By Eric Lichtblau,
New York Times
WASHINGTON (Feb. 9) – In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.
But aviation officials were “lulled into a false sense of security,” and “intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures,” the commission report concluded.
The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable.”
Ask yourself how the 9/11 Commission could find that the FAA was “lulled into a false sense of security” after receiving 52 terrorist warnings including statements that domestic hijackings were preferable if the intent was “to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion.” Next watch the media talking heads endlessly repeat the official mantra of complacency, distraction and miscommunications. Then it may be clear how far the Commission and the spin doctors will go to protect the “official story” – and how cowed or stupid they all believe we are. See also the Voices of September 11th’s hard-hitting Feb. 10 response at the end.… Continue reading
Although 9/11′s deserved spotlight has certainly yet to come, we offer below a recent sampling of how the press has handled the story thus far. In the corporate press, you’ll doubtless notice, it’s not pretty and it’s not fearless, but at least some facts are leaking through.
by Scott McConnell
February 14, 2005
The Iraq war has brought out a “hunger for dictatorship” in the Right that could signal the end of American democracy. — Editor of American Conservative
Students of history inevitably think in terms of periods: the New Deal, McCarthyism, “the Sixties” (1964-1973), the NEP, the purge trial–all have their dates. Weimar, whose cultural excesses made effective propaganda for the Nazis, now seems like the antechamber to Nazism, though surely no Weimar figures perceived their time that way as they were living it. We may pretend to know what lies ahead, feigning certainty to score polemical points, but we never do.
Nonetheless, there are foreshadowings well worth noting. The last weeks of 2004 saw several explicit warnings from the antiwar Right about the coming of an American fascism. Paul Craig Roberts in these pages wrote of the “brownshirting” of American conservatism–a word that might not have surprised had it come from Michael Moore or Michael Lerner. But from a Hoover Institution senior fellow, former assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, and one-time Wall Street Journal editor, it was striking.
Several weeks later, Justin Raimondo, editor of the popular Antiwar.com website, wrote a column headlined, “Today’s Conservatives are Fascists.” Pointing to the justification of torture by conservative legal theorists, widespread support for a militaristic foreign policy, and a retrospective backing of Japanese internment during World War II, Raimondo raised the prospect of “fascism with… Continue reading
Paths to 9/11 Understanding
The Two-Step 9/11 Truth Expedition
Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate awakenings.
The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the “official 9/11 story,” is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study, logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it’s a major purpose of this site.
The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of that knowledge–and what it says about our media, politics and economic system today–is by far the harder awakening and requires an enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, “You cannot wake… Continue reading
Defining existential politics.
by Byron Belitsos
With the inauguration of George W. Bush for a second term, we enter a nightmare phase of American history, a descent into the era of what might be called “deep politics.”
In this short essay I reach out for an expanded definition of a phrase first coined by the distinguished author Peter Dale Scott. In Deep Politics and the Death of JFK1, Scott refers to the “underlying continuities of deep politics” displayed by the apparent convergence of the covert interests of military, rightwing, intelligence agency, and organized crime conspirators that coalesced in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Veteran journalist Jim Marrs points in a similar direction with his Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, as does the Oliver Stone movie based in part on that book. Marrs then works out the implications in later books, including Rule by Secrecy and Inside Job2, an expose of US government collusion with the 9/11 plot. Big-picture writers like Scott, Marrs, and investigative journalist Mike Ruppert, author of Crossing the Rubicon3, have succeeded in synthesizing a growing body of evidence that support the notion that America now inhabits a surreal realm of deep politics, where amoral, Machiavellian, covert action directs (or conditions) the agenda of the overt world, and cover stories are spun by self-deceived politicians, “pundits,” and mainstream media.
Meanwhile, the truth and the facts about the black-budget world of covert action migrates to isolated ghettos inhabited by independent… Continue reading
Important study showing prevalence of conservative (authoritarian) personality traits in the convict population, and their relationship to poor education, fear and prejudice.
Change in the Conservative Personality
Equals Change in the Offender
with a Resultant Reduction in Recidivism
by Michael D. Parsons and Jennifer G. Parsons
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium
Offenders have many of the characteristics of the conservative personality as defined by Adorno, Collins, Wilson, and Boshier. The characteristics of the conservative personality limit change necessary for rehabilitation. Until that personality is modified, it is very difficult to reduce recidivism. Modification of the conservative personality through education and environment can lead to change in the offender’s behavior.
Is it possible to reduce violence by the criminal offender during incarceration? This paper presents the basis for a model which deals with certain offenders through an educational effort to modify some of their negative characteristics which include violence. The model in this paper is based on the concept of a conservative/authoritarian personality as it is found in offenders. The concept of the authoritarian personality remains important today as evidenced by coverage in current introductory psychology textbooks (Crooks & Stein, 1991; Dworetzky, 1991; Gleitman, 1991). “It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development” (Boshier, 1983, p. 159). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993) in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexually aggressive behavior. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in traditional (conservative personality) than non-traditional personalities. It is postulated in this paper that the offender has a conservative personality and, therefore, manifests that violence.
The conservative personality work has as its antecedents the efforts on authoritarianism as developed by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) in their book The Authoritarian Personality. Adorno, et al. developed what was called an F-Scale, or Fascist scale, which dealt with nine variables thought to be found in the authoritarian personality: anti-contraception, conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, power/toughness, projectivity, superstition/stereotyping, destruction/cynicism, and sex. Historically several problems with the F-Scale instrument were found. To counteract these problems, a Conservatism or C-Scale was developed by Wilson and Patterson in 1968 (Boshier, 1983, p. 50). To reduce confusion, the remainder of this paper will interchange the terms conservatism/authoritarianism, as “neither conceptually nor empirically does there appear to be any grounds for distinguishing authoritarianism and conservative personality–except that the former may be regarded as a somewhat more particular case of the latter” (Wilson, 1973, p. 33). Dogmatic attitudes tend to be related to close-mindedness. The individuals who adhere to dogmatic attitudes have behaviors including: authoritarianism, tough-mindedness, conservatism, and alienated behavior (Rajnarain, 1986). Continue reading
Gandhi shrewdly observed four stages of movement progress: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.” By that reckoning and the expense of this devious assault, we have definitely advanced to stage three!
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, February 7, 2005
The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, Nascar paraphenelia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.
The article’s approach is to identify the 9/11 skeptics movement with a series of mostly physical-evidence issues, while entirely ignoring vast bodies of evidence that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.
The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the “most prevalent” among “conspiracy theorists.” The claims are grouped into themes which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each theme, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers’ demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers’ Demolition. Continue reading
Part 2: The Good Doctor Who Wasn’t So Good
By Allan P. Duncan September 4, 2004
Courtesy of OpEdNews.com
THE GROUNDBREAKING RESEARCH CURRENTLY FEEDING THE CHERTOFF EXPOSE STORIES
In Part 1 of this series I introduced you to three men from Jersey City who attempted to set up a weapons deal which included among other things, hundreds of Stinger Missiles and components for nuclear weapons. The weapons deal was part of a two and a half year investigation called Operation Diamondback which culminated with the arrests of two of the Jersey City men in June of 2001.
Diaa Moshen was sentenced to 30 months in prison and Mohamed Malik was freed and had his case sealed and purged of all references to Pakistan . Both men are now free and continue to walk the streets of New Jersey.
The third man, Raja Ghulam Abbas, an alleged Pakistani ISI Agent, fled the country and the last I heard was living in Pakistan .
During a meeting at Robert DeNiro’s Tribeca Grill on July 22, 1999, Abbas pointed towards the World Trade Center and stated “those towers are coming down.” Despite the fact that the meeting was recorded and was being watched by members of the FBI’s Terrorism Task Force, the threat was apparently not taken seriously. (4)
Randy Glass, the former con-man who posed as a weapons dealer during Operation Diamondback, was so upset about the references to the Towers coming down, that after the investigation ended he notified his elected… Continue reading
Special Report by D. Alexander Floum
Online Journal Contributing Writer
January 28, 2005-The evidence that certain elements of the government intentionally
allowed and caused the 9-11 tragedy appears to be extremely strong. See,
for example, Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid, Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley, and The New
Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions by
David Ray Griffin.
After failing to obtain any competent investigation or tangible results from the 9/11 Commission, the White House, or Congress (many of the governmental personnel responsible for preventing an attack on the U.S. have actually been promoted since 9-11), many Americans are asking whether justice may be obtained through the courts. The answer is complicated, and it would be impossible for a brief article such as this to do anything other than scratch the surface concerning 9-11 justice.
Instead of being the final word on 9-11 legal issues, this article is intended to be an introduction to strategy regarding 9-11 lawsuits, and a practical discussion of how to avoid some of the landmines present on the path to the courtroom battlefield which could knock the unwary out of the game before they even get started.
CAN WE WIN A 9-11 LAWSUIT?
Legally, I believe we should win in court. If the facts surrounding the 9-11 attacks were applied to the elements of the law in a vacuum, then I believe that many of the real 9-11 perpetrators and accomplices would end up behind bars. There is strong… Continue reading
By Daniel Hopsicker
Mad Cow Productions
Michael Chertoff, appointed by President Bush to head the Homeland Security Department, may have shielded from criminal prosecution a former client suspected by law enforcement of having funneled millions of dollars directly to Osama Bin Laden while in charge of the U.S. Government’s 9.11 investigation. Egyptian-born Dr. Magdy el-Amir, a prominent New Jersey neurologist, was at the center of terrorist intrigue in Jersey City.
WIRE TRANSFERS TO “UNKNOWN PARTIES”
Chertoff’s client “caused more than $5.7 million to be paid by wire transfers to unknown parties,” said the lawsuit filed shortly before the state took over his failing HMO. News accounts about el-Amir’s legal difficulties contain unanswered questions about undue political influence and its effect on national security.
For example, how did el-Amir, who only the month before had been granted a state license to operate an HMO, finagle a lucrative contract from the state of New Jersey in 1995? “Why was this doctor… Continue reading
Sibel Edmonds’ Keynote Speech at the ACLU
National Security Whistleblower Press Conference
National Press Club, Hashington, DC
January 26, 2005
As many readers know, Sibel Edmonds is the heroic FBI whistleblower who in the spring of 2004 exposed the bureau translation department’s rampant negligence, corruption, and possession of early warnings of the 9/11 attacks. For more on her subsequent FBI firing, Ashcroft gagging, and dismissal by the 9/11 Commission, clickhere
Her Speech: A few days ago, during an interview, I was asked to provide comments regarding the Inspector General’s Report into my allegations, and I was asked whether or not I agreed with the Report’s conclusion that the FBI did not take my reports and allegations seriously, although they were supported by facts, evidence, and other witnesses.
From one perspective, my answer was: yes; despite all the facts, evidence, and other witnesses, the bureau chose not to investigate the espionage case and other criminal acts committed against the United States, its people, and its national security; instead they chose to cover it up.
On the other hand, from another perspective, my answer was: No; they took my case, and their objective, which was to cover up these issues and criminal acts, extremely seriously. After all, for the past three years they have been relentlessly and in an unprecedented manner engaged in actions geared towards covering up my reports and investigations into my allegations.
Lets talk about these unconstitutional and un-American actions, shall we? Gagging the United States Congress,… Continue reading
by Michael Kane
January 18, 2005 (FTW) – In an argument of over 600 pages and 1,000 footnotes, Crossing the Rubicon makes the case for official complicity within the U.S. government and names Dick Cheney as the prime suspect in the crimes of 9/11. Since the publication of this book (to which I had the privilege of contributing a chapter), many people have asked to hear the case against Cheney argued “short & sweet.”
I will make it as short as possible, but it can never be sweet.
There are 3 major points made within this book that are crucial to proving Cheney’s guilt. I shall first list them and then go on to prove each point as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon.
“…The world of conspiracy theories, it is like a zoo. It is like a black hole. It is the place we as a culture toss ideas that don’t fit quite right, that unsettle and disturb and cause us to shudder…
“And it is the place the Powers That Be will toss any sinister and dark questions about their behavior, safe in the knowledge that anyone who goes to look for the answer will have to dive into that gnarled world and will look foolish and silly and will be probably be laughed off the stage…
“Sometimes it’s all you — or I — can do to hint at the existence of these radical notions and illuminate the frightening possibilities and scream into the Void, hoping to agitate and inform and inspire while still covering your professional butt….
“After all, once you allow the real possibility of UFOs or psychic healing or crop-circle phenomena or the notion that we could very well have a hugely malicious, criminal U.S. government capable of pulling a 9/11 on its own citizens, well, the happy capitalistic all-American Christian world begins to implode. Foundations crumble. Trust in our institutions vanishes. Gods fall and doctrines crumble and televangelists spontaneously combust and everyone starts reimagining the social order in ways that absolutely terrify those who now hold the reins.”
Full Monty here.
From the Resonant Resurrections Dept: This wise little version of “Cover-ups for Dummies” has been floating on the Net since the late ’90s at least. Given the government/media handling of 9/11, the resulting wars, and recent electoral fraud it often seems our top officials must read it everyday. If we’re to bring the truth alive in 2005, it may help to occasionally remind ourselves how the pros play the game.
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.
9/11 Victims, National Security Whistleblowers, Go to Court to Support Sibel Edmonds; Demand Government Stop Silencing Employees Who Expose Security Risks
WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 21, 2005) – An unprecedented group of national security whistleblowers and family members of 9/11 victims’ families will gather Wednesday, January 26th to demand that the government halt its detrimental practice of silencing employees who expose national security blunders.
The event comes as several 9/11 family member advocacy groups and public interest organizations file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Sibel Edmonds’ case against the government.
Edmonds, a former Middle Eastern language specialist hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 after repeatedly reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency’s translation program. She challenged her retaliatory dismissal by filing suit in federal court. Last July, the district court dismissed her case when Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the so-called state secrets privilege. The ACLU is representing Edmonds in the appeal.
The event will be held at 12 p.m. at the National Press Club. Speakers will include Edmonds, ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, FBI whistleblower Mike German, 9/11 family member Bill Doyle and others. Many high level national security whistleblowers and 9/11 family members will be at the event and available for interviews.
The event comes on the heels of last week’s release of an unclassified summary of the Justice Department’s Inspector General report investigating Edmonds’ termination. The report concluded that Edmonds was fired for reporting serious security breaches and misconduct… Continue reading
By Jolly Roger
New York City
January 5, 2005
Everyone has heard, and has probably used the term “conspiracy theorist,” and the fact of the term being in common use, also indicates that we generally agree on what it means. I saw a movie by that name, and the title character was a raving lunatic who kept his food in thermoses with combination locks to reduce his chances of being poisoned by imaginary enemies.
Regardless of how the stupid movie turned out, what’s important here is the common perception people have of someone to whom that label is applied, and just as important, is who it is that applies the label. The common perception is that someone who is labeled a “conspiracy theorist” is suffering from some type of psychological disorder, and that label is usually applied to people by our government, and our news media. The next thing to consider, is that the label is applied to anyone who questions our government’s version of events in any matter. Doesn’t it logically follow that the media are teaching us to assume that anyone who questions the government is insane? When that label is applied to a person, doesn’t it become easy to dismiss everything they say without even hearing it? How convenient for them.
I think the label first became widely used to slander people who questioned the details surrounding the JFK assassination, and forty years later, there aren’t too many thinking people who still believe the Warren Commission’s “lone… Continue reading
Although Libertarians, old school conservatives and progressives have been most active promoting 9/11 truth, their eventual victory will serve almost every conceivable constituency except perhaps the neocons, Dominionists and corporatist right. All 9/11 truth seekers have their own distinct approaches however, and the following is a recent example of the progressive style.
Downloadable 3-panel Flyer of this Page }}
( Available as an Acrobat .pdf File Here! )
WANT TO END PERPETUAL WAR, REPRESSION,
CORPORATE RULE, FISCAL RUIN AND/OR
THE AMAZING DISAPPEARING SOCIAL SAFETY NET?
10 COMPELLING REASONS TO ADOPT 9/11 TRUTH
AS A PRIMARY THEME
IN PROGRESSIVE POLITICS
By Kathleen Maclay
22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03)
BERKELEY — Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?
Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
“From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination,” the researchers wrote in an article, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” recently published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin.
Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.
The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.
Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on… Continue reading