Here’s how to shut down a ritzy Democratic Party fund-raiser: just ask some simple questions about 9/11.
66% of the electorate in 2004 asked Attorney General Spitzer for an independent investigation into 9/11. Spitzer refused. So, yesterday, I interrupted his speech and asked him why. The really surprising turn of events is that none the upper West Side liberals who came up to talk to me afterwards censured me for the disruption, instead they gave me pointers on how to do it better next time. Many stayed on to talk about 9/11, and the untold story there. Meanwhile, Spitzer and the career politicians cancelled their planned Q&A session, and slunked off stage. No one got around to asking for money at this “fund-raiser.” Meanwhile, at the back of the room, five mainstream newspaper reporters and a TV camera talked to me about my Senate race, my book, 9/11, and Vox Pop. Here’s the first media hit, below. Remember: The Hicks For Senate Campaign, Green Party people, and 9/11 Truth people and other groups are holding a big protest outside Spitzer’s office on 3/22, Wed., 12-2 PM. It’s lunchtime at Ground Zero/Wall Street. The Cover-Up is OVER!
HEADLINE: Spitzer Collects Endorsements And Heckles
By DAVID LOMBINO – Staff Reporter of the Sun
The state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, picked up several endorsements from key Manhattan Democrats yesterday in his race for governor even as he fended off an angry verbal attack by a heckler at an Upper West Side synagogue.
Mr.… Continue reading
The truth-telling by New York Times reporter Scott Shane surely must shame present-day journalists, still MIA from investigative reporting on either 9/11 or the war: “… higher-level officials at the NSA were ‘fearful that [declassification] might prompt uncomfortable comparisons with the flawed intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq.’ Perhaps they will at last find their integrity when they realize, “The glaring light of publicity encouraged the Agency’s leaders finally to approve declassification of the documents.”
The question remains, will they find that lost integrity before 58,000 troops and 3 million citizens are dead, and fascist totalitarianism has become fully entrenched in America?
* * * * * * * * *
Washington, D.C., 1 December 2005 – The largest U.S. intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, today declassified over 140 formerly top secret documents — histories, chronologies, signals intelligence [SIGINT] reports, and oral history interviews — on the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. Included in the release is a controversial article by Agency historian Robert J. Hanyok on SIGINT and the Tonkin Gulf which confirms what historians have long argued: that there was no second attack on U.S. ships in Tonkin on August 4, 1964. According to National Security Archive research fellow John Prados, “the American people have long deserved to know the full truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The National Security Agency is to be commended for releasing this piece of the puzzle. The parallels between the faulty intelligence on Tonkin Gulf and the… Continue reading
10/31/05 The US National Security Agency has kept secret a 2001 finding by its own historian that its officers deliberately distorted critical intelligence during the Tonkin Gulf episode that helped precipitate the Vietnam War.
The historian’s conclusion was the first serious accusation that the agency’s intercepts were falsified to support the belief North Vietnamese ships attacked US destroyers on August 4, 1964, two days after a previous clash.
Most historians have concluded in recent years there was no second attack, but they have assumed the agency’s intercepts were unintentionally misread, not purposely altered. The research by Robert Hanyok, the agency’s historian, was detailed four years ago in an in-house article that remains secret, in part because agency officials feared its release might prompt uncomfortable comparisons with the flawed intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, according to an intelligence official.
Matthew Aid, an independent historian who has discussed Mr Hanyok’s Tonkin Gulf research with agency and CIA officials, said he had decided to speak publicly about the findings because he believed they should have been released long ago.
“This material is relevant to debates we as Americans are having about the war in Iraq and intelligence reform,” he said.
Mr. Hanyok believed the initial misinterpretation of North Vietnamese intercepts was probably an honest mistake. But after months of detective work in the agency’s archives, Mr. Hanyok concluded mid-level agency officials discovered the error almost immediately, but covered it up and doctored documents so that they appeared to provide evidence… Continue reading
Two-hundred and seventy people were killed in the 1989 bombing of Pan Am
Flight 103 over Lockerbie, most of them American citzens. The US at first suggested
Syria was responsible. A year later, the blame was suddenly switched to Libya. This was just before George H.W. Bush visited Damascus to meet with
the Syrian dictator, Hafez Assad. Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and Bush the Elder
needed Syria for his coalition against Saddam Hussein.
Libya was placed under sanctions for the next decade, until forced to provide
two of its nationals for trial before a Scottish court. One of the Libyans was
convicted, largely thanks to a fragment of circuit-board said to be from the
bomb on Flight 103. Now a former Scottish police chief has come forward with
claims that this crucial piece of evidence was, in fact, planted by American
agents (see article from The Scotsman, below).
Would a secret intelligence agency fabricate evidence to blame a patsy for a
terrorist act? Would local police be willing to tolerate such a scam? How long
is it possible to maintain a cover-up? These questions are often raised in
objection to the idea that 9/11 is a fraud. Debunkers like to say that
"too many people would have to know," that "secrets are
impossible to keep," that "whistleblowers would surely come
forward," that "the media would jump all over it," or that "our government would
always want to solve crimes
against its own people."
But the history… 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
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
From the unknown history we’re doomed to repeat, onward…
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 11, 2005
September 11th was neither an intelligence failure nor was it a failure of imagination. It was nonfeasance on behalf of a whole host of government agencies, including the FAA.
Of the 105 warnings issued, 52 warnings regarding al Qaeda were given to the FAA by the intelligence community in a six month period from April 2001 to September 2001. According to the 9/11 Commission’s final report, there were eight information circulars put out by the FAA between July 2, and September 10, 2001. Five of these information circulars targeted overseas threats, while the remaining three targeted domestic threats.
The 52 threats regarding al Qaeda were not received by the FAA in a vacuum. From March 2001 to September 2001, according to the Joint Inquiry of Congress, our Intelligence Community received at least 41 specific threats of a possible domestic attack by al Qaeda. Additionally, the FAA was also made aware of the August 16, 2001 arrest of Zacarias Moussouai. Finally, the FAA attended a high level meeting on July 5, 2001 where the domestic threat posed by al Qaeda was discussed by all relevant intelligence agencies.
According to the newly released FAA monograph, in the spring of 2001 the FAA knew 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.”
The aforementioned statement is yet another indicator of how widely known it was in… 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
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.
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
“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”
–Condoleezza Rice, May 16, 2002
Late 1980s, throughout the 1990s: