• Peak Money
• climate change
• Katrina disaster
• Peak Oil
• gas prices
• World War IV
• Afghanistan
• Iraq
• stolen elections
• impeachment
• JFK 11/22/1963
• 9/11 complicity
• anthrax attacks
• civil liberties
• media manipulation
• "depleted" uranium

A Political Map to Connect the Dots

“If anybody could have predicted this economic crisis, I would have liked to have met them.”
-- Ellen Weiss, National Public Radio senior vice president for news
Public Broadcasting System PBS News Hour December 11, 2008

This is the dominant approach in the media, the government elites, and the financial world (even though there is a lot of evidence that at least some of them privately knew this was imminent but kept quiet in public while planning their exit strategies and wargaming how to manage and manipulate the crisis).

We need to consider social and environmental concerns in our economic planning. The Triple Bottom Line approach or "Three E's" model is allowing us to think about sustainability. "Smart Growth" is a mantra for these efforts.

The more liberal parts of the Democratic Party and their affiliated non governmental (sic) organizations echo this paradigm. It is certainly a more pleasant approach than the official story, but it is still inadequate for explaining our predicament.

The economy is a subset of the environment, they are not co-equal concepts. Without an environment there cannot be an economy. The global crash of the financial system was triggered partly because we have reached the limits to endless growth on a finite planet. The End of Growth has been reached.

This approach is not welcome in the Democratic Party nor the environmental movement, at least not the part dependent on foundation funding. Among the experts promoting this view are the late, great M. King Hubbert and former World Bank economist Herman Daly.

One reason why Climate Change now gets official media attention and Peak Oil does not is that it is easier to imagine economic "growth" continuing with strategies solely focused on mitigating the climate crisis (although "growth" and overdevelopment are root causes of that crisis). But it is harder to pretend that this growth could continue if Peak Oil means that the powering of industrial civilization is going to inexorably decline. Growth is also used as an illusion to dissipate concerns about economic inequality -- "a rising tide lifts all boats." In reality, economic justice would require some redistribution of wealth, not increased extraction of natural resources that are in decline from overshoot.

ultra right wing critiques of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy - many are rooted in accurate understanding, but mixed up with misinformation about environmental calamities, the role of Jewish bankers supposedly running the world, the Amero Conspiracy Theory, etc. Some of these promoters are sincere but slightly skewed in their analyses, others are deliberate efforts to discredit deep critiques of the status quo. Even the worst of these approaches have parts of the analysis that are accurate, but the good parts are often hard to find through the not-so-good.

Greenpeace protest at
coal burning center

"global warming starts here"

There are two flavors to the official story. The more ridiculed version is the claim that climate change is not happening, or if it is the shift might be solely due to natural variations. This is essentially the argument from certain industries (Exxon-Mobil in particular) that are some of the worst polluters.

George W. Bush gets ridiculed by countless commentators for stonewalling on taking action for climate change - in particular, for withdrawing from the relatively toothless Kyoto treaty. But Bush's "ranch" in Crawford, Texas has rainwater capture, passive solar design and energy efficiency technologies. Bush also installed solar electric and hot water panels on the White House during his first term. The fact that Bush knows water catchment and solar energy are good things would translate into national policy if there was any compassion. Instead, the attitude is these are good things if you can afford them. Bush's policy of officially ignoring the problem while taking personal actions to mitigate impacts suggests he is a selfish survivalist.

The mass media, politicians and most environmental groups do not want to ask why our society largely ignored the warnings about climate change. Few of them also consider how Peak Oil and global warming are two ways of looking at the same problem of overconsumption, since our monetary system is predicated on ever increasing growth.

The best analyses of Peak Oil and of global warming each conclude that the problem would have to be addressed a decade or two before it manifests at full strength - yet both problems are here, now. Perhaps the truth is that the shadow government (corporations and the military industrial complex) did not want to deal with these problems because the solutions are inherently decentralized and would require relaxation of centralized power control systems. Since we missed the opportunity to solve these issues as gently as possible, governments are instituting a global surveillance police state to suppress dissent as the oil that runs the show becomes more scarce and expensive, and climate change reduces available food and water supplies.

The Hollywood disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow" exaggerated the speed of likely climate change scenarios. Hyperbole is a poor substitute for science.

The US military has conducted experiments to alter the weather for several decades, and even boasts about efforts to "control the weather in 2020." An international treaty banning weather modification as a weapon of war was signed in 1976 -- so this is not a hypothetical technology that only exists in paranoid fantasies.

But it would be very misleading to suggest that deliberate weather modification is the primary source for some of the shifts in global climate. Some of the less-than-reliable websites and other new sources that promote a variety of other not-quite-real claims about political topics argue that weather technology is the culprit, not our use of toxic technologies to power the "American Way of Life" and its imitators around the world. (One prominent 9/11 "truth" activist told an affiliate of this website that there was no need to be concerned about climate change since the military controls the weather!)

The weather is changed through technology every time a car is turned on or a light bulb is connected to the power grid. While corporations and governments bear the largest responsibility for the problem, billions of individual actions need to shift, too.

FEMA blocked aid to some of the victims in New Orleans

An early version of this chart was under construction when Hurricane Katrina wrecked New Orleans. That disaster perfectly fit the paradigm of "Official Story / Limited Hang Out / Best Evidence / Disinformation to Discredit."

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
- George W. Bush, September 1, 2005

The National Hurricane Center warned FEMA and Bush that Katrina was likely to flood New Orleans.

Officially, Hurricane Katrina killed over 1,000, but it is impossible to confirm any figures. Service Corporation International funeral company was hired by FEMA to dispose of bodies -- SCI has ties to Bush and has been caught in body dumping scandals.

A limited hang out is admitting to a small crime to avoid the full scandal. The illusion of incompetence is a key part of the cover-ups of Katrina, 9/11, the Iraq War and related crimes.

The contracts to "rebuild" New Orleans and the oil infrastructure are going to Halliburton, Bechtel and other companies that are "rebuilding" Iraq. New Orleans citizens are not receiving these contracts, just like ordinary Iraqis are not earning money from the alleged rebuilding of their country.

This profiteering has been called "disaster capitalism" and its organizers are very competent at their crimes. Another term is "collapsitalism."

This is the plan to profit from climate change and Peak Oil: make money creating the problem, and make more money from the misery.

FEMA is a police state agency focused on “continuity of government.”

FEMA blocked aid shipments and unplugged local governmental communication systems (which is malicious, not incompetent).

FEMA now has experience evacuating an entire city, implementing martial law and is building semi-permanent camps for former citizens of New Orleans.

If there is a nuclear attack on a US city, or a bird flu pandemic, FEMA’s treatment of New Orleans shows how the federal government will deal with it.

FEMA's response to Katrina reveals the plan for coping with Peak Oil: deliberately ignore the warnings about the crisis, let the poor drown, and suppress grassroots mitigation efforts. This disaster shows the US is now a “failed state.”

Media coverage of violence in New Orleans after the storm was greatly exaggerated and was used as the excuse for decreasing outside assistance to the survivors at their most vulnerable point.

A few websites with a history of hoaxes (unintentional or deliberate) claim the levees were demolished -- the first was a white supremacist (Hal Turner) with a track record of violent threats (not investigative reporting). While Louisiana has a history of levees being breached during floods (ruin your neighbor to save yourself), the levees broke at the height of the storm, as predicted by many media articles for many years. It is unlikely the levees were deliberately breached, but it is true that New Orleans, if rebuilt, will have been ethnically cleansed of its poorest citizens.

It is true that the US Air Force has researched weather manipulation for decades and boasts of a desire to control the weather by 2025 (exactly how much success they have had with this research is not publicly known). However, weather modification claims about Katrina distract from the fact that these superhurricanes show that climate change is here.

The US Geological Service and a few industry experts predict the peak of oil extraction will be in the 2030's, although most of those claiming that late date for Peak Oil are quietly dropping those projections (Peak seems much more imminent).

Many economists think that free market economics will mitigate any energy shortage (by making difficult to extract energy sources possible). They ignore geological limits to growth. Energy creates money (not the other way around).

Some oil industry officials admit that Peak Oil is here or near, but claim we can make technological changes that will not require us to change the way we live.

The environmentalist Apollo Alliance says that we can solve our dependence on oil imports with hydrogen fuel cells and hybrid cars, which is probably an example of good intentions but poor math.

The real plan for Peak regarding "Apollo" is not the succesful landings on the Moon, but Apollo 13, which suffered disaster between Earth and the Moon, with the astronauts barely surviving. Spaceship Earth is in the position of that doomed craft due to climate collapse and resource depletion.

Liberals blame oil companies for price gouging but most don’t suggest taxing their profits (or nationalization) to fund Amtrak or relocalization of food production.

The Bush regime blamed environmentalists for blocking drilling and refinery construction, which ignores geological reality (few companies will invest in new refineries as oil supplies decline).

Many blame OPEC for rising prices, but OPEC can no longer control pricing by varying output levels. The US seizure of Iraqi oil makes it part of OPEC.

Peak Oil explains the behavior of the Bush regime and the US empire -- why they stole the 2000 election, allowed (and assisted) 9/11, enacted the Patriot Act, created Homeland Security and invaded the Middle East oil fields.

A few voices claim that Peak Oil is not real and is merely an oil company conspiracy to hike profits and gain more control. These claims assume that oil is "abiotic" (not a fossil fuel), although this pseudo-theory is not based on evidence, predates our understanding of plate tectonics (critical for understanding the time scale of petroleum geology), and is a distraction from many other limits to endless growth. The real conspiracy is that the public is being excluded from decisions on what to do with the remaining oil (solar panels or battleships?).

Richard Heinberg provides a nice rebuttal of Greg Palast's accusations that Peak Oil is just oil company propaganda.

Matt Simmons, a friend of George W. Bush and participant in Richard Cheney's "Energy Task Force," is truthful about the Saudi oil reserves but promotes nuclear power, "clean" coal, and more drilling (the Cheney energy policy).

"Powerdown" strategies are the real solutions to Peak Oil. www.permatopia.com

There is a growing array of fantastic claims that huge reserves of oil are being kept secret so oil companies can unjustly profit. While few want to defend the ethics of oil companies, the truth is that the world's largest oil fields (in the Persian / Arabian Gulf) have been exaggerated.

Terror War

Afghanistan

Iraq

Some peace activists merely claim the US attack on Iraq was aimed at the wrong country, since the 9/11 plot supposedly was hatched in Afghanistan.

Congressional critics claim that the pre-war intelligence was incompetent, which avoids the fact the lies were deliberate.

The Democratic Party's positions on the war seem to be a "good cop" to the Republican Party's "bad cop" -- if Bush is removed (whether in 2009 or before), it is unlikely the empire will completely leave Iraq and stop surrounding the Middle East oil fields.

The "War on Terror" is a sequential war to control the remaining oil supplies as we reach Peak Oil.

The Project for a New American Century, which includes Cheney and Bush, stated in 2000 that the US needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to mobilize for what the neo-conservatives call World War IV (World War III was the "Cold War").

"Rapture theology" propaganda aimed at religious fundamentalists is not Christianity, but a dirty trick to provide justification for endless wars (under the guise that it is “Armageddon”) and imply that climate change is God's will, not Exxon’s fault.

Claims that the war is merely waged to benefit Israel forget that the US largely controls Israel as a client state.

Kerry won in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.

"President" Bush won the 2000 and 2004 elections and it is a coincidence that the "problems" with voting machines and voter lists were accidents even though the "mistakes" all helped Bush/Cheney.

The corporate media says we can trust voting machines but ignore the companies links to organized crime and extreme fundamentalists who think the Earth is about 6,000 years old.

Recommendations for "paper trails" for voting machines are a poor substitute for banning these rigged machines. Paper trails merely mean that the machines will give out a margin of victory larger than the level that triggers recounts. Giving voters a receipt for their ballot does not require that their ballots are counted in a verifiable method.

Hillary Clinton, has business ties to the Bush crime family (via Arkansas financier Jackson Stephens and the Mena, Arkansas scandal) and was on the board of Wal-Mart.

Barack Obama has fewer covert ties than the Clintons, but he is also sponsored by Wall Street and has war criminal advisors.

Vote Fraud is a deeper problem than Diebold voting machines.

Election rigging includes the Kennedy assassinations, the 1980 October Surprise (which toppled Carter) and the "plane crashes" of Senator Paul Wellstone (2002) and Governor Mel Carnahan (2000 -- he ran against then Senator Ashcroft).

The Democratic Party died in Dallas on November 22, 1963 -- their refusal to demand a real investigation and prosecution of the conspirators led toward their permanent minority status.

Why elections are allowed to be stolen is more important than the details of phony voting machines.

Some racist publications have promoted (mostly accurate) information about election rigging in efforts to boost their own credibility with dissidents. These efforts include the American Free Press and votefraud.org, which promote Holocaust Denial. We don’t need racists to prove that Presidential elections are rigged.

The Socialist Workers Party, a small sectarian "left" political party, was massively infiltrated by the federal secret police during the 1960s (this was verified in a protracted legal suit against the government). Did the government want to disrupt these sorts of groups, or keep them afloat (via members dues) in order to have multiple, competing, irrelevant organizations representing the "left" end of the ideological spectrum?

The Democrats and Republicans are united in avoiding the topic of impeachment as a remedy for Bush / Cheney war crimes (Iraq, 9/11, etc).

Replacing Bush with Hillary Clinton in 2009 is unlikely to transform the military-industrial complex into a force for peace and sanity.

MoveOn.org recommends that Bush be "censured" by Congress for misleading the country into the Iraq war, the same remedy that Congress passed in its prosecution of Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. "Censure" is not specified in the Constitution. Their recommendation happened at the same time as their home town of Berkeley, California was considering a City Council resolution to endorse impeachment of Bush. Lying about the war is just the tip of the iceberg.

If Bush and Cheney are impeached, it will probably be for lying and spying -- not for allowing and assisting the 9/11 attacks.

"The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
- Constitution of the United States

In 1987, only Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Texas) was the only sponsor of a bill to impeach Reagan for Iran-Contra. He was the only Representative to propose it for the first President Bush in 1991 for deploying a half million troops to Saudi Arabia without Congressional authorization.

Congress is afraid to challenge the secret, actual government.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about sex dissuaded many Democrats from thinking that impeachment is a legitimate tool for addressing abuses of power.

President Nixon resigned office rather than face certain impeachment after a House committee voted for three counts of impeachment (Nixon had lost Congressional support for staying in office). These counts related to the Watergate burglary and obstruction of justice, but a fourth count about Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambodia was not passed. The message: burglary and lying is worse than bombing countries.

The Warren Commission report claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed President Kennedy. This claim is predicated in part on the "single bullet theory" created by Commission attorney Arlen Specter (a theory that must be true for the official story to be correct).

Each time these major scandals are exxon-erated by the politicial system as a "coincidence" it emboldens the perpetrators to do them again.

The fall-back story suggests that the mafia and/or anti-Castro Cubans were responsible. Lee Harvey Oswald spent a lot of time in the months before the assassination pretending to be a leftist in solidarity with the Cuban communist government while associating with anti-Castro cubans and other groups connected to the CIA.

A variation on this theme is that the Warren Commission had to coverup the involvement of Castro's Cuba and the Soviet Union, and therefore the coverup prevented a nuclear war between the US and the USSR (since the American public would have demanded revenge). In this view, the Warren Commission coverup was necessary to avoid World War Three.

To explain the Kennedy assassination, one must ask: Who had the power to change the motorcade route (to bring it near the Texas Book Depository and the "grassy knoll")? Who had the power to cover up the crime? Who benefitted?

President Kennedy had changed his mind on the Cold War, had stopped nuclear testing in the atmosphere, and signed an order to start withdrawing troops from Vietnam. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, and the CIA shattered Kennedy into a thousand pieces.

The assassination was a coup d'etat against democracy.

"The 9/11 Truth Movement gives one insight why the term 'conspiracy theorist' came to be shorthand for 'discredited whacko' in the invisible guidebook of mainstream media. "Suddenly, it's not hard to understand why the obvious anomalies in the JFK assassination never received proper attention in accepted media channels.
"If you have just as many nutty theories about the driver of the limo turning around and shooting JFK as you have honest scientific inquiries about the real probability of multiple shooters, the wheat drowns in the chaff."
-- Sander Hicks, author of "The Big Wedding"

Michael Collins Piper, a Holocaust denier who writes for the neo-Nazi Barnes Review, claims that Israel killed JFK due to Kennedy's opposition to Israel acquisition of nuclear weapons (among other reasons). While it is possible (?) that they had a role, the Israeli secret services did not control the route of the Presidential limo and did not operate the coverup afterwards. The poor quality of Mr. Piper's work can be seen by his claims that the Auschwitz extermination camp did not have gas chambers (www.barnesreview.org/auschwitz.htm)

the American Reichstag Fire

the Achilles Heel of the Bush regime

Bush claimed that al-Qaeda attacked us because they hate our freedoms. Condi Rice claimed that they had no idea planes could be used as weapons, even though "Bojinka" (a precursor plot) was stopped in 1995.

"Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert documents a 2001 Rand Corporation report that noted the FBI and CIA only had minor communication difficulties regarding counter-terrorism intelligence that did not disrupt their effectiveness and were easily solved.

The concept of "blowback" -- al-Qaeda attacked us because they hate US foreign policies.

Fahrenheit 9/11 claims Bush was supposedly incompetent, too blinded by Saudi money to act on warnings that 9/11 was imminent -- which ignores evidence that this "incompetence" was a deliberate decision.

Liberal "alternative" media that pretend 9/11 was a surprise attack argue the Bush regime merely "hijacked catastrophe" to get war. These pundits include Norman Solomon, David Corn of The Nation, Alexander Cockburn, and Noam Chomsky.

The liberal pundits who attacked journalists daring to "connect the dots" about 9/11 foreknowledge information in the months after 9/11 provided enormous help to the Bush administration at its most vulnerable point. It is hard to say whether these people were intentionally trying to censor for covert purposes, or whether their reluctance is rooted in psychological inability to address these core issues. If these media experts had brought together a consortium of journalists in the months after 9/11 to sift through the evidence, separating the good from the bad, it is almost certain that Bush would not have been able to have the political capital to invade Iraq, steal another election, and likely would have been impeached by now.

9/11 was allowed and assisted to create the pretext for Homeland Security and Peak Oil wars.

Foreknowledge is proven beyond reasonable doubt - the only question is the precise amount of technical assistance from the Cheney administration to ensure that the attacks happened as desired. Why is more important than how.

The Bush regime deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, suppressed FBI investigations (the agents had figured out what was coming), and ignored warnings from allied countries. A few corporate, military and political elites seem to have been given quiet warnings not to fly that day or to get out of the way (these claims are documented by the mainstream media sources).

Stock trades were placed on United, American and other impacted companies just before 9/11, and large trades like those are monitored by CIA. This scandal was covered widely in the international press until some of the "put options" were linked to a company with CIA connections by Michael Ruppert's publication From the Wilderness about a month after 9/11.

The Air Force and CIA scheduled war game exercises that morning that paralyzed the air defenses.

It is likely that remote control technology was used to "hijack the hijackers" to steer Flight 77 into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector (instead of the crowded parts of the Pentagon).

The "no Boeing hit the Pentagon" science fiction stories ignore the facts. The "no plane" hoaxes imply that the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane, the crash and the rubble afterwards are lying co-conspirators covering up for Cheney. The physical evidence confirms the eyewitness reports -- the impact zone was as wide as a Boeing 757. These "no plane" speculations distract from real evidence, and discredit 9/11 skepticism inside the Beltway, both by the majority of the citizens (most voted against Bush) and the political and military elites (who were not part of the cabal that facilitated 9/11).

There are many other disinformation efforts to "muddy the waters" around these issues that discourage most Bush opponents reluctant to investigate the evidence for complicity.

The US State Department maintains a website for "Identifying Misinformation" that highlights 9/11 hoaxes regarding missiles allegedly fired at the Pentagon but ignores the quality work of Michael Ruppert, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Sander Hicks, Daniel Hopsicker and Peter Dale Scott, among others. It seems obvious that the State Department is promoting the sloppy (fake?) efforts to allege 9/11 complicity while avoiding serious efforts to establish the truth. 9/11 skeptics who don't believe the official story should recognize this is an effort by the government to select which "conspiracy theories" should be considered representative of the 9/11 truth movement.

As more citizens have admitted that 9/11 was allowed to happen, the media have shifted from ignoring the claims of complicity to focusing on the most speculative and outrageous claims - an effort to discredit the entire topic of inquiry.

A few ultraconservative voices on the internet claim that the Israelis sent the anthrax, but it is unlikely the choice of targets was the decision of the Mossad.

The ACLU and many other Patriot Act opponents pretend that post 9/11 fascist laws and policies can be rescinded without talking about how 9/11 was deliberately allowed to happen.

Some public figures expressing outrage about the Bush regime's torture scandal pretend that this is merely a post-9/11 issue that is unique to this administration. Torture is nothing new in US history -- the CIA used torture in the Vietnam War, and taught torture tactics to client states in Latin America. Any history of US torture must include lynching and the abuses inflicted on the First Nations (native Americans).

Massive computer databases, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), and the Total Information Awareness program are components of a long-planned Orwellian surveillance society. The novel "1984" and the film "Brazil" describe where the Bush regime is taking us

These problems did not suddenly arise in January 2001 or even after 9/11 -- they are the logical consequence of a society of "not see's" ignoring decades of sustained efforts to sabotage democratic decision making. Dictatorship needs denial.

Claims that the United Nations plans to take over the US distract from the slow-motion coup d'etat against democracy.

There are not enough troops to implement a Nazi style system, but there is enough energy to impose a form of "partial martial law" to suppress dissent.

Weapons of Mass Disinformation

Mainstream media (corporate funded):

Television networks, large US newspapers, AM radio, NPR and PBS mislead via selective presentation, distortion and distractions (sex, pop culture, consumerism, sports).

Mainstream media has extensive ties to CIA and the profit motive distorts their integrity on the most critical stories.

"alternative" media (some are funded by foundations):

Democracy Now!, The Nation, Mother Jones, The Progressive, FAIR, Counterpunch, largely ignore Peak Oil in their analyses and refuse to mention the war games of 9/11 that paralyzed the air defenses over New York and Washington. 90% of their work is good, but they ignore the 10% that is the most important part.

Mother Jones has published a major article on how Bush supposedly won in Ohio in 2004 that ignored most of the evidence of vote fraud and the corruption of the election in many other states (Ohio was not the only stolen election in 2004).

The refusal of the "left" media to examine evidence for 9/11 complicity parallels similar avoidance of the coup against President Kennedy -- this refusal to investigate helped the plotters succeed.

Independent media that strives for accuracy and is not funded by governments, corporations or philanthropic foundations (often with oil company investments) is the most reliable, and yet the most difficult to find. No news service covers all issues or all aspects of any issue -- it is important to read a wide variety of sources and be cautious.

Disinformation that discredits real evidence:

The internet has the best sources for news ignored by mainstream and "alternative" publications. However, there are websites that resemble news sources but are just electronic vacuum cleaners that post a mix of real and fake that are hard to differentiate. The establishment likes to control the extremes, and probably sponsors some "conspiracy" sites to misdirect government critics.

Open forum websites where anyone can post anything often attract disinformation if controversial topics are discussed. The indymedia network allows anonymous postings from anywhere in the world, which allows hoaxers to post nonsense and personal attacks on their forums. Global Research, a Canadian website with lots of material on 9/11 complicity and related scandals, has a forum where unknown agents posted extremely offensive Holocaust Denial material -- which was used by mainstream media to smear the website's sponsor. The Wikipedia encyclopedia has also allowed anyone to publish anything without a vetting process to check facts -- Wikipedia has now been forced to require a modest effort at verification. Editorial peer review is not censorship.

The film "Beyond Treason" was made by The Power Hour, the group that made the hoax film "911 In Plane Site."

Jack Cohen-Joppa of the Nuclear Resister has a good rebuttal to their sloppy work on DU issues, which discredits serious evidence of uranium toxicity. Their main "researcher" on uranium issues they use (Leuren Moret) and promotes American Free Press in her articles about DU.

Two sources of accurate information about DU on American veterans and Iraqi civilians are the National Gulf War Resources Center at http://www.ngwrc.org and the Military Toxics Project at http://www.miltoxproj.org

The best films on uranium poisoning in Iraq are Hidden Wars of Desert Storm and The Oil Factor, both from Free Will Productions (filmed on location in Iraq).

Publicly, the US government and corporate America claimed the problems were minor and easily coped with.

The most accurate predictions were that the impacts would be like a rising flood that peaked and then ebbed. Most of the problems that did happen were kept out of public scrutiny and dealt with quietly.

A quarter trillion dollars were spent to fix the problems -- some of this money was not needed (since some problems were exaggerated) but a lot of it was used to mitigate the crisis. Some nuclear reactors, chemical factories and other industrial facilities were found to have major glitches that would have disrupted operation and threatened public safety, if not repaired before the "rollover."

Y2K was used by the US government as an excuse to test martial law plans in cities from Oakland, Ca to Chester, Pa. It was a dress rehearsal for "Homeland Security" and the federal plan to deal with Peak Oil.

no Arabs were involved or were on the planes

Israel did it (a different claim that Israel had foreknowledge, or even played a role)

FBI whistleblowers have spoken about their experiences that show how valuable clues were deliberately ignored by management, it was not a case of simple incompetence.

“Crossing the Rubicon” by Michael Ruppert documents a 2001 Rand Corporation report that noted these agencies only had very minor communication difficulties regarding counter-terrorism intelligence.

www.oilempire.us/standdown.html

The 9/11 Commission blamed the FAA for screwing up the response to the hijackings, yet FAA safely landed more than 4,000 planes at airports that were not expecting them immediately after the attacks began. FAA is not responsible for the Air Force’s inaction.

generally ignored by the official story, when pressed, the claim is made that some of the war games helped speed the response to the situation

The media and the official Commission report did not dare prepare a list of all of the war games underway on 9/11, even though all of them have been mentioned in some sort of official context or mainstream media article.

Michael Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon"has the deepest analysis of the how the war games facilitated the attacks by paralyzing the air defenses. An excellent summary is: Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney by Michael Kane

Paul Thompson's Center for Cooperative Research has the most complete list of 9/11 war games and exercises.

Webster Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA: "the most palpably subversive actions could be made to appear in the harmless and even beneficial guise of a drill."
(a good quote, but the book is a mix of accurate information and debunked nonsense, including claims that petroleum supplies are essentially unlimited.)

The 9/11 war games are part of a pattern where exercise simulations have been used to mask real world events. The 1990 "Internal Look" exercise simulated Iraq's invasion of Kuwait at the exact moment that Iraq invaded Kuwait (Cheney was Secretary of Defense).

Team 8 (a website from people who previously pushed the "pod" hoax, now focused on the war games issues)

fake news from Alex Jones / Infowars

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/
january2005/040105defenseshield.htm
9/11 Whispers: Washington Defense Shield Deactivated Due To Wargames?

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.

A variety of theories that claim Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, even though hundreds of people saw the plane and the "physical evidence" is consistent with a 757.

These theories are needed to discredit conspiracy speculations inside the Beltway, both by the majority of the citizens (most voted against Bush) and the political and military elites (who were not part of the cabal that facilitated 9/11)

Flight 93 was probably shot down. The best collection of information documenting this is the website www.flight93crash.com - it has not been updated in years, but it did manage to save a number of early news articles and eyewitness accounts.

There are several different theories why it was shot down.

Journalist Wayne Madsen claims that NSA officers were barred from listening to intercepts of Air Force fighter planes at the moment of shootdown:
"Before Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, NSA operations personnel clearly heard on the intercom system monitoring military and civilian communications that the "fighters are engaged" with the doomed United aircraft. NSOC personnel were then quickly dismissed from the tactical area of the NSOC where the intercom system was located leaving only a few senior personnel in place." - Wayne Madsen

The American Free Press floated the claim in September 2004 that the crash of Flight 93 did not happen. There are also claims from people pushing other "no planes" hoaxes that Flight 93 really landed in Cleveland.

The hoax site physics911 claims that the passengers didn't really make phone calls to their loved ones because cell phones are not reliable on planes (although the air phones on the planes definitely do work). These hoaxes imply that the victims' voices were simulated by military psychological warfare teams - a great way to alienate the victims' families and ensure that they will not form alliances with the skeptics investigating complicity evidence.

pods - the idea that Flight 175 had a "pod" underneath the wing that fired a missile at the South Tower (in reality, just a blurred photo of the normal "fairing" that connects the wing to the fuselage) popularized by the film "In Plane Site"

flash - blurry video promulgated three years after 9/11 that purports to show a detonation on the plane's nose when it contacted the building - fun with photoshop! also from "In Plane Site"

the "webfairy" theory (the bizarre claim that no plane hit the north tower, it was really a missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram)

smaller planes: "the holes were too small for 767" (this is easily debunked by looking at the size and shape of the impact holes)

no windows on the plane (and therefore a military tanker plane) even though plane wreckage in the rubble clearly showed the fuselage had windows and there's zero evidence for this claim - also from "In Plane Site"

The towers fell from a combination of the impact destroying part of the supporting columns and fires reducing the strength of the steel. The extra weight of the plane (and collapsed floors) probably contributed to the collapse.

Building 7 was ignored by the 9/11 Commission report, but the official story claims that part of a tower made a large gash on the building, and diesel fires from an emergency generator caused the building to collapse.

The real scandal of the collapse of the towers were the faulty construction standards that were used.An excellent compilation by the Progressive Review documents numerous examples.

If the towers were not demolished via controlled demolition (but merely destroyed by conscious allowing of 9/11 to happen), then the construction standards scandal is not a limited hang out.

demolition theories are not needed to prove that 9/11 was allowed and assisted

The twin towers and WTC 7 were bulging and leaning before they fell down.

There is no chain of custody for the claims that is usable in any court.

It is likely the claim that thermite (which is not an explosive) was found in alleged dust samples is just burned aluminum residues from the cladding on the towers.

There is an enormous amount of erroneous material circulating on the internet making false claims for demolition. Many of these fake claims are marketed as "physical evidence" but they are just hoaxes.

North Tower fires had gone out (Bush II official Morgan Reynolds) - numerous photos refute this

kerosene fires can't melt steel (the best claims for demolition acknowledge this)

Building 6 explosion

a giant explosion cloud at the base of the towers brought them down (In Plane Site, among others) This is the exact opposite method of controlled demolition (a large detonation at the base would have risked toppling the towers).

"Pull It" quote ("bait" left by Larry Silverstein to distract the skeptics)

explosion in the basement of the towers (if true, probably just jet fuel that cascaded down the elevator shaft) - peddled by William Rodriguez, whose "RICO" lawsuit against Bush contains significant disinformation - controlled demolitions of skyscrapers do NOT involve detonations in the basements an hour before collapse

the towers were destroyed with nuclear explosives - probably the most ridiculous nonsense that anyone has offered

we're waiting for the "No Buildings" theories ...