- “Politics 911″ Seeks Candidates Responsive to 70+ Million Voters Demanding New 9/11 Investigation
Nation’s largest 9/11 truth network marks second anniversary of the 9/11 Commission Report with campaign to survey all mainstream and third party congressional candidates re their awareness of the case for US government complicity in 9/11 and the high levels of public support for a full reinvestigation, as well as their personal willingness to back such an inquiry if they are elected in the fall.
Kansas City, MO (PRWEB) July 22, 2006 — In recognition of the second anniversary and widening distrust of the 9/11 Commission Report, 911truth.org announces the launch of “Politics 911,” a national campaign to determine support for a new and truly independent 9/11 investigation among all 2006 candidates for the US House and Senate.
The three-month effort aims to poll all congressional hopefuls regarding their awareness of current evidence for US government involvement in 9/11 and the high levels of public support for a full reinvestigation, as well as their personal willingness to back such an inquiry if they are elected in the fall. Zogby polls in August, 2004 and May, 2006 showed that 66% of New York City residents and 45% of Americans overall now desire a new and broader investigation that explores all the evidence for government complicity.…Continue reading
- A National Grassroots Campaign to Illuminate the 2006 Electoral Stage with 9/11 Truth.
Fine Motives, Means & Opportunities
To commemorate the great 9/11 Commission cover-up released on July 22, 2004, 9/11truth.org and MUJCA-Net are proud to announce the launch of “Politics 911″ — a focused 4-month campaign to enlighten the 2006 electoral debate with a nationwide spotlight on 9/11 truth.
As the name implies “Politics 911″ is an emergency campaign to help return democratic control, self-respect and political adulthood to the American electorate. To that end we plan to gratefully exploit:
in order to saturate pre-election events with substantive 9/11 truth questions and their implications for revolutionary reform.
Course of Action
The campaign’s initial goal is to require every candidate running for the US House or Senate in 2006 to publicly declare whether he/she will support a truly independent re-investigation* of the events surrounding 9/11 including evidence of US government foreknowledge, facilitation and/or complicity. This will be accomplished and augmented with the following steps:
Documentary Director Fears Fictionalization of 9/11
By Sue Zeidler
July 20, 2006
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The director of a new documentary on September 11 fears that two upcoming Hollywood dramatizations of the World Trade Center attacks may eclipse her project.
“I hope the truth does not get lost amongst the fiction,” Linda Ellman, a former NBC News producer, who made her film directorial debut with “On Native Soil,” told Reuters.
“I don”t have a problem with fictionalized stories or fictionalized efforts about 9/11, because people need to be kept aware and should never forget. I just hope the truth isn”t replaced by fiction, because the truth is shocking,” she said.
Ellman was referring to film director Oliver Stone’s upcoming “World Trade Center,” a drama about two police officers trapped under the smoking rubble of the collapsed buildings, opening nationwide on August 9, and the ABC television network miniseries “The Path to 9/11,” debuting on September 10.
Unlike those works, Ellman’s goal with “On Native Soil,” airing next month on cable channel Court TV, was to stay true to the 9/11 Commission Report — the government’s account of the suicide hijackings that killed about 3,000 people — and present an historically accurate version of events as they unfolded, almost in real time.
All of these films, as well as other documentaries and television specials, are being released to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the attacks.
Ellman was approached by producer Jeff Hays to direct the project with a budget of just over $1 million, and immediately saw opportunities and challenges.…Continue reading
Jones: Sir you have questions about the official story don’t you?
Doyle: Oh, without question… the 9/11 Commission – that’s all a fallacy… The 9/11 commission is probably the worst representation of the 9/11 families, or for that matter the American public, because it is a sham, it really is. We had tons of questions that we asked them to ask, they wouldn’t do it, and the continuing coverup is just beyond belief.
Doyle: It almost looks like there was a conspiracy about 9/11 if you really look at all the facts, a lot of the families now… Continue reading
NINE-ONE-ONE — This three number combination is etched into the public psyche and instantly conjures up images of America’s most recent Day of Infamy. The images of chaos and terror were speedily delivered via satellite to anyone near a television set. At first, these images burst into the minds of the TV audience without context, but television viewers were not left long to worry their beautiful minds with troublesome questions like: “Who perpetrated these crimes?”
The narrative vacuum was quickly filled by the “official” story. This version of the events of 9/11 is forever enshrined in the volume known as The 9/11 Commission Report.
Proceeding apace with the development of the official story was an entire universe of unofficial stories. These alternative points of view were helpfully framed by President George Walker Bush on November 10th, 2001:
“We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.” (1)
More than a few watching the President address the UN that day were puzzled by the phrase “outrageous conspiracy theories” regarding 9/11. As they logged on to their dial-up Internet connections that evening, trying to understand what the President was talking about, they were privy to the nascent chatter that over time has morphed into a kaleidoscope of alternative narratives, fueled by 9/11 skepticism.
As new… Continue reading
By: KEITH PHUCAS, Times Herald Staff
While the 9/11 Commission Report inquiry has its share of critics, Jonathan
Gold’s misgivings about the official findings go far beyond skepticism. In fact,
the 33-year-old Plymouth Meeting resident is convinced the report is covering
up Bush administration complicity in the deadly terrorist attacks.
Gold’s unorthodox view has caused many jaws to drop and heads to shake. When
asked for proof, he calmly rattles off a long list of like-minded people, and
what he called a growing body of “evidence” that the government orchestrated
the attacks as a pretext for the global war on terror.
“There’s so much evidence out there,” he said.
For those who scoff at him, he recommends comparing the official Sept. 11 account
to the Cooperative Research Center’s Sept. 11 times lines, reading David Griffin’s
“The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” and entries
on 911Truth.org just for starters.
A quick glance at the Internet’s voluminous material critical of the 9/11 Commission
Report published in 2004 could be this generation’s Warren Report.
Gold was not always a skeptic, admitting his conversion to Sept. 11 truth seeker
was a gradual process. But by 2002, he was convinced the official story was
a monumental cover-up.
His suspicion grew with the Bush administration’s initial reluctance to cooperate
with a probe into the Sept. 11 attacks, and when former Sen. Tom Daschle was
asked to limit the scope of the investigation.
Considering nearly 3,000 people had been killed, Gold was irked it took… Continue reading
REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
… An outline in simple talking points …
We are continuing to compile the best documentation links for every single point on this page, and intend to post the updated version as soon as possible, and create teaching tools and more from the info. This is a significant and time-consuming process–if you have useful links, please send them to janice[at]911truth[dot]org. Thanks for your help!
If you use the search function with title key words, you will discover that 911Truth.org is home to articles backing virtually every point made below. Much of the basic research is available at the Complete 9/11 Timeline (hosted by cooperativeresearch.org), the 9/11 Reading Room (
911readingroom.org), and the NY Attorney General Spitzer petition and complaint (Justicefor911.org). For physical evidence discussion, see Point 7.
THE DAY ITSELF – EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY
1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack – George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield, Ralph Eberhart – all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.
911Truth.org urges nationwide response to United 93 (a.k.a. The Official Film of the Official Story)
911Truth.org is announcing a nationwide campaign to distribute flyers to the audience attending United 93, which opens at theaters across the country on Friday, April 28th. In New York City, friends of 9/11 truth received local television news coverage after conducting a visibility action Tuesday night at the movie’s Tribeca Film Festival premiere. We encourage our readers to continue this campaign throughout the nation.
Many people have objected to the release of this movie because it commercializes September 11th. Still, the desire to see it may simply express a fundamental need to understand forces that profoundly affect our lives. The real problem lies in a screenplay borrowed directly from the dubious claims of the US government and its official “9/11 Commission.” In its shameless casting of FAA executive Ben Sliney as himself, United 93 provides a Hollywood platform to a salaried spokesperson for the government.
Still, to merely reject United 93 and its version of what happened on Flight 93 is to miss an important opportunity. Those attending this film likely have a deep interest in the issues of 9/11. We urge 9/11 truth activists to respond creatively, by encouraging United 93 audiences to attend alternative events (such as, to take one example, the May 8th New York town hall meeting in Tribeca, which is designed as a direct response to United 93). Accordingly, we have designed… Continue reading
The 9/11 Commission made “dramatic changes” to its final report to omit information about the role of Pakistan, according to The Friday Times, a Pakistani weekly. After learning that the report would contain damaging revelations, the Pakistani government dispatched lobbyists to Washington to influence the 9/11 Commission, and may have even paid bribes to Commission members or their staff, the weekly says, citing an official at the Pakistani Foreign Office. “The disclosure sheds doubt on the integrity and honesty of the members of the 9/11 Inquiry Commission and above all on the authenticity of the information in their final report,” according to one source cited by the weekly.
The story was picked up yesterday by The Telegraph of Calcutta, India and is now shooting around the blogosphere. We cannot vouch for its veracity, but we can guess at the sort of information that both the US and the Pakistani government might have wanted to omit from The 9/11 Commission Report:
For example, prior to Sept. 11 the chief of the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI allegedly approved a $100,000 wire transfer to a certain Mohamed Atta. Yet the same ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, was in Washington for a working visit to his counterparts in the US government for more than a week prior to Sept. 11. On the morning of 9/11 itself, he was having breakfast at the Capitol with the future congressional investigators of the September 11th events. These alleged investigators, Porter Goss and Bob Graham, somehow failed… Continue reading
On Wednesday, February 15th, 2006, LTC Anthony Shaffer submitted an amazing written statement detailing his involvement with ABLE DANGER to Congress. You can download a PDF of the statement here , and I have made an HTML version here . For those people who are new to the ABLE DANGER (AD), story, I can’t think of a better starting point.
The idea was to take the ‘best and brightest’ military operators, intelligence officers, technicians and planners from the Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the U.S. Army and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in an entrepreneurial endeavor, much like bringing the best minds and capabilities from Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Daimler-Chrysler to focus on a single challenge. In the case of ABLE DANGER, the challenge was to discover the global ‘body’ of Al Qaeda – then, with this knowledge, prepare military and intelligence “options” that would be supported by the “actionable information” that was being produced by the project. – Prepared Statement Of LTC Shaffer, 2/15/06.
That was the idea.
reprehensor’s diary :: :: And they had successes. Most notoriously identifying a threat in Yemen that may have saved lives in the USS Cole bombing, and identifying Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11; this once again reiterated in the February 15th Congressional hearing by a contractor, James D. Smith, who worked at Orion Scientific Systems in Viginia;
During the Orion support (on or about 25 October 1999 to 04 August 2000), James Smith delivered multiple… Continue reading
In The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d). This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.
But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.
In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded… Continue reading
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.
This latest article from Dr. Griffin follows up on his lecture, “Truth and Politics of 9/11: Omissions and Distortions of The 9/11 Commission Report”, in which he summarized the first half of his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions. He completes that summary here, with his thorough review of the second half, particularly, the inability of the US military to intercept anyof the hijacked planes on 9/11.
At the end of 2004, I published The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions1. Shortly before that book appeared, I delivered a lecture in which I set out to summarize its major points. (That lecture is now available in both print and DVD form.)2 Unfortunately, The 9/11 Commission Report itself3 contains so many omissions and distortions that I was able to summarize only the first half of my book in that lecture. The present lecture summarizes the second half of the book, which deals with the Commission’s explanation as to why the US military was unable to intercept any of the hijacked airplanes.
This explanation was provided in the first chapter of The 9/11 Commission Report. Although that chapter is only 45 pages long, the issues involved are so complex that my analysis of it required six chapters. One of the complexities is the fact that the 9/11 Commission’s account of why the military could not intercept the hijacked airliners is the third version of the official account… Continue reading
9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow has deep, lasting ties to several members of both the Bush I and Bush II Administrations. Any one of these connections could have been deemed sufficient to eliminate Zelikow from consideration on the basis of non-independence. Consider:
Despite these connections, Zelikow was appointed Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission in November 2003.1 His intimate relationship with the Bush White House did not end with the publication of the Commission Report. Shortly after departing the Commission he became Counselor of the Department of State, where he would once again work alongside Condoleeza Rice.
There are lesser-known facts about Zelikow’s connections to the Bush Administration that are equally disturbing. For instance, in the early 1990s Zelikow directed the Aspen Strategy Group, members of which have staffed key positions in both the Bush and Clinton Administrations. Interestingly, Judith Miller, the former NY Times reporter implicated in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, is another emeritus member of… Continue reading
The Complete 9/11 Timeline hosted by The Center for Cooperative Research recently published a revised set of entries on the military exercises of September 11 , providing a goldmine of well-sourced information. Compiled by Paul Thompson, the 9/11 Timeline long ago became the leading resource of mainstream news reports about September 11. Available in book form as The Terror Timeline (2004), it continues to evolve online.
The latest material for the first time casts light on what may have been the day’s master wargame: Global Guardian, run out of Offutt Air Force Base by the US Strategic Command (Stratcom) under Admiral Richard Mies ( official bio ). He has since retired and taken up a gig as the CEO of Hicks & Associates, a “strategic consultant” to the federal government dealing in “military transformation.”
Our New York correspondent, Nicholas Levis, has written a review.
UPDATE: Filmed in January 2000, and aired on 3/4/2001, the makers of “The Lone Gunmen” show that the idea of crashing planes into buildings isn’t anything new. As a matter of fact, their representation is eerily familiar given what we know today about the Wargames taking place on September 11th, 2001. (The Lone Gunmen Clip: Click Here )
As the day dawns over the East Coast on September 11th, 2001, the US Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska is on full alert, busily dispatching warplanes around North America in a rehearsal for Armageddon.
Stratcom directs the US nuclear arsenal. A number of interrelated air-defense wargames are underway around the country, under the overall umbrella of Global Guardian.…Continue reading
by Louis Freeh, Former FBI Director
Published at The OpinionJournal at WSJ.com, Thursday, November 17
It was interesting to hear from the 9/11 Commission again on Tuesday. This self-perpetuating and privately funded group of lobbyists and lawyers has recently opined on hurricanes, nuclear weapons, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and even the New York subway system. Now it offers yet another “report card” on the progress of the FBI and CIA in the war against terrorism, along with its “back-seat” take and some further unsolicited narrative about how things ought to be on the “front lines.”
Yet this is also a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself. Recent revelations from the military intelligence operation code-named “Able Danger” have cast light on a missed opportunity that could have potentially prevented 9/11. Specifically, Able Danger concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Mohamed Atta by name (and maybe photograph) as an al Qaeda agent operating in the U.S. Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents, even though appointments had been made to do so. Why?
There are other questions that need answers. Was Able Danger intelligence provided to the 9/11 Commission prior to the finalization of its report, and, if so, why was it not explored? In sum, what did the 9/11 commissioners and their staff know about Able Danger and when did they know it?
The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry.…Continue reading
Rep. Curt Weldon Calls for Criminal Investigation of 9/11
House Panel Hears Call to Support New Intelligence Office
By Greta Wodele, CongressDaily
The Bush administration and Congress must provide more resources to a new office charged with making it easier for federal officials to share intelligence information with state and local officials, the House Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee was told Tuesday.
“Congress has authorized, but not yet appropriated, funding for the [information-sharing] program manager’s office,” said former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who served as the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission.
Hamilton, along with William Crowell, a member of the Markle Task Force on National Security in the Information Age, said lawmakers and the White House need to empower the office with more, dedicated resources.
Their comments followed testimony from John Russack, the newly appointed information sharing program manager, before the subcommittee.
Russack told the panel that National Intelligence Director John Negroponte had given his office $9.6 million in fiscal 2005 funding to set up shop, but that Congress did not designate a specific 2006 funding level for his office, which did not get its own line in the intelligence budget.
Russack estimated that his office needs $30 million a year to facilitate information sharing. “I have a feeling I will get at least $20 million,” said Russack about his 2006 allocation.
Congress created the posts held… Continue reading
Millions of people are at various levels of discovery that the official explanation of 9/11 is a lie. They are at some point in the process of realizing that some clandestine element at the highest levels of our government and military orchestrated a self-inflicted terrorist act to enflame U.S citizens into supporting an aggressive imperial agenda abroad, and a homeland security/police state regime at home as we relinquish our cherished civil liberties.
After the immediate question of Why? comes up in our minds, the next logical question is ? what can I do about it? Part of the big lie we?re in, to which so many have succumbed, is that we can?t do much of anything. There?s just no hope for us, the corruption is too vast and the powers that be are too powerful. If you fall into this description, has it ever occurred to you that this is what our new world order orchestrators want us to believe? While they are so small in number and have us believing we are powerless and without hope for reclaiming our republic, they?ve won because we?ve allowed them to control this debilitating illusion to which we?ve acquiesced.
Are you ready to dispel this illusion of powerlessness? Think about this. There are just four things you must do. Inform yourself, inform others, participate in the democratic process by informing your elected officials what you want, and participate in the group process of enabling progress through organizational actions. Now let?s add some detail.… Continue reading