were involved). The gentleman responded that no, they had not looked at this information, and this would not be something they would look at, further indicating that anyone who made such charges was blinded by their hatred of President Bush.

Which leads back to the interviews of guests on the three television news programs. The main theme of all three of the guests on these programs appeared to be concern of the physical evidence of 9/11/2001, mentioned above and particularly regarding the collapse of three of the World Trade Center buildings on that day.

The main themes of the interviewers on these programs appeared to be two-fold:
1) The guests were representing a fringe movement, and most Americans do not dispute the official 9/11 explanation of the 19 hijackers defeating US military and intelligence forces on 9/11/2001.

2) The guests and those they speak for, who question the official 9/11/2001 account, are of questionable sanity.

This motivated me to do some research. First I looked at the fringe movement issue that the majority of Americans disagreed with the programs guests and accept the official explanation, and secondly, the sanity and expertise of people like their guests who question the official story of 9/11/2001.

First, regarding the fringe issue, asserting that the guests questioning the events of 9/11 reflected a small minority of American opinion. I looked at the only polls I could find on these questions, and the results were surprising. A CNN viewers poll, which is not scientific, held Wednesday, November 10th, 2005, asked, "Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?" 89% replied "Yes," they did believe there was a cover-up by the U.S. Government (9,441 votes), while only 12% felt there was no cover-up.

In a national Zogby poll, of May 2006, found that 45%, of the American public felt a new 9/11 investigation should be launched because "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success." An earlier Zogby poll of New York City residents, from August of 2004, found that Half (49.3%) of New Yorkers felt that U.S. government officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." While 66% of New Yorkers called for a new probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General.

Now to the second issue the television media interviewers were most concerned with, which was the expertise and sanity of the people demanding a new 9/11 investigation, and some even suggesting possible U.S. government complicity in the attacks of 9/11/2001. Again, a simple google "video 9/11" search, provided a wealth of information.

This too yielded some surprising results.

One of the loudest advocates of the most damning charge that "members of the U.S. government actually orchestrated the events of 9/11 to fool the nation into unpopular wars", was not a tree-hugging Green Party activist, but rather a prominent Republican, in fact a Former Chief Economist under George Bush, and professor at Texas A&M, Morgan Reynolds. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Google research of the growing list of other 9/11 skeptics of the official story, some "convinced of U.S. government involvement," while others not going that far, but pointing out that"the official story is highly questionable and demands further investigation," yielded surprising results. Including a host of high level Republican administration officials, defense experts, intelligence experts, and respected scholars, as well as well known celebrities who are now adding the spotlight of their names to the issue of 9/11.

Among them were:

Former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force, under President Reagan, and combat fighter pilot Col. Robert Bowman (Caltech Phd in aeronautics and nuclear engineering).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674

Former CIA Intelligence Advisor to Reagan and George HW Bush and founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11

Kevin Ryan, former department head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories) the company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

Former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Research Fellow at Stanford's Independent Institute, and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts

Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honourable Paul Hellyer
http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/movies/Hellyer.mov

Minister for the Environment, and Member of Parliament (United Kingdom) Michael Meacher
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of Technology Andreas Von Bulow
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General Leonid Ivashov
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20060123&articleId=1788

Former MI6 British Counter Intelligence Officer, David Shayler
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974

Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, James Fetzer
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=122

Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, Steven Jones
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont Graduate University, and author or editor of some 30 books, including "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" David Ray Griffin
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154

Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdney
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney

Aircraft crash investigation authority, USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Former chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col. (Ret) Don de Grand-Pre
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

Actor Charlie Sheen (Platoon, Wall Street, etc.)
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/280606juggernautoftruth.htm

Actor, Ed Asner
http://www.911blimp.net/videos/EdAsner-UnityIsTheKey.mov

Actor, Ed Begley, Jr
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7140359934129245752

So, now that we've examined the two main issues of concern for the television news interviewers, which was the "fringe" aspect of the questioners, and the "sanity/expertise" issue, it appears those arguments are very weak arguments, really with no merit at all.

Obviously tens of millions of Americans, according to polls, want a new investigation into 9/11/2001 and have a strong suspicion of U.S. government involvement at some level. Obviously not all of the national defense, intelligence, aeronautics, physics and engineering experts questioning the official story of 9/11 are insane or unqualified to comment.

This begs the question, in the face of such obvious facts, why do our media personalities continue to attempt to throw out accusations that are patently untrue regarding those who question the official story?

When a television news interviewer continues to ask questions and make assertions that he or she knows to be untrue, this would challenge the expertise and sanity, not of their guests, but of the television news interviewer.

The 9/11 truth movement appears to be growing rapidly, and involving people of substantial credentials and expertise. As television and some radio personalities continue to behave in what obviously is an insane behavior, what do we do? Can we get our national media any psychological help? If not, it would be wise to relieve them of their positions at least. I feel increasingly uneasy about millions of young minds being exposed night after night to comments and opinions by people who increasingly appear to be insane, yet in positions of authority.

Of course the concern here is larger. If there is any possibility or doubt about whether the events of 9/11/2001 were participated in by members of our own government, then our entire democracy and world peace would be strengthened by getting to the bottom of the true facts of this pinnacle event of our time. It would be unhealthy to leave a cloud of doubt hanging over such assertions. There should be a full fledged national debate, experts from all sides should be interviewed on national media to get to the bottom of this once and for all. Our Congress should launch investigations into the physics questions that are causing so many to doubt the official story. No matter where anyone stands on this issue, this is obviously the only path to national healing and trust.

However, this debate on national media cannot occur if the interviewers hired by national media continue to behave in an insane irrational behavior, like "conspiracy theory wing-nuts." You see, too many of our media spokespersons on television and radio adhere to a wild conspiracy theory. Their theory is that anyone who looks into the facts of the events of one of the most important issues in history is alone, and insane, but yet somehow organized in some united conspiratorial effort. Of course, the facts fly in the face of this conspiracy theory, but these media personalities appear unable to grasp reality even when it is pointed out to them.

For media reading this article, time will tell whether you are an insane conspiracy theorist or not. If you too, are among the insane in our media, the public will likely eventually demand your resignation. As one who writes sometimes on parental issues, I believe it is unhealthy to have insane people in charge of the national information highways our children are taught to watch. We need sane media people who look at facts regarding issues, not ones who launch into insane screeds of paranoia to avoid reality.

Also, you may recall that when I contacted State Representative, Stephen Nass' office, his aid stated that they were aware of but not interested in and would not look at the physics facts provided by the website Scholars for 9/11 Truth, www.st911.org. However, they did want to fire a university teacher for presenting facts, many of which were available on that site. To fire someone for presenting facts, facts that you dispute, yet have no idea what those facts are, and are unwilling to look at them to find out what they are . . . is also insane. Again, as someone who writes on parenting issues, as a concerned parent as well, America should also consider retiring our insane government officials who fire people for facts they aren't aware of and are unwilling to look at. These politicians apparently assert some wild conspiracy theory that millions of Americans are questioning the events of 9/11 because they are "Bush haters" according to the aid at Nass' office. This kind of delusional paranoia by our elected officials is of particular concern. Such wild eyed conspiratorialists should not be allowed in government.

Bill Douglas, author of "The Amateur Parent - A Book on Life, Death, War & Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe""

Get on the Bus September 11, 2006!

We're attempting to get answers that aren't forthcoming from an administration that has pushed through "the patriot act," has exacerbated a terrorist threat by engaging in a so-called "war on terror," has usurped rights, lies about reasons for going to war, includes torture in our interrogation tactics, spies on it's own people without going through the proper procedures, ignores 750 laws by way of the presidential signing statement while playing the "national security" card which is a laugh when they out covert agents for political gain all the while looking to be the most incompetent, incompassionate, greedy administration that's ever occupied the office. They don't give osama much thought though they would have us believe that it was he who masterminded the heinous crimes that took place on 9/11. Now they say they won't even concentrate on him although they are still playing audiotapes that they attribute to him. Don't you see anything wrong with the picture?

Stop and think what you're trying to do as you don't exercise the rights we do retain when we are being ruled by such obvious tyranny. We need to demand impeachment of the entire administration and conduct inquiry but since their party controls congress and it's questionable that our votes even count anymore, there may be no alternative but to take it to the streets, convince as many as we can and demand action before we turn into that which they are supposedly fighting against.

They use 9/11 as a pretext for everything and ironically may have complicity in the crime. It sure did allow them to do some fairly wicked things to change the face of this nation. I don't suppose you found it obscene that the Republican National Convention was a virtual 9/11-War-on-Terror pep rally.

Join fellow concerned Americans in Washington D.C. on September 11, 2006 and help take back the Republic! Link here

jason leopold of truthout addresses the use of terrorism as an asset during an election year. Link here

Every time there's an arrest in a foiled terrorist plot, a beheading or other al Qaeda atrocity, a terrorist attack or terror alert it takes incriminating news of corrupt politicians or falling approval ratings off the air and replaces it with something we are supposed to fear. Mass manipulation by the manipulated press is obvious.

What we have to do is convince people that fear is the real enemy. Although I haven't done a lot of travelling across the globe, I assume collectively, people are mostly the same everywhere. We all have our geniuses as well as our idiots. There are well-grounded people in every group as well as those certifiably insane. There are selfish ones and saintly ones...and so on. The so-called terrorist threat is being provoked by the animosity that is being encouraged toward our Muslim brethren. It's really appalling and surprisingly simple yet people would fear more the invented threat than accept the reality of the truth which when it becomes great enough to convince the masses, will undoubtedly set the world free

Provost review clears Barrett to teach class on Islam

Provost review clears Barrett to teach class on Islam
July 10, 2006

Following a thorough review, University of Wisconsin-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell today announced that lecturer Kevin Barrett will teach, as scheduled, a class titled "Islam: Religion and Culture."

Barrett's remarks regarding his theories on the events of Sept. 11 recently drew widespread attention and criticism.

As a result, Farrell, along with Gary Sandefur, dean of the College of Letters and Science, and Ellen Rafferty, chair of the department of languages and cultures of Asia, met with Barrett. They reviewed his course syllabus and reading materials and examined his past teaching evaluations.

"There is no question that Mr. Barrett holds personal opinions that many people find unconventional," Farrell says. "These views are expected to take a small, but significant, role in the class. To the extent that his views are discussed, Mr. Barrett has assured me that students will be free - and encouraged - to challenge his viewpoint."

Farrell says that Barrett told him that the semester-long course will spend a week examining current issues, including a brief discussion of various views on the war on terror. Barrett told Farrell that he plans to base the discussion on readings from authors representing a variety of viewpoints.

"I am satisfied that Mr. Barrett appreciates his responsibility as an instructor. I also believe that he will attempt to provide students with a classroom experience that respects and welcomes open dialogue on all topics," Farrell says. "And I fully expect that the vast majority of his teaching will involve aspects of Islamic culture and religion wholly unrelated to his controversial views of the events of 9/11, which we know had a profound impact on the world and many members of our campus community."

Farrell notes that a broader issue at play in the Barrett case is the UW-Madison's long tradition of protecting classroom expression and encouraging students' critical thinking by allowing analysis of even the most controversial ideas.

"We cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas. That classroom interaction is central to this university's mission and to the expansion of knowledge. Silencing that exchange now would only open the door to more onerous and sweeping restrictions," he says.

"It is in cases like this - difficult cases involving unconventional ideas - that we define our principles and determine our future," Farrell adds. "Instead of restricting politically unpopular speech, we will take our cue from the bronze plaque in front of Bascom Hall that calls for the 'continual and fearless sifting and winnowing' of ideas."

UW-Madison students, Farrell says, are fully capable of analyzing new, controversial and even unwelcome ideas.

"Our students are not blank slates. They are capable of exercising good judgment, critical analysis and speaking their minds," Farrell says. "Instructors do not hand over knowledge wrapped up in neat packages. Knowledge grows from challenging ideas in a setting that encourages dialogue and disagreement. That's what builds the kind of sophisticated, critical thinking we expect from our graduates."

Campus officials also reviewed Barrett's teaching record at UW-Madison.

"Although the university does not endorse Mr. Barrett's political views or his theories regarding the events of 9/11, our review showed that he has a record of quality teaching, including as a teaching assistant in this class," Farrell says. "His plan for the course appears to offer a sound learning experience for students interested in gaining a better understanding of Islam."

Barrett has accepted a one-semester appointment as an associate lecturer, beginning on Aug. 28. This is a 50 percent appointment that has a salary of $8,247.

File last updated: March 14, 2006
Feedback, questions or accessibility issues:

http://www.blogger.com/email/?u=comments&d=uc.wisc.edu

© 2005 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Kevin Barrett on Hannity and Colmes

Denver Group invites the public for 9/11 truth

Posted by Neil Slade:

For those interested, I will be presenting a very stimulating
presentation THIS TUESDAY JULY 11 at Denver's Mercury Cafe
Come down and say hello in person! - Neil

Be A 9/11 Brain Detective

Do We Know the Truth?

When: Tuesday, July 11th 6:00 PM
Where: The Mercury Café 2199 California St. Denver (corner
22nd Ave./Calif. )

The attacks on 9/11/01 have provided the rationale for the "War on Terror", including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Guantanamo Bay imprisonments, among other actions of the Bush administration. Yet, according to a Zogby poll in 2004, 49% of New York City respondents believe our government was complicit in these attacks. In addition, 66% of New Yorkers and 45% of Americans endorse a new criminal investigation.

We invite you to find out why.

Join the millions of people who are learning how to contribute to a positive world instead of being trapped in needless struggle based on misinformation.

With a special welcome to skeptics, come and learn about:

The US historical precedents to false-flag operations

The government failure to initiate routine interception of wayward planes

The Secret Service failure to protect Bush when USA under attack

That fire has never before caused any steel-framed skyscraper to collapse

That near free-fall speed of collapses seem explained by controlled demolition

That crucial evidence at the crime scene was quickly removed in violation law

That government officials were warned not to fly on 9/11/01

That there were warnings about the attacks from at least 11 countries

That an official 9/11 Commission was resisted by Bush for 411 days

That FBI agents were hindered from investigating some of the alleged hijackers

That 4-6 "hijackers" are still alive & some trained at US military bases

Our guest presenters include
Michael Anderson, artist and businessman,
Tim Boyle, manager in a software co.,
Fran Shure, business owner and psychotherapist, and

Presented by www.colorado911visibility.org and internationally recognized author Neil Slade www.BrainRadar.com


This presentation is free and open to the public. Invite your friends and family.

http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/911TruthDetective.pdf

10 Million Americans Assemble to Restore the Republic

Rick Siegel is the filmmaker featured in 9/11 Eyewitness found on google video.~~Antagonist

"What’s next?" 9/11/2006 in Washington DC!

As I see the various Freedom, Liberty and Truth movements’ progress throughout my nation the one missing ingredient is the answer to the question, what can I do? Questions are raised to end the wars; prison abuse, tax abuse, wage abuse, race abuse and corporate governance and this may well be the answer.

You may have spent the hours, weeks and months in study and now you know there is a huge tumor that has eaten away our Liberty, Freedom and Constitutional guarantees. You have looked and found no law or authority for the relentless tax collections by private agents purporting to be the “government”. You have seen the horrible frauds as the governments collusion in the events surrounding the 911 hoaxes grow. Routine traffic stops, random searches, extraordinary rendition, and torture, which are repugnant to freedom, liberty and the Constitution have found permenant domicile in our nation. You know the problem is deep. Your understanding of the issues continues to grow, but there is one thing that eludes you and everyone else; what the hell can you do?

You see your local, state and federal governance has changed themselves into corporations to cloak themselves from being a representative, responsible entity and granted themselves immunity from the crimes they may perpetrate. Children are being desensitized to searches by flak jacketed masked and armed men and women, put through metal detectors and taught to enjoy this as freedom and security. You see the truth and understand. This is not right.

What the hell do we do?

I came back to NY City last Sept 11, 2005 to bring a video that I thought would change the world. Well, they marched me in front of the empty NY Times building where they stood waving banners to an empty building. Then marched across town to Rockefeller Place at a speed that one usually reserves for a foot race. They stopped for a quick picture before the police rushed them on to the UN. There we were all herded into an empty lot across the street from an empty and closed UN where more banners were waved and 30 people got to talk to each other.

Earlier in the day some of the crews were at Ground Zero, but it was more an embarrassment, as some factions were adamant to force truth down the mourning families of people who had been crushed in the buildings destruction. Others who disagreed with the rights of these protestors were threatening to remove the other group’s freedoms. When the media did notice the efforts by the 911 truth they used the incident to show the callous disregard for mourning relatives by the fringe.

All the while I ask myself why I traveled from exile 7000 miles for this?

For this latest trip to Chicago I took the step of taking what I thought to be a solution. To regain control of our organic governances and brought it into my presentation. It was well received and the only negative comment was that I would be shot. So now I would like to outline what I think we can do before it is too late.

We cannot perceive that our government is a monolithic independent functioning entity when it is a reperesentatation of the will of the people. When viewed in that reality we should, en masse, be able to take back what has been usurped. The government has distanced itself from the people through its actions and corruptions. It has put aside freedom and liberty to pursue search and seizure for the wealth produced from this subjugation.

They have committed treason fraud and murder in NY on 911 and with the help of the officials there destroyed the crime scene of 2000+ murders so no forensics or murder investigation could be had. The demolition of the three steel and concrete buildings in NY on September 11, 2001 must be a reminder of the depths that the government along with their corporate masters will go to gain power over the American people. There can be no more terrorists jealous of our freedoms since the real terrorists have removed our freedoms. Those terrorists are the corporate government overlay in DC and their funders.

Several months ago corporate president Bush told the Americans the truth to their face, “The Constitution is just a piece of paper”. Nothing he has said is truer, yet Americans have been so dumbed down they can’t remember simple history much less the simple physics in 911 Eyewitness.

Perhaps if you remember that the united states of America under the Constitution ended a few years prior to what is called the “Civil War” it would help. Congress ended the nation called the united states of America forever. The representatives went home and two new nations were formed. They each formed new governments, constitutions, coined money, had representatives and completed treaties on the international table of nations. After a couple years the Union (which were the capitalist northern industrial slave states) needed to get to the agricultural southern nations wealth so they manipulated a war and with the help of the Crown defeated the Confederate States. The Union States then installed military rule, the puppet regime (this is JUST like Iraq isn’t it?) and passed laws to subjugate that nation and make it a slave of a new nation called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA incorporated in 1887 under a new constitution that started with the 14th Amendment. The reconstruction of this bastardization mix of the enslaved industrial north with the conquered territories in the south is hidden in romantic metaphor that deludes us into thinking that the united states of America, a Republic under the Constitution still exists.

As we go from the anniversary of the Powers demolition of the Twin Towers and destruction at the Pentagon we must take back what is ours. From Sept 11, 2006 to the Constitution day we want to call a Mass Assembly of the People to take back our Constitutional Republic. We want to call for a redress of the government and a restoration of a responsible Republic free of corporate dictums and immunities.

Meet me in Congress this September 11, 2006 and let us demand our nations return to the Constitutional Republic. End the tyranny of Democracy and corporate rule.

Rick Siegel

On anniversary of UK's 7/7 a citizen stands for truth

Below is text of a private forum post made by an online acquaintance. (used with permission from the author)~~Antagonist

About 3 weeks ago (maybe less), my wife gave me an ad. from the local paper (Nottingham actually) regarding an event called "Defining Terrorism" which was to be held in the Albert Hall (Nottingham) today. I had planned to attend and also planned to try and find out a bit more about the event. I meant to see if there were other events being organised. However, my apology is, I completely forgot to do this - as I was focused on what I wanted to say at the event. I found there were 4 events in London Glasgow and Leeds - but they were all earlier this week. I wish I'd checked earlier.

So anyway...

I spent some hours the other night writing out a "deposition" (see below) to read out. After the 4 speakers (none of whom questioned the official story, I understand), I was the 2nd person to speak.

I managed to read out about 1/2 a page, before I was interrupted by Lord Carlile and then asked what definition of I was referring to. "State sponsored terrorism" I replied. I was then asked to let someone else speak, with the suggestion that my points would be returned to at the end "if there was time". I was not given another opportunity to finish. I had presumed the meeting was scheduled to run 2-4 and most other people seemed to have finished making points and Lord Carlile wrapped the meeting up at 4. I later discovered (see below) that the scheduled running time was until 4:30. However, I did present Lord Carlile with a pack of information, including an audio CD, 2 DVDs and copies of our UK petition and the ST911 press release and petition (printed out on about 80 sheets of paper) totalling 11,000 signatures.

I gave each panel member a DVD and have tracked down their e-mail addresses and mailed them the "list" below, which I was prevented from finishing.

Fortunately, even though I was cut off, the lady I sat next to spoke (immediately after I finished) - in support of what I was saying and she made a few related points. Afterwards we stayed and talked to one another for a while, so that was good, and we have exchanged contact details.

We seem to see another not-so-subtle mind game in that these forums (fora?) where set up by the Muslim Council of Great Britain

http://www.mcb.org.uk/features/features.php?ann_id=1517

I mailed them a message regarding the experience I described above. So, here for the record, let it be known that Lord Carlile was publicly presented with evidence of the 9/11 cover up and the list of questions and points raised below and that he did not allow me to read to the end of my list.

Questions for the Forum “Defining Terrorism”

7th July 2006, Nottingham Albert Hall

We have all been told that the Official Stories of both the 9/11 and 7/7 tragedies are essentially true in all the important respects. However, there are now a growing number of disparate groups who are questioning these assumptions. This is a necessary and very important process, due to

(a) the initial reluctance of the Bush Administration to set up an investigation into the events of 9/11. (They only did so following demands from victims families.)

(b) The refusal of this government to set up a public enquiry into the 7/7 bombings, even when substantial pieces of legislation have been introduced or amended on the basis of the assumed nature the 7/7 and 9/11 tragedies.

Here, I list some of the specific questions about 7/7 and 9/11 events, pertaining to hard, factual and easily verifiable evidence, which must be answered as completely and honestly as possible if a true understanding of the nature of terrorism is to be gained.

These questions are presented here for the public record and a response is not expected at this meeting, though any considered answers will be appreciated.
9/11 Questions

·Why did World Trade Centre Building 7 (WTC 7) collapse at free-fall rate, in 6.6 seconds, into its own footprint, when no plane hit it?
·Why did the WTC’s owner, Larry Silverstein, state that WTC 7 had to be “pulled” by the fire department and yet the FEMA report said “[how the fires caused the collapse] remain[s] unknown at this time”?
·Why did World Trade Centre (WTC) Buildings 1 & 2 collapse at near “free-fall” rate, with many witness reports of explosions (the sound of large explosions was also recorded, from 2 miles away, on Rick Siegel’s video camera).
·The official account of the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 describes a “Pancake collapse”, so why was a pyroclastic flow of dust seen when the buildings collapsed, rather than a “pile of pancakes”?
·Why did none of the 19 hijackers appear on the passenger lists?
·Why were the flights’ Black Boxes supposedly never recovered, though at least 1 witness says he helped the FBI find them at the WTC?
·How can the Cellphone calls have worked when this technology is only rated to work reliably up to speeds of 140 miles per hour?
·Why was the wreckage of Flight 93, which crashed into the ground in Shanksville Pennsylvania, spread over an area of 8 square miles?
·Why do the photos of the Flight 93 and the Pentagon crash sites show no LARGE pieces of wreckage?
·Why, when requested, was no clear film released of the supposed plane that hit the Pentagon?
·At The Pentagon, how were bodies from the Boeing 757 identified by DNA tests, while at the same time 60 tons of metal supposedly vaporized?
·Why did NORAD’s standard defence procedures (which were activated 67 times in the 12 months before 9/11) all fail on that single morning?

These are just some of at least 400 questions, pertaining to hard, factual evidence, which have not been answered by the 9/11 Commission Report. Additional related questions are:

· Why would Florida millionaire property developer, Jimmy Walter give away 350,000 DVDs and spend $6 million in presenting an alternative analysis to the public to answer some of the questions raised above?
· Why have a group of over 300 Scholars (myself included), stated in a press release they reject the Official Story of 9/11 as a Hoax?
· Why have the BBC failed to report the formation of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association, despite the News Director (Helen Boaden) acknowledging e-mail messages sent to her about this matter?
· Why have the other mainstream media organisations also not reported the group’s formation, nor its submission of a petition to the US congress (signed by 11,000 people) to ask for the release of evidence? (Copy included here).
· Why have over 500 people signed our UK Petition to the Government and Media calling for an international independent inquiry into 9/11?
· Why have Hollywood actors Charlie Sheen and Ed Asner publicly questioned the official account of 9/11 and why have the true nature of their remarks not been mentioned by the BBC or in any UK mainstream media outlet?

Questions on the 7/7 Bombings

· Why did Peter Power of Visor Consultants state that his organisation was running an exercise at the same time as the actual bombings – with simultaneous bombs going off at the exact stations where the real events occurred?
· Why did a photo published in the Daily Mail on 28th July show damage consistent with a bomb being under the train?
·Why did Mark Honigsbaum’s initial Report from Edgware Road specifically state that witnesses said there was “a massive explosion and some passengers described how the tiles… the covers on the floor of the train suddenly flew up... rose up”?
·Why did Eyewitness Bruce Lait’s account in the Cambridge Evening News state the policeman said “mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train.” Why did he say “They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag,"
·Why did Mr Blair, announce at 3pm on 7th July that the supposed attack bore “all the hallmarks of an Al Qaida attack” before any evidence had been properly gathered?
Why was the train that the Suicide Bombers are supposed to have caught from Luton cancelled on that morning?
On the single CCTV Image of the four accused suicide bombers together, why does one of the railings appear to go in front of the left arm of one of the men, when the railings are clearly behind him? Why are none of their faces easily recognisable?
·What was the reason for the changing story about what type of explosives were used?

·Why have all these critical questions, based on easily verified evidence, not been asked by any of the mainstream media?

Until these questions are addressed (rather than being ignored) - by the Government, The Police, the Intelligence services and the mainstream media - everyone should doubt that the official stories of these tragedies are accurate. Everyone should be extremely concerned by existing official statements made regarding these issues. They should also be concerned about proposed legislation which pertains to these events such as SOCA, LRR and CCA. They should ask questions and demand answers.

I hereby present the panel with this list of questions and accompanying evidence and petitions, on behalf Scholars for 9/11 Truth and over 10,000 people who have signed those petitions (here and here).

Thank you.

Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!

Was September 11th an inside job? (Norway publication)

Rough Translation provided by “Seabhcan”

Was September 11th an inside job?

From the July 1, 2006 Norwegian Le Monde Diplomatique

9/11TRUTH: More and more people in the USA are convinced that the American authorities are concealing their involvement in the September 11th tragedy. Statements from witnesses, marked confidential for several years, now show that controlled demolition may have taken place. The US government had long anticipated such an incident – as the Republican document from 2000 Rebuilding America’s defenses indicates. The 9/11Truth organisation believes that the USA probably orchestrated an incident of this type in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the curtailing of civil liberties within the US through the introduction of The Patriot Act. It has now emerged that the America’s most senior military leader in 1962 devised a plan for a premeditated attack on Americans, which would have involved shooting down a passenger plane, so that the blame could be cast on Cuba. So why should this be excluded today? Many also believe that Pakistani intelligence cooperated with the CIA and Al-Qaida because the former transferred significant sums of money to the hijacker Mohammed Atta in the days leading up to the 11th of September. They even had Bin Laden under surveillance during the time of his treatment in a military hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan in September 2001.

Kim Bredesen
Journalist for Le Monde diplomatique.

Most of us would think it strange if the impact of a passenger plane wasn’t sufficient to cause a skyscraper to collapse. So there were few who doubted what it was that hit the Twin Towers on the 11th of September 2001 or the identities of the perpetrators. However, in the intervening years, several individuals and groups, both in North America and in Europe, began to doubt whether this necessarily constitutes accuracy. For them, a set of contradictory circumstances surrounding the attacks do not correspond with the explanations of the American authorities and the Congress-appointed 9/11 Commission. A key reason for this doubt could be that there are witnesses and participants in September 11th who describe events that do not tally with events in the official story. An example is provided by onlookers who heard and saw what they believed to be explosions around the Twin Towers before they were struck by the planes. Policemen thought it looked like “planned implosion”. Fireman Richard Banaciski reported that: “It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory claimed:

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” – Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

Another controversial witness statement came from maintenance worker, William Rodriguez who was working in the North Tower on the 11th of September. In an interview with New York Magazine he claimed that he first heard a huge explosion when he was in one of the sub-basements of the skyscraper and witnessed the appearance of victims, the skin burnt off their arms by fires in the lift shaft. After the explosion in the sub-basement he heard another one from above. It was a Boeing 767. Williams was the last survivor to be rescued from the World Trade Center’s Ground Zero. He was hailed as a hero and invited to visit George Bush and the White House. Later, when he attempted to publicise his story about the sub-basement explosion, it was rejected by the American authorities. He has now filed a lawsuit against these same authorities under the RICO Statute, a legal ruling originally designed to prosecute Mafia families.

Besides witness statements describing a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers with explosives, critics of the Bush administration believe there are several sets of circumstances around September 11th that give good reason to suspect the official story is incorrect. It is a fact that none of the four hijacked planes were intercepted by fighter planes. That this did not happen, combined with the fact that the majority of the air force was engaged in military exercises, has given weight to suspicion that the American air defense force gave the order to “stand down” so that the terrorist attacks could proceed unhindered. Another suspicious circumstance is that WTC 7- also known as Building 7 – a 47-storey skyscraper, collapsed without having been hit by any of the planes. Conversely, the buildings that stood adjacent are still intact.

When it comes to any forewarning of the attacks, claims that the NSA monitored fully translated conversations in the summer of 2001 – in real-time – between Mohammed Atta and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed have raised concern. In one of the conversations, Atta purportedly gave Mohammed the green light for the attacks; NSA therefore should have been forewarned.

FBI-agent Colleen Rowley claims that the FBI’s directors intentionally obstructed her investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui In relation to investigation that could have led to the apprehension of the hijackers, FBI agent Colleen Rowley claims that the FBI’s directors intentionally obstructed her investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui – at the time he was attending flight school in Minneapolis. They did this despite having received warnings from French intelligence. Rowley believes that, had the FBI approved the investigation, they could have uncovered Moussaoui’s plans as well as those of several other hijackers enrolled in flight schools. That Pakistani intelligence (ISI) transferred significant sums of money to Mohammed Atta in the days leading up to the 11th of September, some believe, is evidence of cooperation between the ISI, CIA and Al-Qaida.

It may also seem suspicious that George Bush has maintained that American authorities have stepped down the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the main suspect behind September 11th. General Richard Myers also stated that the war in Afghanistan was not about finding bin Laden. A former CIA agent, Gary Berntsen, has furthermore claimed that the Bush administration let bin Laden escape when he was cornered in a pocket of the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan in 2001. It is also known that American intelligence were fully aware of bin Laden’s whereabouts as early as July 2001 when he was treated for a kidney condition at an American hospital in Dubai, The United Arab Emirates. A few months later in September, he also received treatment in a military hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan under the surveillance of Pakistani intelligence.

THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES and witness accounts that contradict aspects of the official story has led some individuals and groups to search for alternative explanations for what happened on the 11th of September 2001. Consequently, a veritable jungle of theories about what really happened in the US five years ago has sprung up. The theories unfurl in a several, interconnected directions. A comparison of different opinions is presented in the book The New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush-Administration and 9/11 (2004), by David Ray Griffin, Professor of Theology and the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California. A key premise he presents in the book is that the responsibility for the attacks of September 11th can, to a large extent, be attributed to former members of the Neo-Conservative think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC), who are now key players in the Bush administration. In the document Rebuilding Amercia’s defenses: strategies, forces and resources for a New American Century (2000), written by PNACs members, it is claimed that:

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.

The title of Griffin’s book refers to PNAC’s statement the transformation of the American military necessitated “a new Pearl Harbor”. Griffin looks at this quotation in the light of the legal principle of the profit motive, or qui bono and concludes that September 11th was precisely the catalyst the Bush administration needed. For Griffin, it is therefore probable that the US orchestrated an incident of this type in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the curtailment of civil liberties in the US through the introduction of The Patriot Act. That they have chosen to invade countries in the Middle East he regards as simply an extension of the cooperation the US already had with the power elite in Saudi Arabia, the Pakistani Intelligence (ISI), the Taliban regime and regimes in Central Asia. And for Griffen, the agenda in the Middle East and Central Asia is quite clear: it is about controlling both the production and transportation of oil via pipes and tankers. Griffin does not point to any specific figures responsible for arranging the September 11th attacks. He states only that there are different opinions about this issue. For some, speculation about the identity of those responsible surrounds intelligence agencies like the NSA, FBI and CIA. Others believe it was the White House. A third group believe that is was individual figures like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, George Tenet and Donald Rumsfeld who were the real architects of the attacks. Alternatively, other possible combinations of perpetrators and organisations may have worked together. In his paper, “What is your ‘HOP’level?” Nicholas Levis categorises opinions on the attacks under four main headings:

a) The Official Story: That Osama bin Laden was responsible, that the planes were hijacked by 19 Muslim fundamentalists and that the White House did not receive any warning.

b) Incompetence Theory: Accepts the official history but blames the White House, FBI, CIA, NSA and others for not following up the many warnings. This was the line taken, with a great deal of cover-up and spin, in the 9/11 Commission’s report.

c) LIHOP (“Letting It Happen on Purpose”): There are a number of variations on this one. Is mainly about how factions within the American authorities and the private sector were aware of the hijackers’ plans but did nothing to stop them, since September 11th was in line with political objectives.

d) MIHOP (“Making It Happen on Purpose”): US authorities or private forces planned and carried out the attacks.

For the sceptics, the common denominator is their belief that at least one of the elements of the official presentation of September 11th is inaccurate. For those who subscribe to the radical MIHOP hypothesis, a key premise is that the Twin Towers – including Building 7 – collapsed as a result of controlled demolition with explosives; that it was an inside job. The technical/construction part of this claim has however been directly refuted in a report of approximately 10,000 pages written by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who claim that it was fuel from the passenger planes that disturbed the structure of the towers and that it was this that eventually caused them to collapse. NIST is unable to offer a satisfactory explanation as to why the third building collapsed, WTC 7, did so without having been struck by a plane. Professor of physics at Brigham Young University in Utah, Steven E. Jones, rejects NIST’s claims about the Twin Towers (see also Greig’s article). He relates, for example, how eyewitnesses had observed that steel from all three skyscrapers had melted, (in some cases, the steel was found glowing three weeks after the attack) and was twisted in a way that can only have been caused by what he describes as pre-positioned “cutter charges”. According to Jones, these charges consisted of thermate, HMX or RDX, and these are only used in explosives that are used in controlled demolitions. Another important point for Jones is that the fires in the buildings and the fuel from the passenger planes, (the maximum temperature for airplane fuel is 1000 degrees Celsius) did not produce sufficient heat to melt the steel – which would require temperatures of between 1550-1990 grader Celsius – within the 1-1½ hours it took the Twin Towers to collapse.. Jones’ claims are supported by the data engineer Jim Hoffman. After video and photo analysis of the events, Hoffman concludes that all three buildings fell almost symmetrically, at close to freefall speed and directly downwards onto their own foundations. According to Hoffman therefore, the speed of the collapse, the pulverisation of the concrete to a “milky” powder and the presence of horizontal dust clouds observed alongside WTC 7 are associates with the use of pre-positioned explosives in buildings.

MANY NO LONGER BELIEVE the official explanation, but are convinced that the Towers’ collapse was an inside job – either that the authorities “let it happen” or “made it happen”. Many who put their trust in other hypotheses, have joined forces with the umbrella organisation 9/11Truth. – an ad hoc organisation, formed to exist until the last unanswered question about September 11th has been answered. 9/11Truth has brought together a cross-section of society; members with different political allegiances manage the same organisations and lobby groups. This cooperation is mainly concentrated on meetings, demonstrations, the production of documentary films, Internet fora, online publications and conferences. In the UK, a local branch of 9/11Truth has been set up called JulySeventhTruth, so called as it seeks to piece together what happened during the terrorist attacks in London on the 7th of July 2005.

9/11Truth poses questions about why no fighter planes managed to intercept the four hijacked planes. 9/11Truth searches for the answer to whether or not the Bush administration is lying when it says they had no foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks. And as to whether intelligence agencies like the FBI, CIA and NSA deliberately failed to investigate leads and dismissed evidence that could have identified the hijackers before September 11th. 9/11Truth organised a major conference entitled “9/11 Revealing The Truth/ Reclaiming our Future” in Chicago between the 2nd and 4th of June. Every day, the media spokesman for NY9/11Truth, Les Jamieson is in southern Manhattan,where each Sunday he helps to arrange demonstrations at Ground Zero or seminars in St. Mark’s Church, made available by priest, Frank Morales. Jamieson made the following responses to questions from Le Monde Diplomatique:

– Does September 11th represent further justification to declare war?

– No. It happened before in Germany when the Reichstag was set on fire. Those responsible dressed Germans up to look like Communists and made it look as though Russians were setting fire to the German parliamentary building. The Germans did the same with Poland. They dressed prisoners to look like German soldiers and shot them. In this way, they made it look like Polish soldiers were shooting Germans – and used this as an excuse to invade Poland. And it has recently emerged that, here in the USA, the authorities planned a similarly staged operation, Operation Northwoods: A plan was devised in 1962 by the most senior-ranking military leader in the US. The plan was to arrange a terrorist attack inland, on the coast of Florida where Americans would be killed, a passenger plane shot down, a ship sunk – and all the blame would be laid on the Cubans. So this is nothing new, it’s been done before.

– How cynical can a government become?

– A lie precipitated the Vietnam War too – the events in the Tonkin Gulf. It was reported that Vietnamese torpedo boats had shot at American ships in the Tonkin Gulf. But these reports were fictitious. President Lyndon B. Johnson and foreign minister Robert McNamara exploited these reports to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in Congress – which was really a declaration of war. 50,000 Americans ended up dead, hundreds of thousands tragically affected. The herbicide Agent Orange was used to poison farms and land use. This is what happens when governments and the power elite orchestrate wars. There really is a level of evil, a loathing of humanity. That’s why Henry Kissinger said once about the war between Iraq and Iran: “I hope they kill each other,” or: “Oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs.”

– Is it similarly possible to suggest that there could have been a secret group connected to the government, a “state within a state,” that planned and brought about September 11th?

– Yes. One has to remember that there are private groups of agents, private armies that exist outside Congress’ field of vision. They carry out covert operations deep inside the CIA, and have severed all contact with the American government, who for their part, have no knowledge about what is going on. This has been happening since the 50’s. When Dwight Eisenhower left his presidency he said that one should be vigilant over the overarching control of the Military-Industrial Complex. To this day, we still have a shadow government, an invisible government and we believe this one works together with elements within the intelligence agencies MI5, MI6 and perhaps Mossad. MI5 and the CIA definitely work together in translating the agenda for the international power elite.

– Are you not afraid of being labelled a conspiracy theorist?

– The term “Conspiracy Theory” must also be understood as a strategy of the mass media and individuals within the power elite to sew seeds of doubt about this kind of information. The fact is that, on the contrary, there are a range of examples of real conspiracies by the authorities. For example, the Iran-Contras affair was a result of a huge conspiracy that enabled the sale of narcotics to buy weapons for the Contras. And we have the BCCI scandal in 1991 – a massive banking scandal. There’s also the vote in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. If one studies these things, mammoth conspiracies can be uncovered. What about all the lies that led to the invasion of Iraq? We were told that weapons of mass destruction definitely existed and that Saddam tried to buy “yellow cake” from Nigeria. It was all lies and deception. These kinds of events need a conspiracy! The American government’s official version of what happened on September 11th is a scandalous conspiracy theory; it’s not to be believed! In our organisation we are detectives and investigators. We put together a theory and are actually extremely stringent in finding the best possible analysis.

The American government’s official version of what happened on September 11th is a scandalous conspiracy theory; it’s not to be believed!

Les Jamieson

JAMIESON IS NOT THE ONLY ONE subscribing to such theories. The participation of many community groups and service personnel connected to 9/11Truth has generated a trail of research and articles. A group called Scholars for 911Truth describes itself as ”..a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11. It was established by philosophy professor James H. Fetzer and professor of physics Steven E. Jones – the movement’s foremost expert on the collapse of the Twin Towers. The latter’s work will be published in September, a contribution to the anthology 9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006). In the book, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, there is input also from Ola Tunander, professor at the PRIO – the International Peace Research Institute Oslo with the article “The War on Terror and Pax Americana” (see under).

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed wrote one of the first books published to question the official version of September 11th – The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11th, 2001 (2002). It expresses profound criticism of American foreign policy, both leading up to and subsequent to 9/11.

Paul Thompson, from Scholars for 9/11Truth, is the author of The Terror Timeline, A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11 and America’s Response. This is a comprehensive collection of news articles about the terrorist attacks on the 11th of September 2001. Thompson works at the Center for Cooperative Research. Another much-talked about member of Scholars for 9/11Truth is David Ray Griffin. In addition to books on theology, religion and philosophy, he wrote The New Pearl Harbour (2004) and 9/11 Commission Omissions and Distortions (2005). In the latter, Griffin highlights 115 areas where the 9/11 Commission’s report failed to evaluate important evidence or deduced fundamentally flawed conclusions from existing evidence. Griffin is also a dynamic force behind the organisation MUJCA-net – a discussion forum for Christians, Jews, Muslims and other believers who are sceptical of the official explanation for September 11th. The head of the organisation is the intellectual, doctor and imam Faiz Khan, who works at a Jewish hospital in New York. In the essay The Paralysis of Discourse; The Incompetence of Academia, and The Need for an Accurate Diagnosis, he argues that September 11th precipitated a simplification of language and ideas about what it means to be Muslim and Arab – especially when Muslims the world over are to be held responsible for actions a small minority of terrorists have carried out. Khan believes the hijackers were most probably “fake” Muslims, i.e. that they were not Muslim in their beliefs in the way that American foreign policy is American. That the blame for the terrorist attacks is attributed to something as diffuse as a “military Islamic network,” he believes, is tantamount to an abdication of responsibility by the US, since the latter worked in tandem with the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) and Saudi-Arabia to build those networks up.

(c) Diplo