9/11: allowed to happen

given technical assistance to make sure it happened,
but some claims of complicity are not true

September 11 is a political Rorschach Test. Most perspectives contain pieces of truth but are wrong.

The official story that there are Muslims who want to attack the US has some truth but ignores how that anger is a reaction to US intervention in the Middle East. The 9/11 Commission claimed the feds were too incompetent to "connect the dots" and creating a surveillance society is needed to prevent a repeat attack.

Many liberals / leftists / progressives highlight "blowback" -- the attackers were motivated by revenge for US policies. But blowback alone does not explain how the attacks were allowed to happen. US allies provided specific warnings about who, what, where and when. The FBI agents who tried to stop the attacks were blocked by headquarters, which was obstruction, not incompetence.

The 9/11 truth movement correctly says there was a deliberate conspiracy but their most popular claims contain discrediting disinformation. Mixing true conclusions with false evidence -- conspiracies to make fake claims of conspiracy -- is an effective way to cover up conspiracy.

The media correctly state that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, thermite isn't used to demolish buildings and the firefighters watched the twin towers and Building 7 bulge and lean before they fell down. They ignore the suppressed warnings, the best evidence of complicity.

Neither the media nor some of the conspiracy crowd highlight the CIA's "plane into building" exercise and the NORAD war games that morning -- the real failure to connect the dots.

 

 

 


download this graphic as a PDF file

Official Story

The official 9/11 coverup commission promotes the lie that 9/11 was a surprise attack, and turning the country into a police state will prevent a repeat.

Incompetence

The media, both political parties in Washington and even most of the liberal opposition say that incompetence was the reason that 9/11 was not stopped. While government operations are not perfect, incompetence cannot explain the suppression of efforts to prevent the attacks.

Blowback

Most Bush critics argue 9/11 was blowback - revenge for US policies in the Middle East. While there are many people motivated to retaliate for US foreign policies, the war games on 9/11 were not coordinated by Muslims.

Foreknowledge

Technical Assistance

  • Air Force / NORAD war games that confused the air defenses on 9/11
  • plane into building exercise (CIA and Nat’l Recon. Office)
  • fighter planes moved out of region, making interception impossible
  • fake blips on radars diverted interception efforts

Maybe

remote control of the four Boeings - the “hijacking the hijackers” theory. the technology is not theoretical and best explains how Flight 77 was steered into the Pentagon’s mostly empty sector - it is likely, but not provable, that the Boeing “auto-land” uninterruptable autopilot was used on 9/11. the “black boxes” from all four planes were recovered, which would refute or confirm this claim

Maybe Not

There are numerous claims that the twin towers were intentionally demolished by the Bush administration, but the method of destruction was allowing (and possibly steering) Flight 11 and Flight 175 to crash into the buildings. The sober and fantastical claims for explosives, thermite, and even exotic unconventional weapons are not supported by peer reviewed, independently verifiable investigations and are an enormous distraction from solid evidence. The core of the case for complicity has nothing to do with the collapses. Complicity is completely provable without touching the issue of the twin towes or even WTC 7.

Disinformation

9/11 was the psychological pretext used to get the Wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly Iran started. While it is a relief to finally see much of the country turn against the War on Iraq, there has been very little overt discussion of this pretext, or what the motivations were to start the illegal, unnecessary, destabilizing wars. While the full details remain obscure, it is documented beyond any reasonable doubt that the administration was repeatedly warned (by Britain, France, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Germany, Russia and other countries) that 9/11 was about to happen and at least five FBI investigations were squashed to make sure the attacks were not stopped. It is also very well documented that the administration knew the world was about to reach "Peak Oil" and that soon demand for petroleum would start to outstrip supplies. Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force examined maps of Middle East oil fields in the months before 9/11 and the start of the alleged "War on Terror" - so it seems reasonable to conclude that 9/11 was desired in order to allow the seizure of Iraqi oil fields, the second largest on the planet.

September 11 was allowed and assisted engineered to create the psychological trigger to seize the Earth's diminishing oil supplies (the real reason behind the Iraq war) and to impose a "neo-feudalist" Homeland Security police state to suppress dissent.

The best list of "unanswered questions" about 9/11 is from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, which includes the widows who forced through the creation of the (severely flawed) official 9/11 commission. Their list is posted at their website -- www.911independentcommission.org -- and it is an excellent reference for any further investigation of these important issues. It should not be surprising that the official Commission praised the widows for their tenacity and then ignored almost all of their questions.

In addition, the Complete 9/11 Timeline at www.historycommons.org is the most detailed, careful compilation of evidence (sourced from the mass media and direct testimony), and should be required reading for anyone wondering why some people question the official story. The 9/11 families and the "Timeline" are profiled in a 2006 movie "9/11: Press for Truth" which is an excellent introduction to these topics. The film does not address every issue, but it carefully sticks to facts that are solidly documented, which is the best strategy for success.


The Archeology of 9/11: unearthing the evidence

Sifting through the volumes of 9/11 evidence is analogous to archeology. Only some of the evidence for the distant ancestors of all living beings has been unearthed and catalogued. However, the fact that the currently known fossil record is incomplete does not prevent science from attempting to determine patterns and draw tentative conclusions about the history of life on Earth, knowing that additional evidence is likely to alter the story as we gain further knowledge. The early days of archeology saw spectacular forgeries "revealed" by unscrupulous advocates of particular theories, which parallels current efforts to distract and discredit 9/11 skeptics with disinformation. It is unlikely that any story of 9/11 is completely true, and hopefully enough of the documentation will be made public in the years to come - and enough whistleblowers step forward - so that historians will be able to more fully explain what happened to the United States of America.

Whatever details future archeologists of truth will unearth are unlikely to discredit the Reichstag Fire paradigm for understanding 9/11 - they merely will add to our understanding of the details of how the "Reichstag" was burned. The real issue is to explain why the attacks were permitted.

 

For most North Americans, 9/11 is a "cut and dried" story - evil Arab terrorists attacked the US, there's nothing more to learn. At worst, in many people's minds, there was an "intelligence failure" of missed warnings that need to be addressed to prevent a repeat (the excuse for the new Homeland Security behemoth). However, there are lots of "unanswered questions" that suggest a much different story:

- a flight school drop out managed to execute a high speed, high G fighter pilot maneuver into the nearly empty, under reconstruction part of the Pentagon despite the refusal to rent him a single engine plane the previous month (they said he had no flying skills),

- that the hijackers left behind an Arabic language flight manual in their rental car in Boston (similar to evidence planted to incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin despite the physical impossibility of the claim that he was the "lone gunman")

- The BBC reported that several of the alleged hijackers were still alive, protesting their innocence and saying that their identities were stolen.

- why the "black boxes" couldn't be found from the planes yet a paper passport of a hijacker somehow survived the fireballs and was found on the streets of lower manhattan

- why Bush thought that reading to second graders was more important for him than to respond to the alleged surprise attacks (at 9:05 am on 9/11/2001)

- why was the CIA was running a simulation of a plane hitting the National Reconnaissance Office HQ (near Dulles) on 9/11

- why numerous warnings from allied governments were supposedly ignored (at least a dozen countries, possibly more, warned the US that 9/11 was coming)

- the absolute failure to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion, despite decades of well-established military and FAA procedures. The fact that Bush stayed in a second grade classroom reading about a "Girl and her pet goat" instead of cancelling the event and pretending to be commander-in-chief is damning evidence of prior knowledge by Bush, his staff, the secret service and the military hierarchy (or at least a faction of it). http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html

- why the General in charge of Air Defense received a PROMOTION to run the "domestic" use of the US military (the "Northern Command," established October 2002)

- why the planes that eventually were scrambled traveled much, much slower than they are capable of traveling, especially in an emergency (ie. after the second tower was hit but before the Pentagon)

- why the part of the Pentagon that was hit was the only part that had almost no one in it, and the part that had been recently strengthened against such an attack

- why the CEO of Fiduciary (in the towers) just happened to be at a breakfast "fundraiser" sponsored by Warren Buffett at Offutt AFB (strange place for a charity fundraiser) on 9/11, the same base that Bush went to in the afternoon

- On the morning of 9/11, Sen. Graham met with the head of Pakistan's ISI (their CIA), who is alleged to have sent $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the alleged leader of the alleged terrorists ("alleged" because several of those names were identity thefts - the people named are still alive, according to the BBC and several other media sources).

- why Bush showed no reaction when told of the attacks, and kept reading to second graders (and why his aide, Andrew Card, didn't even wait to ask for a reply from the "President")

- why Bush had anti-aircraft missiles set up around Genoa, Italy during the July 2001 G-8 summit (due to concerns about a 9-11 type attack) but not around the Capitol despite numerous warnings that 9-11 was coming

- long standing ties between the CIA, Pakistan's ISI, the Saudis, al-Qaeda, and between the Bush and Bin Laden families

- the anthrax attacks traced back to Fort Detrick - www.oilempire.us/anthrax.html

- repeated pattern of manufactured pretexts for galvanizing support for imperial wars - the blowing up of the Maine (1898), Pearl Harbor (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Gulf of Tonkin (1964), Operation Northwoods (1962 Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US citizens to justify invasion of Cuba), the encouragement of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait (1990), the first WTC attack in 1993 (which the FBI knew about in advance), Oklahoma City in 1995 (in which there was also "prior knowledge" at the very least) - www.oilempire.us/parallels.html

- why the director of the "commission" to investigate 9/11 is a business partner of Osama bin Laden's brother in law (Gov Thomas Kean, formerly of New Jersey, is a director of Amerada Hess, which is invested in the Saudi consortium to build the fabled pipeline across Afghanistan ...) Even Fortune magazine has picked up on that.

- why the Bush regime interfered with the investigation of al-Qaeda before 9/11, something that FBI whistleblowers, journalist Greg Palast and FBI counterterrorism director John O'Neill charged.

 


www.politicalassassinations.com/2013/11/dont-believe-what-jack-tunheim-has-to-say-about-the-jfk-assassination/

Don’t Believe What Jack Tunheim Has To Say About the JFK Assassination
November 29, 2013

Don’t Believe What Jack Tunheim Has To Say About the JFK Assassination
by Douglas P. Horne, former Chief Analyst for Military Records, ARRB
insidethearrb blog
November 28th, 23:45
http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2013/11/28/

.... If you study the evidence yourself, you will find that the Kennedy assassination is like a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle for which 250 pieces have been thrown away, and 250 pieces from the wrong picture puzzle have been substituted, in an attempt to intentionally confuse everyone. The real reason the majority of the evidence in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy does not come together, is because of fraud in the evidence. ....

The state of the evidence in the JFK assassination today is so overwhelmingly supportive of a conspiracy, and a massive U.S. government cover-up, that anyone who denies this is the moral equivalent of a Holocaust Denier. Yes, that’s right, I actually said that. In fact, the evidence of a conspiracy in John F. Kennedy’s assassination is surely just as robust as the overwhelming evidence that the Nazis committed the Holocaust. Denying a conspiracy in JFK’s assassination is just as outrageous as denying that the Holocaust actually happened.

Continuing this analogy, if the German people can face up to the Holocaust, and admit that it happened, and take corrective action within their society to prevent it from happening again, then why can’t members of the establishment elite in America (academics, members of the mainstream media, and government officials) admit the truth about JFK’s assassination 50 years ago, and prevent a recurrence by outing the truth and intensively studying how the crime truly occurred, and by revealing how our institutions all failed us in 1963 and 1964? That would be a lot more beneficial and useful than mouthing platitudes every November. The more they continue to do this, the more they corrode our trust in government.


 

9/11 Disinformation

Unfortunately, there is a campaign to persuade skeptics that the plane crashes were faked and other debunked, speculative and even ridiculous claims, which makes the documented facts much more difficult to discern. While the "Timeline" documents how at least 15 countries provided warnings to the Bush administration - some of them extremely specific about what, when, how -- the "wilder" claims about alleged lack of plane crashes and demolition theories gather most of the media attention. There are a number of hoaxes and speculations that allegedly "prove" 9/11 complicity yet lack evidence that is documented beyond websites referencing each other. Some of the false claims have been repeatedly debunked by 9/11 truth activists but that doesn't prevent their continued dissemination. Focusing on the core issues of how efforts to stop the attacks were thwarted and how standard operating procedures were not followed that morning avoids most of this problem.

There is a legitimate need for the country to understand the motive: why 9/11 was allowed to happen to enable the Iraq war (part of a larger effort to control the Middle East oil fields as the world passes the point of Peak Oil). Please take a small amount of time to do a little homework to sift through the claims to understand the documentation for them. The best documentation is not provided in video clips of uncertain origin or speculation bounced from website to website.

9/11: Bush’s Achilles Heel

The main reason Bush stayed in the White House after 9/11 is that most citizens thought he responded well to the attacks, at least that was the initial perception. The film "Fahrenheit 9/11" was hated by the Bush administration because it touched on the deeper, dangerous issues that could topple the regime. The images of Bush reading "My Pet Goat" while the towers burned raises the question why Bush was not engaged as Commander-in-Chief, summoning the air defenses to stop the attacks. And if Bush wasn’t in charge, who was?

 

Cheney’s crime

A book that was published during the 2004 election campaign provides credible evidence that Vice President Richard Cheney, the man behind the throne, was in charge of numerous military and intelligence "war games" on 9/11. "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert, accuses Cheney with coordinating "war game" exercises that morning that made the attacks possible. One of these was a "plane into building scenario" at the National Reconnaissance Office near Dulles Airport, Virginia (which runs US spy satellites). NORAD, the Air Force division in charge of air defense, was running multiple exercises, including live fly simulations, and radar “injects” (fake blips) that confused air traffic controllers.

While Ruppert’s work has been ridiculed by the liberal "alternative" media and ultra-conspiracy theorists (some of whom promote disinformation claims that discredit real investigations), no one has made a substantial challenge to the information about the role of the war games in ensuring that the Air Force would not be able to stop 9/11.

A Zogby poll of New York City residents in August 2004 found that half thought Bush Knew about 9/11 in advance. Many leading Democrats privately think this, yet are scared to publicly say it -- even though it is probably the only scandal that could lead to impeachment of Bush and Cheney. (The webmaster of oilempire.us was once privately told by a U.S. Senator that he knew Cheney ran wargames in the basement of the White House during the attacks. Other Democratic Party officials have also privately acknowledged to this writer that they know these facts.)

 

Follow the Money

On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to admit that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion (not billion) in spending. While this story is still on CBS’s website, events the next day drowned out the coverage of this amazing scandal. At that time, the Pentagon’s Comptroller (in charge of the money), was Mr. Dov Zakheim, a member of the "Project for a New American Century." Before he was put in charge of the Pentagon’s budget, Mr. Zakheim was with a defense contractor that makes remote control guidance systems for planes.

 

 

Best Evidence of 9/11 Complicity

a short guide to some of the best evidence

"Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for some data.' The former will win every time."
-- Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006

 

  • the archeology of 9/11 evidence
  • Best explanation of why it was allowed (and assisted) - to provide pretext for grabbing the Middle East oil fields as we reach Peak Oil, and to enable a global surveillance society
  • Best documented evidence - suppressed warnings (from FBI investigation of flight schools and from US allies warning 9/11 was imminent), failure to follow standard operating procedure during the attacks, Air Force and intelligence wargames on 9/11
  • Best theory of how 9/11 happened - the hijackers were themselves hijacked via remote control
  • Best historical precedent - the Reichstag Fire (February 27, 1933)
  • Best evidence of remote control to steer the four planes - Flight 77 was steered into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon
  • Best "physical evidence" - Flight 77
  • Best areas for further investigation (an unlikely scenario) - Black Boxes from all four planes would confirm or reject remote control theory, Able Danger intelligence program
  • Best politician who dared to ask inconvenient questions - Rep. Cynthia McKinney
  • Best questions from 9/11 family members - 911independentcommission.org
  • Best books about 9/11 (Crossing the Rubicon, The Terror Timeline, The War on Truth)
  • Best movies about 9/11 (Truth and Lies of 9/11, Denial Stops Here, 9/11 Citizens Commission)
  • Best 9/11 truth websites
    (historycommons.org, fromthewilderness.com, oilempire.us, ratical.org)
  • Best 9/11 "blog" (web-log) - Rigorous Intuition rigint.blogspot.com
  • Best research guides - Complete 9/11 Timeline, From the Wilderness
  • Best analysis of al-Qaeda's role in 9/11
  • Best documentation of Pakistan's involvement in 9/11
  • Best evidence that Flight 93 was shot down in Pennsylvania - news articles and eyewitness accounts archived at flight93crash.com
  • Best 9/11 whistleblowers (most credible): FBI agents blocked from investigating the flight schools before 9/11, Able Danger military intel agents tracking the hijackers before 9/11, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, among others
  • Best 9/11 truth propaganda - Deception Dollars
  • Best analyses of "left gatekeepers" who pretend 9/11 was a surprise attack
  • Best smears in the media against 9/11 truth (focus on "no plane" and similar untrue claims while ignoring wargames and other credible claims)
  • Best smear against this website (anonymous slur that it's funded by Carlyle Group - in response for pointing out that not all claims of complicity are true)
  • Best hoax (most effective): Rumsfeld's "Pentagon missile" hoax is the most important disinformation masquerading as 9/11 truth
  • Best examples of creative writing generating hoaxes (Hollywood helping the government?): "nukes blew up the towers," "the passengers all landed in Cleveland and were killed by government agents," "the plane that hit the South Tower was firing missiles at the building before impact"

 


www.unknownnews.net/cdd061002.html
SMOKING GUN feedback:
Where Was G.W. Bush on the Morning of Sept. 11?
by Cheryl Seal, Monday, June 10, 2002

I don't like to build my case on ruminations and speculations, but on the available best evidence, from which I draw the most likely conclusion, applying the rather unglamorous but time-honored technique called the "scientific method." Formulate a hypothesis based on the evidence, then test that hypothesis (in this case using questions).

To get caught up into the "he said she said" (what Dan Rather said Myers said Bush said etc.) is to get involved in chasing your tail — and everyone else's! History tells us that in a crisis like this, the scramble to cover butts, even when there HASN'T been a conspiracy involved, ususally results in contradictory, every-changing stories. This is true from sorting out who broke the cookie jar in the kitchen to who was caught with their hand in the till at Enron...everyone will scramble to hit on a story that plays well. So, to avoid this quagmire, the best approach is to go with the most concrete evidence and know facts.. Known fact: NORAD called by the FAA because it is the established protocol in such a case (and, as one of my readers suggested, NORAD would probably have known of the planes even before then, based on their radar data). In keeping with protocol, NORAD would have required a response from Bush. Now just applying common sense (another unglamorous habit of mine), here's what you get:

1. If this was indeed a conspiracy involving those in high places, then the details of NORAD's response, which would become a matter of public record, now or in the future, would have been accounted for in advance by the conspirators.

2. When the stakes are as high as the ones involved on 9/11, a conspirator would take NO CHANCES on doing anything that might seem to implicate themselves. By NOT CALLING ANY PLANES, Bush et al would be implicating themselves big time. However, by delaying the call for a scramble and not calling for evacuations, they would easily be able to plead later their decisions were based on not having any idea the danger was of the scope it proved to be. This is, in fact, what the Bush folks have tried to do. If NO PLANES had been called in at all, there are too many "peripheral" people in the chain of communications, from the FAA to NORAD to Bush that would have been outraged and spoken out. A delayed call on the other hand would have been initially seen as "tragic bad luck" and later as too ambiguous to base an accusation on. ....

I feel that people cannot have an entire barrel of facts and red herrings dumped in their laps and expect to sort it all out...the tendency is to throw up their hands in despair, confusion and frustration. Which is just what Bush and Co. would like everyone to do. What I tried to do was to sort through and identify the most tangible facts, then present these, along with all the factual connections between people, places and things, then allow people to ponder it for themselves. I did not set out to "sell" a "conspiracy theory," but if the facts presented happen scream conspiracy, that message will be heard loud and clear. One thing I have learned is that people 1. are generally quicker on the uptake than the media gives them credit for, and 2. generally recognize the truth when they see it plainly presented. That is why the corporate powers that be and their pals in the mainstream media work very hard to avoid presenting important facts plainly and work even harder to disguise the truth.


www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1270/page/2

from Nicholas Levis:

Griffin = 1000 truth movement activists?

No.

Competent research and valid argument > all of us.

Need for justice > all of us.

We must get past leaders and arguments over the plausibility of their various "how" hypotheses, and back to the original, political fight for disclosure around the key questions of what happened and why, official accountability, and just treatment of the the perpetrators and victims of crime.

  • AWOL command-chain reaction suggesting coordinated facilitation or desire for self protection. Everyone should know the names: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, Winfield, Mies, Eberhardt.
  • Air defense response anomaly, false timelines, cover-up and wargames disclosure. Epic "failures" -- followed by promotions and budget increases!
  • Foreknowledge - who knew what, and more importantly: where did it come from? Foreign agencies, financial trail, variety of possible insider deals.
  • Surveillance and obstruction prior - who suppressed information and shut down investigations into the alleged hijackers (patsies or otherwise, it barely matters: another distraction!) and why? Hamburg cell surveillance, Malaysia surveillance, Able Danger, agency recruitment attempts and connections, FBI informants linked to alleged hijackers, Wilshire, Frasca-Bowman-Maltbie, etc. etc.
  • Obstruction after (evidence withholding and destruction, FAA tapes, black boxes, much more), commission cover-ups and omissions. Fraudulence of reports -- as now allowed by the former Commissioners themselves. Use of "confessions" under torture from possible imposters to construct the entire main plot of the 9/11 Com Report.
  • Shanksville crash anomalies (meaning: time of crash change, evidence of shootdown).
  • History of US and other allied-agency links to "al-Qaeda." Use of "al Qaeda" in effecting policy. All that Ali Mohamed / Emad Saleem / Saeed Sheikh stuff.

The above all implicate known names including many officials in differing capacities from negligence through obstruction and facilitation to perpetration. Put some who were not the direct planners under sufficient pressure, the facade cracks and the rest of the story will be exposed.

The bodies of evidence for the above are likeliest to meet probable cause standard for legal action against specific persons, in turn opening up the rest. (Demolitions argument does not do that!)

The following two lead to context and creating plausibility:

  • History of precedents and other criminality by government.
  • Rumsfeld, Cheney, old Bush mob coming back to power, PNAC and perception of imperial decline, CoG planning, intent and preparation to invade Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11.

These will be the focuses when you guys wake up in the real America of today (where "9/11 conspiracy" has become a part of the subcultural mosaic, just another spectacle) and decide being right doesn't matter: Winning justice does. Play to win.

Too late? Maybe. 2009 should be an interesting year.

 

from 2005: there is not much "new" 9/11 evidence

2004 was a year with a lot of new revelations about how 9/11 was perpetrated.
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/12/ten-things-we-learned-in-2004-about.html
is a great summary of this information.

Now that Michael Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" and Paul Thompson's book "The Terror Timeline" are in print, along with some other excellent reports, it is unlikely there will be any new authentic claims of complicity. Virtually all of the claims of "new 9/11 evidence" since the 2004 "election" have either been fake, or real claims that were exposed long ago sandwiched in between nonsense. Simple summaries that are easy to digest and that avoid the BS claims are needed more -- and woven into understanding the broader perspective of the Peak Oil wars. The "research" time for 9/11 truth is over - and the only way forward for the 9/11 truth movement likely to accomplish more than we already have is to separate the real material from the bogus stuff. There has been some authentic new information collected about additional war games on 9/11 (in addition to those identified in "Rubicon") but they do not alter the basic political understanding of "means, motive and opportunity" identified by Ruppert. (There has also been a variety of fake claims about war games posted on the web, easily found through google.com and other search engines, which makes it harder for people to differentiate real evidence from distracting chaff.)

There were two "new" pieces of evidence in summer 2005 - Paul Thompson's new, expanded list of 9/11 war game exercises, and the information about the "Able Danger" military program that was tracking Mohammed Atta before 9/11. The Cooperative Research website is the best compilation of this excellent evidence. Neither of these revelations change the paradigm for understanding 9/11, since the precise number of 9/11 war games does not alter this paradigm, and mainstream sources have already disclosed that several of the hijackers supposedly received training on US military bases.

[note: Cooperative Research is now History Commons.]

 

the difference between Bush lies on Iraq and 9/11

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070103_beyond_bush_1.html
BEYOND BUSH by Michael Ruppert July 1, 2003

There is only one difference between the evidence showing the Bush administration's criminal culpability in and foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, and the evidence showing that the administration deceived the American public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Both sets of evidence are thoroughly documented. They are irrefutable and based upon government records and official statements and actions shown to be false, misleading or dishonest. And both sets of evidence are unimpeachable. The difference is that the evidence showing the Iraqi deception is being seriously and widely investigated by the mainstream press, and actively by an ever-increasing number of elected representatives. That's it.

 

Considerations for the "Court of Public Opinion"

http://holocaust-history.org/irvings-war/can-of-worms.shtml

At West Point the cadets are told that amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. The same is true in litigation, especially civil litigation. Amateurs natter on about "burden of proof," professionals focus on the "theory of the case."

In the terms of modern civil litigation "burden of proof" has been reduced to a technical question which has little practical importance to the outcome of the trial. The main practical importance of issues relating to the burden of proof is in criminal litigation where the defense is often that the state has failed to meet its burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil litigation, this is not a winning strategy. Civil litigation is won or lost on who can persuade the trier of fact - a jury or a judge - that his case is the stronger. Indeed having the burden of proof is often an advantage as it gives a plaintiff the first shot at the minds of the jury. This can be a distinct advantage in practice. The experts agree that the best way to meet the "burden of persuasion" necessary to win a case is to formulate a theory of the case and to plan trial strategy around it. [emphasis added]

 

Best 9/11 evidence

Best explanation of why 9/11 was allowed (and assisted)

9/11 was allowed to happen (and given technical assistance to make sure it happened) as part of a covert plan to prepare the US empire for Peak Oil. 9/11 provided the excuse for the war to seize the Iraqi oil fields (part of a larger scheme to dominate the remaining oil supplies). 9/11 also enabled passage of the USA Patriot Act and other repressive policies that are part of the long-planned Homeland Security surveillance society. 9/11 was the pretext for the "War on Terror," which its supporters claim is a "war that will not end in our lifetime." The neo-conservatives call this conflict World War IV.

 

Best documented evidence

The failure to follow standard operating procedures (suppressed warnings, blocked investigations, Bush reading "the Pet Goat" instead of being Commander-in-Chief, the Air Force failure to intercept hijacked jets)

Wargames simulating the actual events at the same time as actual events that seem to have confused the air defenses.

WHERE Flight 77 hit - the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector
WHAT hit the Pentagon - Flight 77, probably electronically hijacked
HOW the air defenses did not protect the Pentagon, even after the towers had been hit
WHO scheduled multiple war game exercises on 9/11, including a "plane into building" scenario
WHY 9/11 was allowed to happen (and given technical assistance): Peak Oil and Homeland Security

Put Options that bet on the stock values of American and United airlines in the days before the attacks (betting the prices would drop).

Efforts by FBI management to interfere with FBI investigations into the flight schools.

 

Best theory of how 9/11 happened

The most likely scenario, which fits the known evidence, is "hijack the hijackers with remote control."i

In this view, the hijackers were allowed to finish their preparations, board the planes, hijack the controls but then remote control technology was used to ensure that the planes not only completed their missions but also did not strike targets that would have caused even more damage. Flight 11, the first hijacked plane, flew over Indian Point nuclear power station, just north of New York City (an attack there would have been much, much worse than 9/11). And if Flight 77 had hit any other part of the Pentagon, thousands of people could have been killed. This hybrid scenario is speculative, but remote control flight technology is commercially available. One of the manufacturers of this equipment is System Planning corporation, whose former director, Dov Zakheim, was a signer of the "PNAC" report stating a New Pearl Harbor would enable their global domination goals. Mr Zakheim was Comptroller of the Pentagon from 2001 through early 2004 (in charge of the money).ng the Hijackers

 

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/10/skinny-on-osama.html
I've long thought that if we assume a decision had been taken to let it happen, then we should expect that measures were be taken to ensure it happened precisely as desired, and spectacularly so. With so much at stake, nothing would be left to the skill and luck of the 19 hijackers. Flight 77's 270 degree turn to hit the ground floor of the virtually unoccupied side of the Pentagon, while supposedly piloted by the grossly incompetent Hani Hanjour, is the most striking example. The recent report that the WTC black boxes were recovered after all, is suggestive of the same: that the data conflicted somehow with the received fiction. Perhaps the hijackers were themselves hijacked.

from Nicholas Levis, summeroftruth.org:
"Staging 9/11 as an inside job is going to work best (in fact, is likely to work only) if there actually exists an active network of anti-American terrorists who are deeply committed to killing Americans in response to U.S. policy. In other words, those who would blame Qaeda need a (relatively) real Qaeda. A partly-real enemy is much better than an entirely fabricated one.
"The most robust way for insider masterminds to stage 9/11 and get away with it is to arrange for their agents to infiltrate among "real foreign terrorists." Let them come up with their own plots (or plant plots among them), choose a plot that will produce the results desired by the masterminds, and see that through to fruition. At some point, the masterminds and their agents will hijack the plot from the would-be hijackers, to make sure it happens. You won't risk the whole game on the ability of amateurs to get away with it, you will help them along or even replace them (with a remote control hijacking, for example). But it's best to have "real terrorists" in play. They leave a more solid trail of evidence internationally. Cops and agents and academics of two dozen countries can honestly confirm the existence of an al-Qaeda network. That way there is less need to initiate outside observers into the plot and you don't have to hope they are all stupid, as they would have to be to fall for a complete fabrication of "Qaeda." (Qaeda at this point is just a term of convenience for the Islamist extremist networks.)
"The best result would be for a whole bunch of Islamist extremists running around believing that their crew pulled off 9/11 all by themselves (how inspiring for them!). The patsies should believe they actually did it. This was the case with the Reichstag Fire and Marinus van der Lubbe: the patsy believed he had done it."

 

Best evidence for remote control planes

Some coincidence theorists claim that it was a one-in-five chance that the nearly empty part of the Pentagon was hit, even though the flight maneuvers were world class precision flying and it is impossible to believe that a terrorist intent on causing as much damage as possible would have flown around the Pentagon to ensure that the one area with the fewest victims would be hit.

It is likely, but unprovable, that some form of remote control technology was used to steer Flight 77 into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed part of the Pentagon. Even an expert pilot substituted for flight school dropout and alleged terrorist Hani Hanjour would not have made the amazing flight pattern to minimize casualties on the ground by hitting the nearly empty part of the Pentagon.

The data on the black boxes (supposedly found from all four planes) would refute or confirm the remote control hypothesis, but this information has not been made public. Few 9/11 "truth" activists have focused their attention on this secret data, preferring instead to desire the videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (which would not tell us anything we don't already know).

 

Best historical precedent

The 1933 Reichstag Fire, which was allowed to happen (the lone arsonist had been overheard boasting that he wanted to burn the building) and given technical assistance (SS goons were in the basement with barrels of fuel while the patsy was upstairs trying to set fires) to make sure it happened.

The 1941 Pearl Harbor attack was allowed to happen to galvanize public opinion to support war, but President Roosevelt did not need to provide technical assistance to the Japanese (they could find Hawaii without any assistance). Pearl Harbor did not involve a "stand down" -- merely a refusal to share critical intelligence with Army and Navy commanders in Hawaii who would have taken defensive measures if they knew the attacks were imminent.

Other historical precedents (similar but not exactly the same) are described at www.oilempire.us/parallels.html

 

Best "physical evidence" (for remote control)

Flight 77 was steered into the mostly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector of the Pentagon. This fact is accepted by the mainstream media - but it is rarely focused upon. It is strong evidence (but not proof) that some form of remote control was used to ensure that the planes caused enough havoc and destruction for the "shock and awe" but not uncontrollable damage (if Flight 77 had hit any other part of the Pentagon, the recovery would have been far more difficult).

 

Best areas for further investigation (an unlikely scenario)

Able Danger - military intelligence program that was tracking the hijackers before 9/11. The Center for Cooperative Research has the best public database about this scandal.

The data on the "black boxes" (which were supposedly recovered from all four planes) would refute or confirm the remote control theory.

 

Best politician who dared to ask inconvenient questions

Many politicians privately know the truths about 9/11, but only one in Congress who dared to raise these concerns was Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia).

In July 2006, McKinney won slightly less than a majority in the Democratic Party primary, and in August was defeated by her Democratic opponent in the runoff primary. These elections were conducted with touchscreen voting machines that can easily be hacked. The election outcome was also influenced by a nasty media barrage smearing McKinney while ignoring the substance of the evidence on the issues she exposed. Both political parties joined forces to ensure she was removed from Congress. One of her final acts was to introduce an impeachment resolution against Bush and Cheney, no other members of the House of Representative chose to support it, although Dennis Kucinich introduced his own impeachment resolution (which no other member supported).

 

 

Best 9/11 "blog" (web-log)

Rigorous Intuition - http://rigint.blogspot.com
written by Jeff Wells (in Toronto, Canada)

 

Best research guides

The Complete 9/11 Timeline from the Center for Cooperative Research - now History Commons

From the Wilderness (no longer updated, but the archives are still on-line and required reading for any serious scholar of 9/11)

 

Best analysis of al-Qaeda's role in 9/11

"Peeling the Onion," written by an intelligence insider on the evening of 9/11/2001 - archived at www.oilempire.us/qaeda.html

 

Best documentation of Pakistan's involvement in 9/11

The Complete 9/11 Timeline from the Center for Cooperative Research has a good section about Pakistan's roles.

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html
Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration?
The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks
by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal
Posted at globalresearch.ca 2 November 2001
note: "Global Research" promotes the idea that Peak Oil is not real and highlights some of the false claims about 9/11, but this article is excellent

Crossing the Rubicon, chapter 8, Setting up the War: Pakistan’s ISI, America’s Agent for Protecting the Taliban and al Qaeda

Daniel Pearl and the Paymaster of 9/11, by Chaim Kupferberg.

 

Best 9/11 whistleblowers (most credible)

FBI agents investigating the flight schools and al-Qaeda connected money laundering before 9/11:

Coleen Rowley - coleenrowley.com - her Congressional campaign website (running as a Democrat in Minnesota), would be interesting to see the hearings that would happen if she is elected and the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives in November 2006.

Kenneth Williams

Robert Wright

 

Sibel Edmonds (FBI translator muzzled for trying to expose foreknowledge)

www.justacitizen.org

Published on Tuesday, September 5, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
The 9/11 Commission: A Play on Nothing in Three Acts
by Sibel Edmonds & Bill Weaver
(a good article profiling some of the whistleblowers)
www.commondreams.org/views06/0905-25.htm

Indira Singh (Ptech)

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1.shtml
www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml

www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&financing_of_al-qaeda:
_a_more_detailed_look=bmiPtech

http://911citizenswatch.org/September-Hearings.pdf - scroll down for Indira Singh's testimony
Indira Singh's testimony to the 9/11 Citizens Commission, New York City, September 9, 2004

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Butler, vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California -- a US military facility that one or more of the hijackers reportedly attended during the 1990s.

"Of course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn't elected by the American people, but placed in the Oval Office by a conservative supreme court. The economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something on which to hang his presidency.... This guy is a joke. What is sleazy and contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain."

Able Danger officers


more about whistleblowers:

Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, by Michael Ruppert www.fromthewilderness.com (especially the chapter on the FBI whistleblower)

The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistleblowers, and the Cover-up, by Sander Hicks (profiling Randy Glass and Delmart Vreeland)

Welcome to Terrorland: Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida, by Daniel Hopsicker www.madcowprod.com (only investigation of the Florida flight schools used by some of the 9/11 plotters)

 

Best 9/11 truth propaganda

Deception Dollars - a satirical spoof of the American dollar bill that promotes websites that discuss 9/11 complicity. Over six million deception dollars were distributed at peace rallies and other events from late 2002 through 2005, and were extremely popular with crowds (many who passed them out in public found it hard to pass them out fast enough). The existence of the Deception Dollar campaign was censored from the media - both mainstream and "alternative" - despite the very public aspect of this effort. Unfortunately, every edition of the Deception Dollar included a couple websites that base their claims on hoaxes (some seem deliberate, others are merely incompetent), so the Deception Dollar list is not an automatic list of a guide to the best evidence. This website (oilempire.us) was removed from the Deception Dollar list after pointing out that some of the claims for 9/11 truth are false. In the summer of 2007 the Dollars include links to the Loose Change no-plane movie and the so-called Scholars for 9/11 Truth -- so the "peak" of effectiveness of this campaign is past.

 

Best analyses of "left gatekeepers" who pretend 9/11 was a surprise attack

left gatekeepers: the stand down of the liberal, alternative media about 9/11

denial is not a river in Egypt, psychological reluctance to confront the full truth

The Nation supports the official stories of JFK (Warren Commission) and 9/11

Norman Solomon FAIR and the Institute for Public Accuracy, helped lead defense of 9/11 official story in 2002

Chip Berlet Right Woos Left: Chip Berlet defends Bush regime against claims of complicity

Democracy Now 90% of their work is good, but they avoid the most important issues

Noam Chomsky Where Noam will not roam: Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK

Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore and setting up the invasion of Saudi Arabia

Mother Jones defends 9/11 cover-up Commission and denies vote fraud in Ohio

Ward Churchill supports "Blowback" paradigm, misses real story of 9/11 complicity

Counterpunch Alexander Cockburn ridicules investigations into 9/11 complicity and vote fraud

Alternative Radio also avoids deeper understanding

Greg Palast great work on vote fraud but not on Peak Oil or 9/11

Institute for Policy Studies "progressive" party line

Inter Press Service liberal news service that dismissed 9/11 International Inquiry in Toronto (May 2004)

MoveOn Democratic Trojan Horse to control dissent

Larry Bensky Pacifica Radio correspondent

 

Best smears in the media against 9/11 skepticism

Two of the best (most subtle) smears about 9/11 "truth" were an April 29, 2006 USA Today front page review of Loose Change and Mark Morford's promotion of Loose Change in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 29, 2006. Several USA Today reporters saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon while they were driving to work (their offices are not far from the Pentagon). Therefore, the fact this publication chose to highlight a film claiming Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is not a compliment - presumably USA Today (like other media publications) understands that this is one of the fake claims about complicity. While one of the 9/11 war games is known due (in part) to a USA Today story in 2004, this newspaper does not dare list all of the 9/11 war games that are publicly known nor the implication of the simultaneous exercises that day, especially those that resembled real world events. Morford's articles on 9/11 complicity issues are more subtle still - they seem to support the grassroots efforts to investigate yet steer the reader toward the "no plane" claims, away from the real evidence.

 

Best smear against this website

The most amusing - and bizarre - smear against oilempire.us was an anonymous posting on the Portland Indymedia bulletin board claiming that the Carlyle Group supposedly funds this website. It is a classic COINTELPRO tactic called "snitch jacketing" - an accusation that a genuine activist is a stooge of the government.

 

Best hoax: Rumsfeld's "Pentagon missile" hoax was the most important disinformation masquerading as 9/11 truth

purpose: alienate those in DC and discredit the skeptics

State Department "Identifying Misinformation" website: a Rosetta Stone to understand 9/11 disinformation
politics and psychology of disinformation

history of "no planes on 9/11" - hoaxes about all four crashes

Pentagon Truth: 9/11 activists debunk the missile hoax

media focus on the hoaxes, ignore best evidence

fake debate: no plane or no complicity? neither is true

similar sabotage against the JFK Truth Movement

TV Minds Propagandized by Photos - electronic hypnosis

Karl Rove uses fake evidence to discredit real scandals

reverse psychology: "new" Pentagon video released May 16, 2006, hiding images fuels hoaxes - it is bait

the 757-sized hole and photos of Boeing parts

suppressed evidence: Flight 77 black boxes found

Eyewitnesses: hundreds of people saw Flight 77, no one saw a missile or small plane hit the building

photos of Pentagon area for those unfamiliar with Washington, D.C.

jokes hidden in plain sight: Pentagate, In Plane Site, Popular Mechanics

In Plane Site, Pentagon Strike, Loose Change ("no plane" hoax films)

no-plane hoax promoters (some are sincere, some are not)

the "pod" plane (a hoax about the WTC plane crashes, 9/11 "pod people")

Project for a New American Century wanted a "New Pearl Harbor" for its global war agenda

Rebuilding America's Defenses, September 2000, Project for a New American Century
Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and the rest of the neo-conservatives

... While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein ...
... the process of [military] 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 ...
... advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.


"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
-- "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives," by Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997), Council on Foreign Relations, National Security Advisor to President Carter and adviser to Presidents Reagan and Bush the First


"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."
-- Tony Blair comments to the Commons liaison committee, (London) Times, July 17 2002 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

best 9/11 websites

911independentcommission.org

family members had tough "unanswered questions" for Bush, the official Commission, Giuliani and others. Most of their questions were ignored by the official Comission report, although many chose to endorse the Commission anyway. Some of the Independent Commission affiliated family members endorsed Paul Thompson's excellent book "The Terror Timeline," which documents how 9/11 was not a surprise attack using well documented, verifiable evidence.


911pressfortruth.com

Website for the movie Press for Truth about the 9/11 families (who were part of the "independent commission" effort) and Paul Thompson, creator of the Complete 9/11 Timeline.


flight93crash.com

the story of the shootdown of the fourth plane

a useful antidote to two type of propaganda: the official story, and the disinformation claiming the plane crashes did not happen


fromthewilderness.com

The best investigation of how and why 9/11 was perpetrated.

Michael Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" This investigation has been publicly attacked more than any other independent effort, which is a testament to its effectiveness. This site probed deeper than the corporate press into the "insider trading" on United and American Airlines just before 9/11 (a story abandoned by the corporate press after the trail didn't lead to anyone Islamic - but rather to CIA connected businesses on Wall Street). From the Wilderness has done the deepest examination of the 9/11 war games, and has the best analysis of the motivation of Peak Oil in allowing 9/11 to happen.

Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney
by Michael Kane

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

  • Means - Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11.
  • Motive - Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our lifetime."
  • Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com
the Hijacking of the 9/11 Truth Movement by the No-Plane-at-the-Pentagon Theory

a website started in Fall 2006 that focuses on what happened to the "truth" movement, although some of the specific details about the history of the hoax are not correct. It spends too much on the obscure conspiracy theorists who are peripheral to the actual story. This site has been pressured by "no-planers" and has been renamed part of the title from "No Plane" to "No 757" in deference to those who pretend there is any evidence (there isn't) for an alleged crash of a smaller-than-757 plane.


historycommons.org

The Complete 9/11 Timeline from History Commons, formerly the Center for Cooperative Research.
the basis for Paul Thompson's book "The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute"
an amazing, impeccable, irrefutable database of over 1,000 corporate media articles that show that 9/11 was not a surprise attack. The best site to show to anyone still clinging to the official story that 9/11 was a surprise attack or to those who think the collapse of the towers is the best evidence of complicity.

The best research guide about 9/11.


John Judge

John Judge's research on 9/11 and other scandals

His writings are archived at www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/ -- some of the best analyses of deep politics.


justacitizen.com

Sibel Edmonds, an FBI whistleblower gagged by a federal Court injunction, discloses some of what she knows on her website.


justicefor911.org

an effort to get then New York's attorney general Spitzer to prosecute the crimes -- which was ignored, especially after "no planers" flooded Spitzer's office with wild speculation and hoaxes, thus letting him know that if opened this can of worms this is the type of material he would be associated with in the public mind - Spitzer ignored 9/11 issues and successfully ran for Governor of New York. Sill on line but no longer active.


nafeez.blogspot.com

writings by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, author of "The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism."

http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-911-families-are-saying.html
Friday, September 15, 2006
What the 9/11 Families are Saying
One of the things that really bothers me is the marginalization of the 9/11 families, the people who lost their loved ones in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Not only have the families, and their call for an investigation even now, been marginalized by the Bush administration; they have also been marginalized by the 9/11 "truth" movement which has largely shown little interest in what the families have been saying.
More than anyone, it's been the 9/11 families who have been at the forefront of the ongoing campaign for an independent public inquiry into the attacks that might truly hold the authorities to account, and result in full disclosure of what happened, how and why. Indeed, one of the most powerful resources demonstrating how little we really know about 9/11 comes in the form of the huge list of 9/11 Unanswered Questions on the website of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission.


oilempire.us (this website)

A political map
Limited Hang Outs, Best Evidence, Discrediting Disinformation

www.oilempire.us/map.html

Connected Dots:
www.oilempire.us/dots.html


Jamey Hecht

http://poetrypoliticscollapse.blogspot.com/2008/09/seeking-to-hire-ignorant-ghostwriter.html

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
Seeking to Hire Ignorant Ghostwriter for Book That Already Exists

Beginning on the day of the attack, the 9/11 Truth Movement ran the same inevitable course repeated by domestic dissent and political critique so many times: formation, momentum, growth, penetration by unidentified representatives of the critiqued; disinformation campaigns; factionalization, and fizzle. It is always possible, however, to rebuild and extend the work of social repair that such movements represent. Apart from that utopian ambition, it’s inherently valuable just to make sense of the attacks and assassinations, the engineered coups des etats and the falsely triggered wars. That sense-making happens in paperback-and-podium argumentation pitched at various levels of sophistication for various audiences; it happens in documentaries; and it can happens in the arts. It cannot happen in the courts: published in September 2004, Mike Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon was a solidly documented, robustly argued legal case against Dick Cheney and others, constructed strictly around means, motive, and opportunity. Though it remains the 2nd or 3rd best-selling book on 9/11 after the Kean Report itself, Rubicon has been resolutely ignored by the mainstream media and gone unchallenged by any legal (or other) representative of those it accuses. The way to get media attention is to publish – wittingly or unwittingly – a true story mixed with a poison pill of disinformation.


politicalassassinations.com

www.politicalassassinations.com/New%20Research.html

“JFK, Watergate, 9/11:
Recurring Patterns in America’s Deep Events"
Professor Peter Dale Scott


ratical.org

Crimes Against Humanity: 9/11, covert operations, and alternative visions
one of the best sites on the internet

Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie
The "War" On Terrorism is a Total Fabrication
www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/AOPof911p11.html

"be mindful of the fundamental contradictions that misrepresent the very foundations of Bush II's purported "war" on terrorism. Our U.S. intelligence agencies, funded annually for decades with increasingly extravagant budgets, claim they were unable to prevent the 9-11 bombings due to the lack of correlated intelligence gathered. Yet within the span of less than a day, these same agencies asserted the identity of those responsible with such certainty as to preclude any serious investigation of other possible perpetrators. Whose interests are truly served by such investigations and their near instantaneous conclusions?"


rigorousintuition.ca

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com

http://rigint.blogspot.com

The best "blog" (web-log) on 9/11 related information. It covers a lot of topics, including some very fringe material (which it handles well, although 100% accuracy is always a challenge when exploring these depths - it would be a relief if some of this material is exaggerated). Rigorous Intuition is one of the few 9/11 related websites to recommend that "truth activists" focus on what is proven and provable, instead of speculations and hoaxes about alleged physical evidence.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/06/dont-get-used-to-it.html

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/06/sound-of-one-hand-slapping.html
FBI foreknowledge and the excuse of incompetence

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/05/cynical-sophisticated-and-subtle.html
parallels between the JFK and 9/11 truth movements

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/05/let-me-put-it-this-way.html
more on fake versus real evidence

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/05/guns-of-911.html
9/11 evidence and lessons from the JFK Truth Movement

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/02/sibels-way.html
Sibel Edmonds, 9/11 whistleblower

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/01/michael-chertoff-and-sabotage-of-ptech.html
Homeland Security and 9/11 complicity

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/12/ten-things-we-learned-in-2004-about.html
an update on the real new news about 9/11 during 2004

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/09/riddle-of-transponders.html
good analysis of war games

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/09/flying-wedge.html
how the "no plane" hoax divided the skeptics

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html
original article on this site, great summary of basic issues


thedossier.info

http://www.thedossier.info/war-on-terrorism.htm

Excellent list of stories about 9/11 foreknowledge plus large collection of audio interviews and movies about 9/11, oil, the "intelligence" agencies, foreign policy and much more.


thememoryhole.org

www.thememoryhole.org/911/ has archived documentation about foreknowledge, video of Bush reading "the Pet Goat" and other useful pieces of evidence.

note: as of 2012, this website is no longer on-line, it has gone down the "memory hole"


they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com
The Synchronized Failures of Defense on 9/11

(from the same author of Frustrating Fraud)


totuus

www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/index.html
What is the Truth on 9/11?

a website in Finland with sensible (truthful) perspectives on 9/11, including the "no plane" and "mini-nuke" nonsense


truthmove.org

website about 9/11 truth in context with broader perspectives
the best new 9/11 website of 2006

the "truth move" discussion forum has the best signal to noise ratio of any of the on-line discussion forums - the greatest amount of good information and the least amount of attacking disinformation, although at least one poster calls this website government sponsored for pointing out that the plane really did hit the Pentagon. This verifies the conclusion taken by this website in 2004 that a "free for all" forum on these controversies is probably impossible to screen out shrill attackers who promote false claims.

www.truthmove.org/911voices/
nice slideshow introduction to key concerns and credible skeptics of the official story

www.truthmove.org/content/9-11-truth/
introduction to 9/11 pages

www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/
Disinformation - Infiltration, Misinformation, Disruption
The 9/11 truth movement is a prime target for disinformation, infiltration, and other forms of sabotage by forces who do not want the truth to be known. You can imagine that if mainstream anti-war and environmental groups have regularly been infiltrated, something as radical and revolutionary as 9/11 truth would demand a very sophisticated counterintelligence campaign.
Agents of disinformation may not “play their hand” until the right moment and disinformation must appear credible in order to be effective. Deceptive evidence is often delivered alongside accurate information.
Disinformation requires intentionality while misinformation does not. In the 9/11 truth movement, you will come across both—evidence, materials, researchers, and groups that either consciously or unconsciously promote false or misleading information. Much incorrect information within the 9/11 truth community likely began as disinformation but has been perpetuated as unintentional misinformation.

The objectives and methods of disinformation are quite sophisticated. Here are a few of the main strategies:

  1. The Straw Man Argument/Sensationalism - by promoting speculative, sensational, and false evidence, opponents can setup easily debunkable or dismissable points that can be used to lend credence to their position. ....
  2. Muddying the Waters - making it harder to discern the real evidence/researchers/websites from the fake ones. ....
  3. Death by Association - by including the target idea/individual/movement along with another topic or personality that is disliked or discredited (UFOs, anti-semitism, nazis, etc.), the original subject can be smeared and dismissed. ....
  4. Paranoia/Divide and Conquer - one of the most effective ways to destroy a group is to sow distrust among members.

wtceo.org

World Trade Center Environmental Organization (advocacy for those poisoned by the dust clouds from the collapsing towers)
also mirrored at 911ea.org 9/11 Environmental Action

New York City based effort for truth and justice about 9/11

www.counterpunch.org/orkin03052005.html
"Racism, Fairy-tale Wealth and Idi Amin
Memories of Kawaggi, Saudi Arabia"
By JENNA ORKIN
March 5 / 6, 2005

Best books about 9/11

Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI officials helped enable 9/11 and evaded government investigations, by Kevin Fenton

The most recent good book on 9/11, it focuses on "Alec Station" in the CIA (the unit that tracked Osama Bin Laden). The author is careful to avoid the charge that the obstruction of efforts to prevent the attacks were deliberate but the amount of evidence presented is astounding. In the unlikely event that there is ever a "new investigation" into 9/11 "Disconnecting the Dots" should be at the top of the list for the investigators.

The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute, by Paul Thompson

also by Paul Thompson at www.historycommons.org - The Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

a huge database of public documents and open source information, including the most comprehensive list of warnings sent to the Bush White House by US allies and the various war game exercises underway during the attacks that confused the response to the crisis. Any serious examination of 9/11 must start with the Complete 9/11 Timeline.

“THE TERROR TIMELINE is a tremendous resource that will give readers a truly independent means of judging our government in its errant conduct of the war on terror.”
-- PETER LANCE, author of Cover Up and 1000 Years for Revenge

“A spectacular resource that is an essential tool for anyone who is truly interested in understanding the events leading up to 9/11.”
-- CRAIG UNGER, author of the House of Bush, House of Saud

“This is the basic book on 9/11. Paul Thompson's work tells what happened that day, tracing the events leading up to the attack, and what has transpired since. After years of self-serving reports by ineffectual politicians in Washington, there is at last an independent report, based entirely on publicly known facts, that is thorough and reliable. Read it and decide for yourself whether there was a cover-up. It is truly remarkable. Thank God there are people like Thompson.”
-- JAMES RIDGEWAY, author of The March to War

“Paul Thompson's Timeline has served as the definitive source for any researcher attempting to penetrate the mysteries of 9/11. This book [could] effect a major change in the course of U.S. history.”
-- PETER DALE SCOTT, author of Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Columbia, and Indochina

“Paul Thompson’s exhaustive and richly detailed research has now provided the world with a veritable treasure trove of 9/11 information. If you want to know everything about 9/11, you must read this book. If you want to better understand 9/11, you must read this book. Our intelligence agencies should be recruiting people like Paul Thompson, because he’s brilliant.”
-- KRISTEN BREITWEISER, co-chair, September 11th Advocates; member, Family Steering Committee; and wife of Ronald M. Breitweiser, WTC Tower Two

“Having lost loved ones on 9/11, we had the passion and drive to research and follow through with our quest for answers, but until we stumbled across Paul Thompson’s exquisitely detailed and well-sourced timeline on the Internet, much of the information that we found out about the events surrounding 9/11 were out of context or unverifiable. Paul’s timeline gave us a much-needed measure of clarity when our lives were filled with ambiguities.”
-- PATTY CASAZZA , co-chair, September 11th Advocates; member, Family Steering Committee; and wife of John Casazza, WTC Tower One

“Paul Thompson’s timeline is an invaluable tool and a must read for anyone who really wants to understand the events of 9/11. One can only hope that the 9/11 Independent Commission’s report, with its unprecedented access to millions of documents, is as detailed and thorough as this citizen’s account is. If the many questions raised by this book are ever answered, it would go a long way toward making us all safer.”
-- MINDY KLEINBERG, co-chair, September 11th Advocates; member, Family Steering Committee; and wife of Alan Kleinberg, WTC Tower One

“For all of us who lost our loved ones on 9/11, and for anyone who seeks the truth about what happened on that awful September day, Paul Thompson’s timeline is where all research into the subject should begin. I am eternally grateful for Paul’s meticulous work and have referred to Thompson’s timeline since the beginning of my quest for answers into my husband Ken’s death. Thank you, Paul.”
-- LORIE VAN AUKEN, co-founder, September 11th Advocates; member, Family Steering Committee; and wife of Kenneth Van Auken, WTC Tower One

 

The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed

Ahmed discusses the "deep politics" behind 9/11. War on Truth is an updated, improved version of The War on Freedom (2002). His most recent book is "A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It," one of the best descriptions of the synergistic crises that we face (ecology, energy, money).

 

The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America by Peter Dale Scott

Peter Dale Scott coined the term "deep politics" in relation to understanding the Kennedy assassinations. The Road to 9/11 examines, among other topics, planning for "continuity of government" in the National Security State and its relationship to allowing 9/11 to happen.

 

"Triple Cross," "Cover Up: What the Government is Still Hiding About the War on Terror," "1000 Years for Revenge" by Peter Lance

three excellent books, they don't connect all of the dots but they do present important pieces of the puzzle.

www.peterlance.com

 

 

Crossing the Rubicon: the Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, by Michael Ruppert

This reviewer is mentioned in "Rubicon" (see www.oilempire.us/911parable.html for details). It is the main book that delved into the "why" the attacks were allowed in the context of Peak Energy and the inevitable permanent economic decline caused by reaching the limits to growth on a finite planet. Rubicon makes startling charges about Vice President Dick Cheney's alleged role in coordinating wargame exercises that morning. Whether this detail is true or not, the why of 9/11 is more important than the how it was facilitated.

 

 

Bin Laden: the Forbidden Truth by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie

www.forbiddentruth.net

"Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July [2001] in protest over US President George Bush's obstruction of an investigation into Taliban's terrorist activities and took up a new job as head of security at the World Trade Centre. He died in the September 11 attack."
www.new-europe.gr/Kassandra.htm

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/qf.html

www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1115-06.htm

http://www.truthout.com/11.17A.Oil.Taliban.htm

www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1030259305

www.unknownnews.net/cdd052402.html  

globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html more on John O'Neill / the Propaganda Preparation for 9/11

www.rememberjohn.com

 

Ambushed: Secrets of the Bush Family, the Stolen Presidency, 9-11, and 2004
by Toby Rogers

www.ambushed.us

 

"Ambushed tackles the question The Media won’t dare ask:
Did the Bush Administration deliberately look the other way on 9/11?"

 

Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida by Daniel Hopsicker

www.madcowprod.com

The only investigation of the "flight schools" in Florida that allegedly trained some of the 9/11 terrorists. Hopsicker is the only journalist to interview participants and bystanders -- and developed some amazing, twisted evidence tying the flight schools to drug smuggling and covert operations. However, some of the claims seem to overreach or are based on a sole person's after-the-fact statements. Perhaps the biggest problem is that it narrowly focuses on the flight schools and "Atta's" behavior in Florida, and ignores the broader political context of why 9/11 was deliberately allowed to happen.

 

Barry and the Boys: the CIA, the Mob and America's Secret History by Daniel Hopsicker

www.madcowpress.com/books/B0001/B0001.about.html

Hopsicker's first book "Barry and the Boys" about CIA drug smuggler Barry Seal is a more consistent read. It ties together the CIA war on Cuba in the early 1960s, the assassination of President Kennedy, Watergate, and the smuggling of cocaine to fund the Iran-Contra scandal.

This is the story of Barry Seal, the biggest drug smuggler in American history, who died in a hail of bullets with George Bush's private phone number in his wallet...

DANIEL HOPSICKER was the Executive Producer of a business news show airing internationally on NBC when, while shooting a feature story in Arkansas during production of the pilot for a new show he became aware that, in the words of one top federal law enforcement official, " Things ain't always been jes' right 'round here."

America’s Secret History—Revealed:
You’ll learn about the incredible involvement with Seal’s narcotics smuggling organization of top officials in both major American political parties… Republican Attorney General Ed Meese… Democratic National Chairman Charles Manatt… Al Gore’s Campaign Chairman, Tony Coelho…

You’ll discover why a young Arkansas Attorney named Bill Clinton signed a “get-out-of-jail-free” personal recognizance bond for Barry Seal, after Seal had been jailed for drug smuggling in Mena…in the ‘70’s.

Most importantly, you’ll discover why a photograph taken by a night club photographer in a Mexico City nightspot ten months before the Kennedy assassination holds the key to the shadowy organization responsible for the massive corruption in Bill Clinton's Arkansas twenty years later…

Best movies about 9/11

911: Press for Truth
2006 documentary about Paul Thompson (author of the Complete 9/11 Timeline) and the "Jersey Girls" (widows who demanded a real investigation, which they did not get). An excellent introduction to how 9/11 was allowed to happen for those not familiar with the evidence.

The Truth and Lies of 9/11
Michael Ruppert's first speech after 9/11, presented November 28, 2001 at Portland State University, Oregon. It is still accurate after all these years.

Denial Stops Here: From 9/11 to Peak Oil and Beyond
Updated presentation from Michael Ruppert (2005), good summary of 9/11 wargames and the context of Peak Oil (a bit choppy in the production, but excellent information that is mandatory viewing for everyone interested in 9/11 truth).

9/11 Citizens Commission (New York City, September 9, 2004)
best single video presentation on 9/11 complicity, from a forum with Cynthia McKinney, John Judge, Michael Ruppert, Indira Singh, Barrie Zwicker, Nicholas Levis, Jenna Orkin and others. Probably the least promoted 9/11 truth video, perhaps because it avoids the "no plane" hoaxes and it is extremely compelling and credible. A similar, much more flawed event called "Confronting the Evidence" was held in New York City on September 11, 2004 which did focus on the hoaxes (a mix of good information and nonsense) and has received much more publicity.

The Great Deception
First video to raise issues of 9/11 complicity - published by Barrie Zwicker in January and February 2002.

The Great Conspiracy: the 9/11 News Special You Never Saw
Barrie Zwicker's 2004 sequel to The Great Deception. It is a full length documentary that updates the earlier work. A very good production (for the most part), but the finale includes Thierry Meyssan's "no plane hit Pentagon" hoax.

The Power of Nightmares
a BBC documentary on the rise of the American neo-conservatives and the rise of the radical Islamists, accepts the official story of 9/11 (supposedly a surprise attack) but otherwise is the best history of the circumstances that led to 9/11.

from Michael Meacher, Environment Minister for British Prime Minster Tony Blair

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html
"This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination"
Michael Meacher, Saturday September 6, 2003, The Guardian

Was this inaction [the Air Force "stand down"] simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence." ....
.... the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic
geopolitical objectives. ....
The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s. ....
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project.


 

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/911_what_bush_knew/

TUESDAY, SEP 11, 2012 07:33 AM PDT

9/11: What Bush knew

An article sheds new light on the CIA's desperate efforts to warn about 9/11. Why didn't the White House listen?

BY PAUL CAMPOS

Last year Jonathan Kay, a Canadian journalist, published "Among the Truthers," an interesting chronicle of, among other things, post-9/11 conspiracy theories. Many of these theories are outlandish on their face, such as claims that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, that airplanes never struck them, that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland rather than crashing in a Pennsylvania field, and so forth.

Now if I were inclined toward a conspiratorial view of the world, I would speculate that the very outlandishness of these claims is itself part of a conspiracy to obscure what really happened on 9/11. This meta-conspiracy theory would go something like this: Over the past 11 years, it has slowly but inexorably become clear that the CIA uncovered key details of the 9/11 plot several months in advance, and tried on numerous occasions to get the Bush administration to take action to stop it.

In a New York Times Op-Ed, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html Kurt Eichenwald offers new evidence on this front. Throughout the spring and summer of 2001, Eichenwald claims the CIA presented the administration with compelling evidence that al-Qaida operatives were in the United States, that they were planning a major terrorist attack intended to produce mass casualties, and that this attack was imminent. In response, the Bush administration did nothing.

Indeed, the administration's level of inaction was so negligent that senior intelligence officials actually considered resigning, so as not to be in a position of responsibility when the attack took place:

"Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else."

For a long time, the administration successfully covered up this series of events, by employing the clever strategy of revealing a small and ultimately misleading part of the truth: In April 2004, it declassified a single daily briefing, that featured the startling headline "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," but on closer examination did not contain much in the way of specifics regarding the attack, which took place just 35 days after the memo's printing.

Releasing this single briefing was deeply misleading, because it gave the impression that the administration had been given just one rather vague warning about the impending attack, rather than a series of much more concrete briefings, which ought to have put the government on high alert. The shocking truth, if Eichenwald is correct, is that the Bush administration was told enough in advance about the nature and timing of the 9/11 attacks that it could quite possibly have stopped them, but, for whatever reason, President Bush and his advisers chose to ignore those warnings. (According to Eichenwald, some White House neocons believed, "Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.")

Note that to this point my meta-conspiracy narrative has the unusual virtue of being based on nothing but what are now the known facts of the matter. To go beyond this, we have to enter the realm of speculation, which is where things get "conspiratorial" in the dismissive sense of the word. We might, for example, speculate that certain neoconservatives in and around the White House were not wholly displeased with the failure to stop the attacks, since they provided an emotionally compelling, although completely irrational, basis for launching the invasion of Iraq these people were laboring to bring about.

We could take one more step, and note that, in the years after the attacks, neoconservatives played an active role in both publicizing and debunking the most extravagant 9/11 conspiracy theories, because nothing is more useful to a real conspiracy than directing attention to a series of absurd ones, which tend to discredit the very concept itself. (Note how former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer is already attacking Eichenwald as a "truther.")

Now, do I believe in this meta-conspiracy theory? Of course not, because I am – or at least aspire to be – a Very Serious Person, and Very Serious People do not believe in conspiracies. They do, however, participate in them.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

 


www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,574809,00.html

Gagging the sceptics

The US, founded to protect basic freedoms, is now insisting that its critics are its enemies
George Monbiot
Tuesday October 16, 2001
The Guardian

There are plenty of reasons to be sceptical. The magical appearance of the terrorists' luggage, passports and flight manual looks rather too good to be true. The dossier of "evidence" purporting to establish Bin Laden's guilt consists largely of supposition and conjecture. The ration packs being dropped on Afghanistan have no conceivable purpose other than to create the false impression that starving people are being fed. Even the anthrax scare looks suspiciously convenient. Just as the hawks in Washington were losing the public argument about extending the war to other countries, journalists start receiving envelopes full of bacteria, which might as well have been labelled "a gift from Iraq". This could indeed be the work of terrorists, who may have their own reasons for widening the conflict, but there are plenty of other ruthless operators who would benefit from a shift in public opinion.
Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism. Unless we are prepared to question, to expose, to challenge and to dissent, we conspire in the demise of the system for which our governments are supposed to be fighting. The true defenders of America are those who are now being told that they are anti-American.

note: in early 2007, Mr. Monbiot wrote two articles for his column decrying 9/11 conspiracy theories, persuaded by Loose Change and its variations that there was no truth to any of this. The far-out false claims succeeded in alienating someone who had healthy skepticism immediately after the attacks.


Lt. Col. Steve Butler

vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California -- a US military facility that one or more of the hijackers reportedly attended during the 1990s.

Monterey County Herald, The (CA)
May 26, 2002
Page: F2
A contemptible offense

It's about time conservative idiots like Steve Kelly and Rod Musgrove got a dose of reality. Of course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama.
His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn't elected by the American people, but placed into the Oval Office by the conservative supreme court. The economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something on which to hang his presidency.
For them to accuse Democrats of being "sleazy" is laughable. Isn't it ironic that Kelly begins his inane babble with a reference to Monica Lewinsky? How many people died because of Monica Lewinsky? And for Musgrove to call the assertions "contemptible" is another joke. Funny how he manages to make disparaging remarks about President Clinton, as well.
Face it people, Bill Clinton was a great president. This guy is a joke.
What is sleazy and contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain. The Democrats asking pertinent questions is their duty as public servants.

Steve Butler
Monterey


9/11 Evidence - Smoking Gun ... by Cheryl Seal
www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00071.htm
also at www.unknownnews.net/cdd052002.html
one of the best articles describing the evidence and the motivations, warnings, the curious nature of the Pentagon attack (on the mostly empty part of the building), the Bush administration's interference with the FBI investigation of al-Qaeda, and much more. One of the best articles pointing out the likelihood of remote control of the four planes (hijacking the hijackers).

At the very least Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his guilt involves more than just a huge intentional sin of omission – this now seems certain. ...
.... why would Bush admit to having been warned about 9/11 in the first place? In the corporate and political world, this admission is a strategy that has been used over and over by creeps who are guilty of huge crimes and know the heat is on. By confessing to a lesser charge, they try to draw the heat away from the main, more dangerous issue.


www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/nib1-o04_prn.shtml
Causes and consequences of the “war on terror”
Part 1
By Nick Beams
4 October 2006


Canadian journalist and media commentator Barrie Zwicker, whose January 2002 film The Great Deception was the first serious documentary on 9/11 complicity (January 2002), made these comments on April 21, 2003 at the premier showing of "Aftermath: Unanswered Questions from 9/11," San Francisco, CA.

My offering is that 9/11 was what the anarchist Bakunin called "the propaganda of the act." That it was "Reichstag Fire 2001." That it was the greatest deception of its kind ever foisted. And that's saying something, in light of the long and totally-neglected history of this kind of war-triggering deception perpetrated by powerful special interests to sway public opinion in favour of deadly agendas that almost always result in serious grief for just about everyone.
My offering is that 9/11 was arranged to jump start the so-called war on terrorism, which in turn is the cover and heat exchanger for hot wars, these being the toxic tip of the machinery for world domination. At the levers is a clique of neocons that has hijacked this country's foreign policy at the behest largely and to the benefit mainly of Big Arms and Big Oil, with the rest of the worst at the top, giving the thumbs-up and boarding the gravy train.

 

The psychological trick at the heart of September 11th, by the way, is that people confuse their compassion for the victims with their certainty about who the perpetrators are. The public was presented with instant perpetrators. The trick will most likely continue working for all future planned invasions – looks as if Iraq is next – so long as the public remains blindfolded by the media.
-- Barrie Zwicker, Canadian journalist and media commentator, from "The Great Deception" (2002 movie about 9/11)

(Note: in 2006 Mr. Zwicker claimed that those who point out that some claims of complicity are not actually true - particularly the debunked "Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon" hoax - are helping the government. In reality, the "no plane" claims were created by the government to create a strawman to discredit legitimate skepticism of the official story.)

 

Lee Harvey Oswald - and phony evidence

from Jim Garrison's interview by Playboy magazine, October 1967
www.maebrussell.com/Garrison/Garrison%20Playboy%20Intvw%202.html

... it is true that before the assassination, a calculated effort was made to implicate Oswald in the events to come. A young man approximating Oswald's description and using Oswald's name -- we believe we have discovered his identity -- engaged in a variety of activities designed to create such a strong impression of Oswald's instability and culpability in people's minds that they would recall him as a suspicious character after the President was murdered. In one instance, a man went to an auto salesroom, gave his name as Lee Oswald, test-drove a car at 80 miles an hour -- Oswald couldn't drive -- and, after creating an ineradicable impression on the salesman by his speeding, gratuitously remarked that he might go back to the Soviet Union and was expecting to come into a large sum of money. Parenthetically, the salesman who described this "second Oswald" was subsequently beaten almost to death by unknown assailants outside his showroom. He later fled Dallas and last year was found dead; it was officially declared a suicide. In another instance, this "second Oswald" visited a shooting range in Dallas and gave a virtuoso demonstration of marksmanship, hitting not only his own bull's-eye but the bull's-eyes of neighboring targets as well -- thus leaving an unforgettable impression of his skill with a rifle. The real Oswald, of course, was a mediocre shot, and there is no evidence that he had fired a rifle since the day he left the Marines. Consequently, the fact that he couldn't hit the side of a barn had to be offset, which accounts for the tableau at the rifle range. I could go on and on recounting similar instances, but there is no doubt that there was indeed a "second Oswald." Now, the Warren Commission recognized that the individual involved in all these activities could not be Lee Oswald; but they never took the next step and inquired why these incidents of impersonation occurred so systematically prior to the assassination. As it turned out, of course, the organizers of the conspiracy needn't have bothered to go to all this trouble of laying a false trail incriminating Oswald. They should have realized, since Oswald was a "self-proclaimed Marxist," that it wasn't necessary to produce any additional evidence to convict him in the eyes of the mass media; any other facts would simply be redundant in the face of such a convincing confession of guilt.


http://xymphora.blogspot.com
Sunday, June 09, 2002

Mohamed Atta apparently visited a U. S. government office (Department of Agriculture) to apply for a $650,000 loan to buy a cropdusting airplane. An interesting point is that he is supposed to have visited the office in the spring of 2000, about 17 months before September 11, 2001, i. e., the end of April (or perhaps May), but he is officially supposed to have arrived in the United States in June 2000! While discussing this doomed mission with the loan officer who turned him down because it did not make sense, Atta made many odd statements, all of which are an obvious attempt to leave the impression that he was really and truly a crazed fundamentalist Islamic terrorist. He lays it on so thick, I don't know how he managed to keep from laughing:
1. He almost refused to deal with her, because she is a woman.
2. He admired a picture of Washington, D. C. that she had hanging on the wall of her office to a ridiculous degree, pointing specifically to the White House and the Pentagon, and then offered to buy it with theatrical flourish by throwing a wad of money down on the desk. When she refused to sell it to him she recounts: "I believe he said, 'How would America like it if another country destroyed that city and some of the monuments in it' like the cities in his country had been destroyed?" This is very weird, as Atta is supposed to come from Egypt, where cities haven't been destroyed for a long time.
3. He gave her evil, terrorist looks with his 'very scary' black eyes.
4. She said he referred to a safe in her office and she recounts: "He asked me what would prevent him from going behind my desk and cutting my throat and making off with the millions of dollars in that safe."
5. He talked of the massive size of the chemical tank he wanted to install, filling the whole inside of the plane except for the pilot's seat.
6. He became 'very agitated' when he found out that there was an application process and she presumably wouldn't just hand him $650,000 in cash there and then.
7. He asked her about security at the World Trade Center and what she knew of Phoenix, Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles, and was particularly interested in open-topped Texas Stadium.
8. He mentioned Osama bin Laden, who she had never heard of, and said that bin Laden "would someday be known as the world's greatest leader." Of course, seeing as he was in the United States on a student visa, how he ever thought he would be entitled to such a loan is beyond belief. He knew he wasn't allowed to stay to ever be able to use the airplane for any plausibly legitimate purpose. Even if he mistakenly thought he could get away with this, what was his reasoning for sending three other terrorists to the same office on the much the same mission? In one case, he put on glasses as a disguise and pretended to be the accountant of one of the other hijacker-applicants, another obvious attempt to draw attention to himself. The whole thing must have sounded like a Monty Python sketch (it reminds me of the Dead Parrot sketch when Michael Palin puts on the fake mustache). The ridiculous overacting left the bureaucrat completely unsuspicious. I imagine if he had asked her if it would be OK for him to fill the plane full of explosives and fly it into the World Trade Center, she would have replied that she would strongly object to that as blowing up the collateral would be a breach of one of the terms of his loan agreement. If this isn't some kind of hoax, what we have here is another example of Atta creating his 'legend', filling out his terrorist personal identity before a witness who would surely remember him. Notice again that he appears to have no fear that this bureaucrat will report him before September 11 and end the terrorist project he has spent so much work on. One question: why has it taken this long for this story to come out when she is supposed to have informed the authorities about the incident shortly after September 11?

 


www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/AOPof911p11.html
David Ratcliffe, Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie - The "War" On Terrorism is a Total Fabrication, September 2002

"We are being told to accept an assemblage of facts that would not stand up in a court of law to prove the guilt of a man, bin Laden and his organization, that somehow succeeded in penetrating the most restricted airspace in the world approximately 55 minutes after the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. These facts, while not sufficient to prevent the day that changed the world, nonetheless were more than sufficient to identify the culprit in less than the next 24 hours; who was then the justification for embarking on a war that, according to Dick Cheney, "may never end. At least, not in our lifetime"; and who less than a year later has dropped off the world stage slowing down this lifetime war, on his behalf, not one iota. Whose interests are advanced by this monumental campaign to trade our liberty for security?

 

www.unknownnews.net/cdd061002.html
SMOKING GUN feedback:
Where Was G.W. Bush on the Morning of Sept. 11?
by Cheryl Seal, Monday, June 10, 2002

I feel that people cannot have an entire barrel of facts and red herrings dumped in their laps and expect to sort it all out...the tendency is to throw up their hands in despair, confusion and frustration. Which is just what Bush and Co. would like everyone to do. What I tried to do was to sort through and identify the most tangible facts, then present these, along with all the factual connections between people, places and things, then allow people to ponder it for themselves. I did not set out to "sell" a "conspiracy theory," but if the facts presented happen scream conspiracy, that message will be heard loud and clear. One thing I have learned is that people 1. are generally quicker on the uptake than the media gives them credit for, and 2. generally recognize the truth when they see it plainly presented. That is why the corporate powers that be and their pals in the mainstream media work very hard to avoid presenting important facts plainly and work even harder to disguise the truth.

 

www.911truth.org/statement.html
(from 2003 - before the organization 911truth.org was created)

That's why we say that this investigation must be more a movement of concerned citizens than just a mechanical weighing of facts. In the light of our ongoing march to war, and the wholesale sacrifice of the Bill of Rights for an illusory security, this movement is both urgent and timely.
Some may say, "What's to discover? Usama Bin Laden and his network hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings."
To you we say, "Study the evidence. We think you will be amazed and shocked at how flimsy the "official" explanations actually are - and how the media seems prepared to not take a closer look.
We have no time for those who would dismiss our misgivings as "conspiracy theory" (a term most often used by people who haven't done their homework).
We demand evidence, credible inquiry, commitment to find the truth, and a faith in the ability of the people to reason things out. If no one else is going to step forward, then we must.
Citizens, friends, our nation has been swept up in a tide of vengeance and price-tag patriotism. We have been given no meaningful opportunity to publicly discuss the stubborn mysteries surrounding 9/11. We are being denied our right to direct the course of our democracy -even as our civil liberties are being stripped away; and beneath all this, there lies a dark day, whose real meaning has yet to be unveiled.

 


 

www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/puzzlePieces.html
Extra Pieces of the Puzzle of 911 Published Passenger Lists
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001
From: John Judge

Another "four Arab men" were reported to have had a heated argument in the parking area around Logan airport with a passenger who later recalled them when he heard one of the planes was hijacked from there, and led the FBI back to their rented car. The four men, part of the list of 19, were reported to have come into the US via Canada and then rented a car in Boston which they drove to Logan airport. Presumably this story is based on use of 4 passports or ID cards at the border and the car rental agency. In the car the FBI reportedly found a copy of the Koran in a suitcase, a flight manual for the type of plane hijacked written in Arabic, and one of several instruction letters to the hijackers also in Arabic.
This story and its details strike me as completely false and planted evidence for a number of reasons. The "road rage" part may not have happened, since the person leading the FBI to false evidence may have been part of the game. No one seriously involved in such an operation would risk such notice, no devout Muslim would put a Koran in a suitcase, and no sensible person would deliver a flight manual in Arabic to the airport and fail to take it onto the plane for use, it seems to me. If the incident happened as reported, did the four men using these ID's actually board the plane? Or did they just stage an incident to take the FBI by the nose to the planted evidence? ....

The sophistication of the events of September 11 suggest to anyone who knows about covert operations that this had to be state sponsored, at a level of resources and training and planning that the al'Quaida are not capable of, nor the Taliban. In any covert operation, far more time and effort is put into the cover story than into the event. Given the sophistication of the event, we should expect a sophisticated cover story.
In the past, covert operations have often used a bait and switch approach. First we are given a plausible patsy, but the evidence is meant to be transparent and fall apart after buying some time. This is false sponsorship. However, when the first layer erodes, there is a second layer of even more plausible but equally false sponsorship, including organizations or countries that either willingly or unwittingly contributed or been involved for their own reasons to the plan and will take credit, at least silently, at first, and can be used to take blame later. They will still not be the authors.
For instance, even if all those on the planes were Arab/Afghanis linked to al'Quaida and bin Laden, that does not tell us the real sponsor of the event. After all, bin Laden has had many sponsors in many countries, including Pakistani ISI and American CIA for starters. False sponsorship is key to a good cover story.

....

Extra pieces of the puzzle:
* All printed and electronic media references I saw or heard reported on September 11 and 12 about the cell phone conversations and their content mentioned "guys with knives . . . boxknives . . . bombs" doing the hijacking. They did not mention Arabs.
On September 13 the NYT carried a story of a call received by Mrs. Glick, wife of one of the men who reportedly decided to "do something" on the plane that went down in Pennsyvania. Mrs. Glick mentioned a detail from her husband's call (or the NYT added one) about "four Arab men in red headbands". Red headbands? Another puzzle in my book, or a stereotypically racist canard. Soon after, we got the official list of 19 names of the hijackers.
* Another "four Arab men" were reported to have had a heated argument in the parking area around Logan airport with a passenger who later recalled them when he heard one of the planes was hijacked from there, and led the FBI back to their rented car. The four men, part of the list of 19, were reported to have come into the US via Canada and then rented a car in Boston which they drove to Logan airport. Presumably this story is based on use of 4 passports or ID cards at the border and the car rental agency. In the car the FBI reportedly found a copy of the Koran in a suitcase, a flight manual for the type of plane hijacked written in Arabic, and one of several instruction letters to the hijackers also in Arabic.
This story and its details strike me as completely false and planted evidence for a number of reasons. The "road rage" part may not have happened, since the person leading the FBI to false evidence may have been part of the game. No one seriously involved in such an operation would risk such notice, no devout Muslim would put a Koran in a suitcase, and no sensible person would deliver a flight manual in Arabic to the airport and fail to take it onto the plane for use, it seems to me. If the incident happened as reported, did the four men using these ID's actually board the plane? Or did they just stage an incident to take the FBI by the nose to the planted evidence?
* Since the 19 names were first put out there, two of them named as pilots at were later found to be dead for some time. Another group of people were reported in Saudi Arabia to be the actual people on the ID's but still living there and uninvolved on September 11. Those ID's that were traced back for history here in the US led to a pattern of very aggressive behavior that got many of them noticed and reported to authorities at both CIA and FBI. At least one was reported to have been on an FBI "watch list". Some had been to "flight training" schools, which could not actually have trained them well enough to do what was done by those planes on September 11.
I suggest you ask any pilot that has flown one what it takes to bank into a building at 550 miles an hour, or to dive in a 270 degree turn from 5000 feet to fly so low that streetlamps are clipped off, into a building. There are two options: Military or experienced civilian pilots (many are military anyway) piloted these planes. The planes were flown on remote control.
* The sophistication of the events of September 11 suggest to anyone who knows about covert operations that this had to be state sponsored, at a level of resources and training and planning that the al'Quaida are not capable of, nor the Taliban. In any covert operation, far more time and effort is put into the cover story than into the event. Given the sophistication of the event, we should expect a sophisticated cover story.
In the past, covert operations have often used a bait and switch approach. First we are given a plausible patsy, but the evidence is meant to be transparent and fall apart after buying some time. This is false sponsorship. However, when the first layer erodes, there is a second layer of even more plausible but equally false sponsorship, including organizations or countries that either willingly or unwittingly contributed or been involved for their own reasons to the plan and will take credit, at least silently, at first, and can be used to take blame later. They will still not be the authors.
For instance, even if all those on the planes were Arab/Afghanis linked to al'Quaida and bin Laden, that does not tell us the real sponsor of the event. After all, bin Laden has had many sponsors in many countries, including Pakistani ISI and American CIA for starters. False sponsorship is key to a good cover story.
Right now it looks like layer two will be Iraq, among other countries. This was apparent to me the week of the event in early statements about "state sponsorship" by James Woolsey (former CIA director) and by a conservative think tank member at the Johns Hopkins Center for Advanced International Studies. The academic laid out many of the same items I noticed, but ended up saying it was Iraq. I talked to him subsequently and he admitted he has no proof about Iraq as the sponsor, only suspicion. Iraq has been named more recently as the source of the anthrax, but the type discovered is US manufacture with some foreign distribution, not easy to get hold of in Iraq.
* Finally, the BBC and other media reported on an airline attendant on flight #11 who called on a cell phone to report to American Airlines the seat numbers of the "hijackers". The seat numbers given, according to these articles, did not match the seats assigned to the "Arab terrorists". This is interesting given your information that suggests they had no seat numbers, eh? Whose seat numbers were they?
So, the bottom line is, we still do not know who hijacked the planes or how. We do not know who piloted the planes so expertly into the buildings or how that was accomplished. And we do not know how they got onto the flights, if they did. Your food service/cleaning crew speculation is a good one but as I said, flight attendants count and know which seats are assigned. Ever try to sit in the wrong one?
Who were the "guys with box knives"? Were their identities removed from the passenger lists because they were NOT among the 19 named? Were they even Arabs? And did they actually fly the planes into the buildings? I for one am very suspicious of mass suicide pacts and have, with detailed work, deconstructed many of the recently reported ones from Jonestown forward, and back as far as Massada. Almost all are actually mass murders.
If there were 19 in the plot, perhaps only one in each plane knew they were all to die. You can get a pilot to kamikaze, we know that much. But a whole crew? I know, for the "greater glory of Allah against the infidels", or for a preacher in Guyana, or for a UFO cult in California, or for a sun cult in France. Right. Just don't check the details. Which leaves two unexplored options: mind control or remote control. But those are "conspiracy theories" aren't they. Sorry, I forgot. Is bin Laden and his thugs a conspiracy theory? Does it require a modicum of proof?
The secret evidence was viewed by foreign leaders, who are more qualified than the American public, and even they called it "circumstantial" and "not enough to take into court" but they agreed it was "sufficient" to go to WAR. Probably true, the first casualty of war is always the truth, and you don't need much "evidence" to get a war going. Ask Goering. But you can't even get the secret evidence to work if you can't put the suspects on the planes now can you? It's tough. You can't put Oswald on the 6th floor of the Book Depository either, or James Earl Ray in the bathroom window, or Sirhan's bullets into RFK; not if you pay attention to details anyway.
Oh, dear, have I revealed that I am not a "coincidence theorist"? Let's just stick to the evidence, it will lead us where we need to go if we ever get to see it. For now the lack of it is enough for me. Good luck on a great puzzle. As my old pal Penn Jones used to say, "Take any one piece and research the hell out of it. It will eventually show you the whole".

Thanks for thinking - John Judge


http://xymphora.blogspot.com
Monday, December 08, 2003

There have been three bumps in the history of the discussion of the truth of what happened on November 22, 1963: the Garrison investigation of the late 1960's, the official investigations of the mid-1970's, and the release of the Oliver Stone film and the resulting forced disgorging of some secret documents during the 1990's. Between those bumps there have been long stretches of wheel-spinning, where absence of new information meant that conspiracy buffs spent their time constructing dream palaces in the air of their own imaginations. Those who conspire must love this, as the buffs themselves create the forest of misleading data in which the truth can easily hide. The main problem of conspiracy research now is separating the disinformation from the truth, with by far the greatest collection of disinformation created by well-meaning but misguided 'researchers' who, in the absence of new data, let their imaginations run wild. It is sad to see exactly the same thing happening in the field of discussion of September 11. The Bush Administration has successfully managed to completely stonewall even the rather suspicious official investigation, and I have not seen any new important revelations in at least a year. People who rode hobbyhorses in the months after September 11 are still riding the same hobbyhorses, in love with their own theories more than the truth (my personal hobbyhorse is that November 22 and September 11 were arranged by the same two American institutional groups). Now we're even beginning to see the beginnings of the grand meta-theories, with the attack blamed on some secret conspiracy involving Israel (with the happy Israeli witnesses making a video of the attack paralleling the fact that Yitzhak Rabin was in Texas at Fort Bliss on November 22, 1963; it's as if Israel makes a point of sending witnesses whenever they hear about such things), or, in a possible attempt to shield Israel, weird conspiracy chestnuts like the Bilderbergers or the Illuminati (whatever happened to the Rockefellers, who used to be blamed for everything?). These meta-theories are worse than useless, serving as a method of appearing to discuss the case while simply constructing a wall of smoke. There is significant real information readily available if the American political situation would allow it to be released. I'd like to start with testimony from the pilots who just missed reaching the targets on time, and ask them who arranged for them to be so near and yet so far.

 

 

Phony Evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory

 

The perpetrators of the 9/11 are still unknown to us. The instant recovery of a hijacker’s passport intact on the place of jet crush should be counted among the most spectacular miracles of all times, well ahead of Daniel’s trip into the fiery furnace. The old Babylonian furnace surely did not develop the temperature of burning jet fuel. Arab-language flying manuals in the trunk of a car, inaudible videotapes and other conveniently recovered exhibits make Moscow trials of 1937 a bright example of justice incorrupt. The prisoners of Afghani war have been kept away from prying eyes, in the limbo of Guantanamo, lest they disclose the greatest secret of all: their innocence."
Islamic Terror? What Islamic Terror?"
by Israel Shamir
http://globalist.org/world_regions/asia/palestine-israel/020407_shamir_islamic_terror.html
http://www.israelshamir.net/

 

be mindful of the fundamental contradictions that misrepresent the very foundations of Bush II's purported "war" on terrorism. Our U.S. intelligence agencies, funded annually for decades with increasingly extravagant budgets, claim they were unable to prevent the 9-11 bombings due to the lack of correlated intelligence gathered. Yet within the span of less than a day, these same agencies asserted the identity of those responsible with such certainty as to preclude any serious investigation of other possible perpetrators. Whose interests are truly served by such investigations and their near instantaneous conclusions?
Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie
The "War" On Terrorism is a Total Fabrication
www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/AOPof911p11.html

 

The view that the official conspiracy theory (19 hijackers, an evil man in a cave, and perhaps a few accomplices) did 9-11 by themselves and caught the government by surprise has zero evidence to justify it. It's reminiscent of the JFK assassination coverup, where Lee Harvey Oswald's bio was immediately given to the media (and in at least one case, before the assassination happened, according to Col. Fletcher Prouty, who was then the Pentagon liaison officer to the CIA). The phony evidence "found" in the immediate wake of 911 is symptomatic of this type of propaganda campaign - the paper passport on the streets of NYC even though the black boxes weren't found, the Arabic flight manual found in the Boston airport parking lot that was supposedly left behind by the terrorists, the "wag the dog" stories of flight 93 even though the aircraft left debris scattered over 8 miles indicating a mid-air explosion, etc.

 

 

 

Cheryl's Daily Diatribe: Monday, June 10, 2002 -- SMOKING GUN feedback:
Where Was G.W. Bush on the Morning of Sept. 11?
www.unknownnews.net/cdd061002.html

As to Smoking Gun, I feel that people cannot have an entire barrel of facts and red herrings dumped in their laps and expect to sort it all out...the tendency is to throw up their hands in despair, confusion and frustration. Which is just what Bush and Co. would like everyone to do. What I tried to do was to sort through and identify the most tangible facts, then present these, along with all the factual connections between people, places and things, then allow people to ponder it for themselves. I did not set out to "sell" a "conspiracy theory," but if the facts presented happen scream conspiracy, that message will be heard loud and clear. One thing I have learned is that people 1. are generally quicker on the uptake than the media gives them credit for, and 2. generally recognize the truth when they see it plainly presented. That is why the corporate powers that be and their pals in the mainstream media work very hard to avoid presenting important facts plainly and work even harder to disguise the truth.
I lean towards the theory that the 19 Arab hijackers are a complete fiction, which raises very hard questions about the integrity of these so called warnings which were ignored. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be looked at, because this piece of the puzzle is far from clear, but my point is -- how could there have been warnings about the hijackers, if they never existed.


www.villagevoice.com/issues/0417/mondo2.php

Mondo Washington
by James Ridgeway
Grilled to Order
What we’d Like to ask when Bush and Cheney take the hot seat
April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM
Related Info: John Kerry Must Go Note to Democrats: it's not too late to draft someone-anyone-else
So Many Questions . . . But where are the answers? Bush and Cheney's private chat is a public disgrace.

On Thursday, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will sit together and speak—off the record and in private—to the 9-11 Commission. Bush and Cheney can make a record of the interview, but the commission, under a bizarre agreement, is prohibited from doing so.
By refusing to appear separately or in public, the two may have taken the panel for a ride, but they can't avoid the tough questions forever. Both give every sign of having been asleep at the switch on 9-11. Worse, for months they have been engaged in collusion to obstruct justice by thwarting first congressional and then commission investigations. Sooner or later, both must be served with subpoenas, sworn to tell the truth, and ordered to testify under threat of impeachment and/or criminal prosecution.
Let's start with Bush. Here's the setup: Morning, September 11, 2001. At 8:40 NORAD is notified Flight 11 has been hijacked. At 8:43 NORAD is notified Flight 175 is hijacked. At 9, Bush arrives at the Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, where he takes a call from Condoleezza Rice before entering an elementary school classroom for a photo op. Certainly by that moment Rice must have known that one plane had hit the World Trade Center and another had been hijacked.
Now a few simple questions for our president, the last six from the Family Steering Committee, whose members lost loved ones on 9-11:
1. What did you know about the emerging crisis before speaking to Rice?
2. Who told you? What was your response?
3. What did Rice tell you?
4. And why, after speaking to her, did you go ahead with a meaningless photo op?
5. Why was Flight 77 allowed to plow into the Pentagon 52 minutes after Flight 11 had smashed into the WTC?
6. Given the warnings on hijackings and flying bombs, why were there only 14 fighter planes assigned to cover the entire U.S., with only seven airborne that morning?
7. A briefing prepared for senior U.S. officials in early July 2001 stated: "Based on a review of all-source reporting over the last five months, we believe that [bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning." As the weeks went by, senior officials continued to receive intelligence information warning of an imminent Al Qaeda attack.
Did you receive such warnings before 9-11? If so, what did you do in response?
8. Mr. President, European security forces were widely reported to have prepared elaborate measures to prevent a possible bin Laden attempt to assassinate you at the G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, in July 2001. According to German intelligence sources, the plot involved bin Laden paying German neo-Nazis to fly remote-controlled model aircraft packed with Semtex into the conference hall and blow the leaders of the industrialized world to smithereens. The reports were taken so seriously that you stayed overnight on an aircraft carrier offshore, according to CNN, and other world leaders stayed on a luxury ship. Two days before the summit began, the BBC reported: "The huge force of officers and equipment which has been assembled to deal with unrest has been spurred on by a warning that supporters of Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden might attempt an air attack on some of the world leaders present."
Italy surrounded the summit with anti-aircraft batteries, kept fighters overhead, and closed off local airspace. No attack occurred. U.S. officials at the time stated that the warnings were "unsubstantiated," but after 9-11 reversed themselves and took credit for preventing an attack. Were you aware of the planned Al Qaeda attack on Genoa using planes as weapons? If so, what did you do to safeguard the homeland and U.S. facilities overseas?
9. As commander in chief on the morning of 9-11, why didn't you return immediately to Washington, D.C., or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack? At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?
10. Please explain why you remained at the Sarasota, Florida, elementary school for a press conference after you had finished listening to the children read, when, as a terrorist target, your presence potentially jeopardized their lives?
11. What was the purpose of the several stops of Air Force One on September 11? Was Air Force One at any time during the day a target of the terrorists? Was Air Force One's code ever breached on September 11?
12. Was there a reason for Air Force One lifting off without a military escort, even after ample time had elapsed for military jets to arrive?
13. What prompted your refusal to release the information regarding foreign sponsorship of the terrorists, as illustrated in the inaccessible redacted 28 pages from the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Report? What actions have you personally taken since 9-11 to thwart foreign sponsorship of terrorism?
14. Who approved the flight of the bin Laden family out of the United States when commercial flights were grounded, when there was time for only minimal questioning by the FBI, and especially when two of those same individuals had links to WAMY, a charity suspected of funding terrorism? Why were bin Laden family members granted that special privilege and protection, when protection wasn't available to American families whose loved ones were killed on 9-11?
Now for the vice president:
1. Mr. Cheney, we know—more or less—what Bush did on 9-11. What did you do? A chronology, please.
2. Did you receive any orders from Bush that morning? If so, what were they?
3. Did you issue any orders, either in your own or in the president's name, to civilian and/or military agencies of the U.S. government that day? If so, what were they?
4. Before 9-11, Bush entrusted you to head a task force to work alongside the new Office of National Preparedness, a part of FEMA. This office is supposed to oversee a "national effort" to coordinate all federal programs for responding to domestic attacks. You told the press, "One of our biggest threats as a nation" may include "a terrorist organization overseas. We need to look at this whole area, oftentimes referred to as homeland defense."
The focus was to be on state-funded terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, and you mentioned neither bin Laden nor Al Qaeda. Your task force was supposed to report to Congress by October 1, 2001, after a review by the National Security Council. Bush stated that he would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Yet neither your review nor Bush's seems to have taken place before 9-11. Your deadline was a couple of weeks later.
What had you done up to then? How many meetings had you held? Who were the members of your task force?
Additional reporting: Alicia Ng and Phoebe St John

 

www.911truth.org/statement.html
That's why we say that this investigation must be more a movement of concerned citizens than just a mechanical weighing of facts. In the light of our ongoing march to war, and the wholesale sacrifice of the Bill of Rights for an illusory security, this movement is both urgent and timely.
Some may say, "What's to discover? Usama Bin Laden and his network hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings."
To you we say, "Study the evidence. We think you will be amazed and shocked at how flimsy the "official" explanations actually are - and how the media seems prepared to not take a closer look.
We have no time for those who would dismiss our misgivings as "conspiracy theory" (a term most often used by people who haven't done their homework).
We demand evidence, credible inquiry, commitment to find the truth, and a faith in the ability of the people to reason things out. If no one else is going to step forward, then we must.
Citizens, friends, our nation has been swept up in a tide of vengeance and price-tag patriotism. We have been given no meaningful opportunity to publicly discuss the stubborn mysteries surrounding 9/11. We are being denied our right to direct the course of our democracy -even as our civil liberties are being stripped away; and beneath all this, there lies a dark day, whose real meaning has yet to be unveiled.

 

 


Those who have fully studied the issues and facts concerning 9/11 and the Bush administration's inexplicable coverup and lies understand rationally that this is not a topic of "conspiracy theory" but instead a true scandal of serious proportions. This can no longer be denied. It is a scandal which, if aggressively pursued by the media, should have helped hamstring and sideline the Bush administration months ago, which would have made it politically impossible for them to push ahead with their war plans in the first place.
www.questionsquestions.net/docs0209/0920_response.html

 

the "Truth about 9/11" could be a catalyst for the collective transformation of the American people. The greatest threat to the military / intelligence / industrial juggernaut, currently making an imperial grab for world dominance and using 9/11 as a pretext, is an informed American public, whom I believe, have the power to rein in those forces.
-- Carol Brouillet, Deception Dollar project

 


www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/6/2088660.html

The miraculous timing of the 9/11 skyjackers, Part 1
by margieburns on Thu 06 Jul 2006

 

www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/8/2093537.html

"The Fog of War Games" -- the miraculous timing of the skyjackers, part 2
by margieburns on Sat Jul 8 18:23 2006


www.sanderhicks.com/hopsickerinterview.html
(note: Hicks has shifted from pointing out that some of the 9/11 claims are false toward a position of promoting some of the worst nonsense claims. It's hard to find a rational and sincere explanation for publishing a book admitting the "no plane" stuff is false and then going on to promote events with its adherents.)

HOPSICKER: See the basic story is and I need to tell you in just 30 seconds is [that] the government’s story is that I call the Magic Dutch Boy theory. Remember the Kennedy assassination when the "magic bullet" has passed thru three people, the only way they could make a story of one lone gunman even remotely logically possible?
HICKS Most of the people never bought that and still don't.
HOPSICKER: Similarly, in 9/11, it’s only through the Magic Dutch Boy theory that you can believe these people came over here without the knowledge and consent of the U.S. government. The government's story is that the year before the terrorists began to arrive in force, two separate Dutch nationals purchased separately the two flight schools at the Venice, Florida, airport, that, eight or nine months afterward, began training terrorists how to fly.
HICKS: Right. But when it all sort of fell apart, both Dutch nationals happened to have two separate aircraft accidents.
HOPSICKER: That's correct. They are inconvenient people at this point, because if either one of them ever talked, it could bring down the government of the current administration.


Top ten conspiracy theories of 2002
OF BIG OIL, BY BIG OIL, FOR BIG OIL
The 10 Most Startling Speculations and "Conspiracy Theories" About September 11 and America's New War
[27 December 2002]
by Mike Ward

www.popmatters.com/features/021227-conspiracy.shtml

www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0301/S00008.htm

Top Ten Conspiracy Theories of 2002
Courtesy of Indymedia New York, Mike Ward of PopMatters lists the most outrageous top ten officially spun conspiracy theories of the year - Scoop Editor's Note: If you feel like a laugh then read this!
He forgot to mention the most outlandish conspiracy of them all (and the most widely accepted): 19 hijackers from a third world terrorist group armed with boxcutters forced 3 planes into 3 of the the nation's most important and symbolic structures with no assistance from US government/intelligence insiders.


www.empirewatch.org/archives/911/pages/essays/JFK_911_AndTheRealAmerica.html
JFK, 9/11 and the REAL America
Tying It All Together
by: Jon Phalen / November 22nd, 2003
the history of deception to lure reluctant US citizens to support wars.
Explores the evidence for Remote Control software in the 9/11 hijackings (not too dissimilar from electronic hijacking of our computerized election ballot machines).


A scandal in England and Ireland about a terrorist called "stakeknife" concerned a thug for the IRA who was actually a British double agent (in other words, the Brits ran one of the most ruthless IRA killers in order to legitimize their occupation of northern Ireland).

The "false flag" operations by the Italian fascists in Italy are well documented by many - one of the most notorious was the bombing of the Bologna train station in 1980, perpetrated by the fascists (with official ties) to blame on the "left" to create the climate for a right wing military coup. The article below has crucial information about the "P2," Operation Gladio and the Vatican Bank - a story with disturbing parallels to the current situation in the United States.

www.questionsquestions.net/kolskegg_911.html
9/11 IN CONTEXT: PLANS AND COUNTERPLANS
by Max Kolskegg

It is time to have a hard, clear-eyed look at our situation here in this post-September 11 "brave new world order", on the brink of a huge conflagration in the Middle East, with endless war beyond. The Global Fascist Terror State has arrived, the fruit of decades of planning, propaganda and provocation. September 11 was its coming-out party, and for us, the last wake-up call. So now let's face the facts. No more self-delusion, no more easy roads. The reality is plain as day, and so therefore is our task


www.counterpunch.org/weiner0601.html
The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies by Bernard Weiner June 1, 2002

A very good introductory article that points out the likelihood that Bush's notorious month-long "vacation" at his so-called ranch near Crawford, Texas was probably a long planning meeting for the post-9/11 political environment.


www.narconews.com/goff1.html "The So-Called Evidence Is a Farce" By Stan Goff
written shortly after 9/11, this is still one of the best articles explaining the political context and the phony evidence for the official story


www.attackonamerica.net/ignorad.htm -- MSNBC article on the standdown by a (now deceased) mainstream journalist


http://wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/sept-j24.shtml  
why is there no investigation of what happened?


http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/02/sibels-way.html

If I had to choose just four links to show your average joe and jane, and pique their interest in the possibility of a 9/11 coverup, these would be my top picks right now:

1. The wargames acknowledgement AP report. The SF Chronicle is the only paper I know of that still has the original AP report available in their archives.
2. Senator Dayton's declaration that NORAD and the FAA lied. He announced it during the week of the Dem's National Convention last year. He's got a pair.
3. This in depth timeline of the event of that day certainly points toward high-level government deception. It's long, but fascinating and crucial to understanding just what Senator Dayton was talking about.
4. And then finally This gem of a report on the destruction of the FAA controller tapes. No coverup is complete without the destruction of evidence :-)

I think the best way to wake up more of the public is to let them see with their own eyes the evidence that the 9/11 truth movement has been pointing to all along, and the more official the source, the better. I guess that's why I like the FAA/NORAD lying angle for leading people into the seemy underworld of 9/11. It's one of the aspects of the whole event that's fairly well documented in the mainstream press, giving us the opportunity to point this stuff out without referring to news sources considered illegitimate by a public that still can't imagine the media would or even could tell such Big Lies.


www.osamaskidneys.com [no longer on-line]
What is the true story of the Sept. 11 attacks?

We do not know, because it is shrouded in secrecy. But thousands of 9/11 Skeptics on the Internet have used evidence from the mainstream and foreign press to demonstrate beyond doubt that the official story is incomplete, inconsistent and rife with lies. In March and April 2002, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) became the first American politician on the federal level to question the official story and suggest that elements of the U.S. government may have known of the attacks in advance. On May 16 [2002], the White House was forced to admit receiving warnings, in the months before Sept. 11, of a Qaeda plot to hijack airliners in the United States. This admission was coupled with the claim that no one in the administration could have guessed that these planes would be used in suicide attacks - a demonstrable falsehood. Since then, many revelations from government agencies have corroborated the 9/11 Skeptics' claims that pre-Sept. 11 investigations by the FBI, which might have prevented the attacks, were obstructed from within the government. The government also confirmed that the war in Afghanistan was prepared in advance of Sept. 11, and that a finished plan for the war was presented to George W. Bush two days before the attacks on New York and Washington. By then, large British and American forces had already arrived or were underway to the Central Asian theater. In an effort at damage control, the revelations of the past month have been limited. Congressional investigators and the mainstream U.S. media have made little effort to connect the dots logically, which would yield an even more troubling picture of the government's actions at the highest levels. Attention has focused instead on middle-level "failures" of bureaucracy and analysis, with an accompanying campaign to justify more radical surveillance and police measures and the creation of a new Homeland Security Department. But the revelations have served to support many of the cardinal assertions of the oft-maligned 9/11 Skeptics movement. On June 10 [2002], C-SPAN refused to broadcast a major press conference in Washington organized by former government officials, relatives of 9/11 victims and investigative journalists, who posed vital "Unanswered Questions" about the attacks and their true background. This setback was predictable; the issue is still too controversial for the mainstream media. 9/11 Skeptics should not therefore despair. The time has come for skeptics to unite, to speak openly, to stay loud and proud, and to employ creative, determined and peaceful means with heart and humor, to force disclosure of the full story of the Sept. 11 attacks. History is with us!


The Center for an Informed America (CIA) NEWSLETTER #42 August 25, 2003

I started flipping through the channels to see what else was on, and in doing so, I happened to catch a snippet of what I assume was some kind of archival footage of a master spy, named "Maxwell Smart," discussing what was presumably classified information with some shadowy figure identified only as "The Chief." The footage was shot in 1966, and the topic of discussion was the possibility of "KAOS," described as "an international organization of evil," going out of business. Here is the verbatim transcript of what I heard:

Agent Smart: Wait a minute, Chief. If KAOS goes out of business, what happens to us?
Chief: Well, I guess the Control organization would be out of business too. There wouldn't be any need for us.
Agent Smart: Well, maybe we could get together and give KAOS enough money to keep going for a few years.
Chief: Max, that's a ridiculous notion! That would be like the police cooperating with organized crime! How would you like that?!
Agent Smart: Well, it seems to work in the big cities.

An "international organization of evil"? The 'good' guys covertly funding the 'bad' guys, thus artificially creating 'KAOS,' and along with it the need for ever more 'Control' organizations? Don't look now, folks, but I think we're living in Maxwell Smart's world. davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr42.html

(this newsletter is a mix of good and false claims, promoting abiotic oil and the "no Pentagon plane crash" hoax, but this reference to the "Get Smart" TV show is excellent

soundbites: