A wise meditation on tactics and approaches for the months ahead. We quibble a bit with Malaprop’s see/hear/speak-no-evil advice re 9/11 disinfo and dunces, but agree that simply distancing oneself from the phony theories is usually better than noisy demonization. Still we do occasionally have to show that we too can tell wheat from chaff.
911 Truth Alliance List
March 7, 2005
EVERYTHING points to a frame-up, complicity–you name it. There is enough evidence for them to swing from a rope a 100 times. The problem is getting a real investigation, a courtroom. At this point IMHO, all of our time would be better spent in learning interviewee skills under hostile conditions.
Furthermore, anyone who cannot keep their temper, and has so little self-control, is a ball and chain that I don’t want to have to depend on to save this country. I don’t want to mess with loose cannons. The way I feel is I have no time for, nor do I have interest in baby-sitting somebody whose ego outweighs the objective of saving this country. One is to just put their ego in a box out of sight for a year.
Remember I said our problem is getting into a courtroom? What do you do if they are all corrupt, being blackmailed, or terrified? And to depend on any official now, no matter how persuasive one’s evidence, is more a matter of form, that reasonable expectation.
There’s just an awful lot of ways… Continue reading
October 29, 2003
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GARRETT). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. PALLONE) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month Congress approved an $87 billion supplemental for the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. While I believe it is critically important that we get our military troops all the resources they need to safely complete their mission in Iraq, I do not support rubber-stamping this legislation so the Bush administration gets a free ride from Congress.
The Bush administration must account for its war strategy. The Bush administration must also answer the tough questions regarding questionable no-bid contracts, contracts that benefit Vice President DICK CHENEY’s former employer, an employer that continues to pay CHENEY hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in deferred salary, contracts that are free of any oversight from Congress.
Yet another 9/11 “Cui bono?” (who profits?) alert: This is almost ancient news by now if anyone was listening, but this is one of the clearest earliest Congressional examinations of rampant corruption in Iraq. It was a typical after hours empty chamber exercise, but the intrepid Marcy Kaptur did get Cheney’s continuing possession of 433,333 Halliburton stock options and his consequent millions in war profits into the public record at last.
Mr. Speaker, right now Halliburton holds a monopoly on Iraq. The company’s no-bid contract was first negotiated in secret and originally intended for… Continue reading
By Michael Shnayerson
Halliburton subsidiary KBR got $12 billion worth of exclusive contracts for work in Iraq. But even more shocking is how KBR spent some of the money. Former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers official Bunnatine Greenhouse is blowing the whistle on the Dick Cheney-linked company’s profits of war.
This time, she was sure, they were going to get her.
Bunnatine Greenhouse had been a huge nuisance since the buildup to the war in Iraq-questioning contracts, writing caveats on them in her spidery script, wanting to know why Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR (formerly known as Kellogg, Brown and Root) should be thrown billions of dollars of government business while other companies, big and small, were shut out.
And Bunny Greenhouse wasn’t that easy to ignore: she was the highest-ranking civilian at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Specifically, she was the officer in charge of ensuring that any work contracted out by the Army Corps to private industry-from help in building bridges and dams and highways to support for wartime troops-was granted in a fair and aboveboard way. For two years, Greenhouse had asked hard questions about why the head of the Corps, to whom she reported directly, kept giving exclusive, non-compete contracts to KBR that now amounted to roughly $10.8 billion. Greenhouse was fearless, and she was blunt. In the Corps’s male hierarchy, it probably didn’t help that she was a woman-or that she was black.
On October 6, 2004, Greenhouse was summoned by… Continue reading
Facing a complicit government, co-opted media and a fearfully ignorant population, more and more 9/11 truthtellers are reviving the art of the Open Letter to speak truth to power these days. Below we offer several of the most powerful we have received recently and ask you to help circulate them to your networks and your friends. In the absence of a free press or any response from those addressed, their readership and the insights they offer now all depend on the Internet and you.
Leonard Downie Jr., Executive Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest Washington, DC 20071
Dear Mr. Downie:
Re: Did a Boeing 757 crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001
An open letter to The Washington Post
After analyzing publicly available evidence over the past three years, I have come to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. Photos and videos held by the U.S. government could very well refute my conclusion–I would welcome that because the alternative is far more disturbing. Indeed the five video frames from Pentagon cameras raise more questions than they answer–no Boeing 757 is visible, and the frames bear the wrong date (September 12) and time.
I am an engineering management consultant , and I live less than a mile from the Pentagon. The first question that I asked other onlookers as we viewed the crash site was: “Where’s the plane”?
In the photos publicly available, the hole in the Pentagon wall–prior to the collapse of the roof–appears too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757, and little or no airplane debris is visible on the Pentagon lawn. Indeed early reports claimed that a truck bomb had exploded, and that the damage was similar to that inflicted on the USS Cole in Yemen.
Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher–at a Dept. of Defense News Briefing with Assistant Secretary Victoria Clarke on September 12, 2001–when asked: “Is there anything left of the… Continue reading
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”
– Edward Abbey
I am writing as a concerned citizen who is frankly amazed by the fact that American print and media journalists have largely ignored — either by conscious editorial fiat or a simple lack of curiosity (or plain old fear) a social phenomenon that many thousands of patriotic Americans — including more than 50 victim’s of 9-11 family members — are becoming involved in; I refer to the the 9-11 Truth movement (www.911truth.org).
It is my fervent hope that as a result of this letter, patriotic American journalists will take the time to really study the compelling arguments made in recent books and videos, especially the ones listed below, and honestly report back to your readers and viewers about them. Even more fervent is my hope that another Clarence Darrow will emerge from the legal system to begin indicting the murderers who are currently ruling — and ruining — our country.
While researchers may disagree on some details about 9-11, they agree — unanimously — about one huge fact: it was our own government who assisted the cold-blooded murders of more than 3000 American citizens on September 11, 2001. Yes, this is a horrible and unthinkable thought. But does that mean it’s false? After studying the mountains of damning evidence over a three year period, the researchers below can say with confidence — NO.
Why would our government do such a thing? As… Continue reading
Dear Friends & Allies,
March 9, 2005
I’d like to share the following:
Report from United for Peace & Justice in St. Louis, Missouri:
This is a brief report from the 3 day National Assembly of United for Peace & Justice attended by 7 core 9-11 activists (Ken Jenkins, Gabriel Day, Becky Medcalf, Steve Cassilly, Janice Matthews, Mike Berger and Phylis Gilbert). We had excellent locations in the resource room and had constant multimedia presentations playing at our booths.
The quote by Steve Biko “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed” is very appropriate for summing up how challenging it is to reach out to those that should be our natural allies.
Despite early signs of support within Saturday’s plenary discussion and voting on our proposal on Monday our proposal was soundly defeated by the majority of the UPJ delegates. My sense of those voting against us is that they believe in the “blowback” theory of 9-11 and feel there is little political mileage to be made from further pursuit the unanswered questions surrounding 9-11. Most progressives unfortunately believe in the 9-11 theory of “blow back” – that real terrorist that hate us attacked us. I wish this were true and the rabbit hole didn’t go as deep as I have found it to be! They are more concerned with the ending of the current hot conflict in Iraq and still fail to see the huge potential to derail the whole… Continue reading
Yet another exhibit for a class action suit against American history teachers for leaving us ignorant and defenseless against the same murderous hoaxes generation after generation. Unlike the public, the ruling neocons know their history — and how to repeat it to boost their profits and power. Just as 9/11 reprised the Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and many other victim-facilitated attacks, Mr. Higgs shows us here the Iraq follow-through was also prefigured and prescripted nearly a century back.
by Robert Higgs
March 12, 2005
The composition of a coherent historical narrative is no easy task. Fortunately, the aspiring historian of the current U.S. war in Iraq can draw upon earlier narratives to ease the burden, merely substituting a word here and there in order to make the text accord with the specific names and places that are now pertinent. As the following illustrative statements show, however, basic patterns tend to persist, so one need not suffer through a protracted new search for how a particular war has come to be fought. My textual changes to apply the model to the present war appear in brackets.
To gain popular support for so useless a policy [as attacking and occupying Iraq] Republicans were unrelenting in their efforts to arouse jingo sentiment in the country.
The Democrats, too, were eager for a foreign adventure.
. . . the American people could indeed be diverted from their domestic concerns if the right sort of foreign crusade was offered. Continue reading
By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq’s oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC’s Newsnight has revealed.
Two years ago today – when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad – protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq’s oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of “Big Oil” executives and US State Department “pragmatists”.
“Big Oil” appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
This report reveals that the Iraq invasion, masked as a coup d’état, was being planned while Bush was still celebrating his inauguration in January 2001. However, the invasion would require a massive US military mobilization and abrupt belligerent public support, none of which would have been politically possible without 9/11 and the ensuing Afghan war. The key unaddressed issue here is who would bother to plan a politically impossible adventure if the vital enabling events were not anticipated too.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began “within weeks” of Bush’s first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
We saw an increase in the bombing… Continue reading
Pentagon strategic plan codifies unilateral, preemptive attacks. The doctrine marks a shift from coalitions such as NATO, analysts say.
by John Hendren
Los Angeles Times
March 19, 2005
WASHINGTON – Two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon has formally included in key strategic plans provisions for launching preemptive strikes against nations thought to pose a threat to the United States.
The doctrine also now stipulates that the U.S. will use “active deterrence” in concert with its allies “if we can” but could act unilaterally otherwise, Defense officials said.
The changes codify the more assertive defense policy adopted by the Bush administration since the Sept. 11 attacks and are included in a “National Military Strategy” and “National Defense Strategy,” reports that are part of a comprehensive review of military strategy conducted every four years.
“The president has the obligation to protect the country,” said Douglas J. Feith, the Defense Department’s undersecretary for policy. “And I don’t think that there’s anything in our Constitution that says that the president should not protect the country unless he gets some non-American’s participation or approval of that.”
Pentagon managers use the strategic plan to guide such decisions as where to place bases, which bases to eliminate, what weapons to buy and where to position them. The heads of the United States’ regional commands across the globe, in turn, use the strategy to prioritize spending and form strategies for eliminating threats in their regions.
“The potentially catastrophic impact of an attack against the United States, its allies and its interests may necessitate actions in self-defense to preempt adversaries before they can attack,” the National Military Strategy states.…Continue reading
March 21, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui’s attempt to directly question three al-Qaeda prisoners and cleared the way for a trial of the only U.S. defendant charged in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks.
The ruling allows the government to proceed with plans to seek the death penalty if Moussaoui is convicted of participating in an al-Qaeda conspiracy that included the 2001 airplane hijackings.
The Justice Department said it would file a motion as early as Tuesday, suggesting a trial date in Alexandria, Va.
The government had told the nation’s highest court that national security would be compromised if Moussaoui, an acknowledged al-Qaeda loyalist, was given access to al-Qaeda captives.
Moussaoui’s lawyers had asserted that defendants have a constitutional right to witness statements that might exonerate them, and argued that if this right is taken away, the government should not be allowed to seek Moussaoui’s execution.
Prosecutors, defense lawyers and U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria will have months of pretrial work ahead of them before Moussaoui could go on trial.
By turning down Moussaoui’s attempt to directly confront witnesses who — the defense believes — could exonerate him of any Sept. 11 involvement, the court will require the crafting of unclassified summaries from classified prisoner interrogation statements.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had directed the parties and the judge to agree on the summaries, and the latest decision means the appellate court decision will stand.
However, the 4th Circuit did allow the defense to propose language for the summaries, although the government could object to the proposals.…Continue reading
Dear Secretary Mineta
On May 23, 2003 you testified before the 9/11 Commission in public hearing as to your experience on the morning of 9/11/01. During your testimony you stated that you arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) underneath the East Wing of the White House “at about 9:20 a.m.”, at which time Vice President Richard Cheney and other staff was already present in the center, with Mr. Cheney clearly in command. You also state in your testimony that you had believed based on a conversation that took place between Mr. Cheney and an unnamed “young man” that a shoot down order had been given by the Vice President prior to your arrival, because, in your words…
… Continue reading
“There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out, “the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand.
by David Ray Griffin
Testimony at the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference 2005 (September 21-24, Washington Convention Center, Washington, DC) for the session, ‘The 9/11 Omission: What the Commission Got Wrong,’ September 23, 2005, sponsored by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA):
There have been two main theories about 9/11, each of which is a conspiracy theory. The official conspiracy theory says that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by al-Qaeda. The alternative theory says that the attacks could not have succeeded without the involvement of forces within our own government.
In examining The 9/11 Commission Report , I have focused on how it dealt with evidence supportive of the alternative theory. I have found that it did so by distorting or simply ignoring this evidence. This is no surprise, because the man running the Commission, Philip Zelikow, was essentially a member of the Bush-Cheney administration. But it is a fact that needs to be brought to light.
Because there are so many omissions and distortions—in my book I identified at least 115—I can point to a significant percentage of them only by moving through my representative list quite quickly.…Continue reading
– Say hello to Taliban America and goodbye to godless judges, courts and law.
by W. David Kubiak
March 24, 2005
Tired of waiting for the Second Coming to enforce Christ’s rule on Earth? Fortunately, so is your Congress and they know how to “bring it on.”
Just when you thought the corporatist/Christian Coalition had milked the 9/11 “surprise” for all it was worth in powers, profits and votes, we regret to report that you may have to think again. Just in case you’ve briefly fallen behind on your rightwing mailing lists, you might have missed the March 3rd filing of Senate bill S. 520 and House version is H.R. 1070, AKA the “Constitution Restoration Act” (CRA).
In the worshipful words of the Conservative Caucus, this historic legislation will “RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION!”, mainly by barring ANY federal court or judge from ever again reviewing “any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.” [Emphasis demanded - see full text here.]
In other words, the bill ensures that God’s divine word (and our infallible leaders’ interpretation thereof) will hereafter trump all our pathetic democratic notions about freedom, law and rights — and our courts can’t say a thing. This, of… Continue reading
by Will Bunch
Philadelphia Daily News
March 25, 2005
It has been more than three and a half years since the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The main perpetrators have been ID’d by the government and died in the suicide assault, and key planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is also in custody.
Yet both the federal government and New York officials continue to block the public’s right to know more about what really happened that day — even though it’s the family members of the victims of the tragic attack now pleading for a fuller public account.
In blocking the free exchange of information, public officials are heavily damaging one of the key democratic values that the terrorists themselves so badly wanted to knock down on 9/11/01. The latest blow came yesterday from a New York courtroom:
The emergency phone calls made by people trapped inside the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, need not be released to the public, a New York court ruled Thursday.
The New York State Court of Appeals declined to grant the wish of September 11 families who joined in a lawsuit seeking release of all tapes and transcripts of calls made from inside the Twin Towers to 9-1-1 operators.
“We are not persuaded that such disclosure is required by the public interest,” the judges said in their ruling.
Instead, it agreed only to the release of calls from any relatives of the eight families who joined a lawsuit, originally filed by The New York… Continue reading
By Steven T. Jones
SF Bay Guardian
Sure, the people with the 9/11 conspiracy theories are a little odd. But not everything they’re saying is entirely crazy.
THE GRAND LAKE Theater in Oakland was filled almost to capacity March 10, just as the Guild Theatre in Menlo Park was the night before and the Herbst Theatre in San Francisco would be the next night, all for a documentary with bad production values and even worse leaps of logic.
This was the local premiere of The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw, a benefit screening for the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance, whose activists have been laboring for more than three years to dispel popular belief in the government’s version of the events on that fateful day.
And to fill that void, they offer a wide variety of alternative theories, carefully laid out in the dozens of books and DVDs that local truth-movement leader Carol Brouillet sold from a table in the theater lobby, or in the hundreds of Web sites devoted to debunking the official story.
Brouillet is what most people think of when they use the term “conspiracy theorist.” Ever since she saw the Oliver Stone film JFK — which she describes as her moment of awakening — she has been trafficking in the dark world of a shadow government executing secret plots. She’s been gathering every relevant document she can find, meticulously connecting every dot into an elaborate proof.
It is a worldview in which… Continue reading
Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg on the Bush Administration, Civil Disobedience and the Eternal Fires of Hell
by Mira Ptacin
March 29, 2005
The sound of Daniel Ellsberg’s voice could falsely identify him as a softy. It’s delicate and cottony, but the Pentagon insider-turned-peace activist has wit cut sharp as a razor and insight that hasn’t faded with age.
At 73 he is out of the limelight but still trying to shake up our nation. Ellsberg recently finished a U.S. ‘Truth-Telling’ tour, spoke in Israel and will soon be traveling to Hiroshima. And after publishing his first memoir ‘Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers’, he’s polishing off his second book about America’s fatal attraction to nuclear threats.
Ellsberg publicized the Pentagon Papers 30 years ago, helping tip public opinion against our last major attempt at imperial democracy. And on this day in 1973, the last American combat troops left Vietnam, ending the direct involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. Now Ellsberg is talking again. Shouldn’t we be listening?
Where do you see the US relationship with Iran heading in the next 6 months?
Well, every sign is that they’re still on course on the program that some of these people laid out on The Project for the New American Century, going back to when they all worked under Dick Cheney back in ’91-92. Enforcing regime change in Iraq was at the head of the list. In general it was a remaking of the Middle East.… Continue reading
To the 9/11 Truth activist community,
I began writing this letter before David Ray Griffin wrote his opinion on how the movement should proceed. Having just read his thoughts I am more convinced that I need to share my views. I read his first book on the topic, The New Pearl Harbor. Obviously I believe that he understands the problems with the official story. He was able to create a compelling account for someone who was interested in learning. However; I disagree that the strategy we should employ is to make our argument with evidence.
The story is in fact very simple. Our failure to reach large segments of the population is not a failure of evidence selection or presentation – did we emphasize the right loophole in the government’s official story? Or as Dr. Griffin suggests; did we emphasize the best outright government lie? etc. The problem is much different than that.
Dr Griffin clearly pointed out major problems with the official story in his first book, pointing out more problems will not increase our base (or at least not increase it most efficiently) because those who are going to consider the first points made in his book will be the same people to consider further points.
More importantly those who as yet WOULD NOT consider points from his first book will not change their orientation with more minutia. Below in the following letter I try to explain what I believe must happen, what must change in the… Continue reading