Note: The author is indebted to a few particularly useful sources of information and inspiration, including Russ Baker’s book “Family of Secrets”, the websites nndb.com, sourcewatch.org and secinfo.com, and Richard Gage.
On occasion, the public has been asked by George W. Bush to refrain from considering certain conspiracy theories. Bush has made such requests when people were looking into crimes in which he might be culpable. For example, when in 1994 Bush’s former company Harken Energy was linked to the fraudulent Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) through several investors, Bush’s spokeswoman, Karen Hughes, shut down the inquiry by telling the Associated Press — “We have no response to silly conspiracy theories.” On another occasion, Bush said in a televised speech — “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.”
But paradoxically, we have also been asked to believe Bush’s own outrageous conspiracy theory about 9/11, one that has proven to be false in many ways. One important way to see the false nature of Bush’s conspiracy theory is to note the fact that the World Trade Center buildings could only have fallen as they did through the use of explosives. A number of independent scientific studies have pointed out this fact [1, 2, 3, 4], but it was Bush’s own scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), through their inability to provide a convincing defense of… Continue reading
Yesterday, something very interesting was reported on. However, before I tell you about it, I have a few things to say. Over the years, I have promoted information regarding the Pakistani ISI’s connection to “Al-Qaeda” and “terrorism.” I get a lot of flack for this, and am portrayed as someone who wants to see Pakistan and all Muslims killed. I am also portrayed as someone that doesn’t want to expose Israel’s alleged role in the 9/11 attacks. This is simply not true. Here’s an article I wrote about Ray McGovern and Israel on 5/7/2006. I added an introduction to address this issue. Another article I wrote addressed the “I want all Muslims killed” argument. In that I said, “you may have seen me say on occasion that 9/11 was not a Zionist crime, not a Muslim crime, not an American crime, etc… but a crime, and should be treated as such. A horrible crime took place on 9/11. 2,973 people were brutally murdered. When it first happened, our “leaders” told us it was an “act of war.” It wasn’t. It was a crime. Carried out by men. Those men may have been American. They may have been Saudi Arabian. They may have been Pakistani. They may have been Israeli. They may have been Muslim. They may have been Jewish. They may have been Episcopalian. It doesn’t matter. No nationality or religion committed the crimes of 9/11. Men did. Men who should be punished to the fullest extent… Continue reading
Originally posted 06 July 2009 at LondonDailyNews.com
On the eve of the four year anniversary of the brutal bombings that took place on 7 July 2005 taking the lives of 52 innocent Londoners, the capital is silent, its media are neutered, the radio waves are quiet. Did this atrocity even take place? Why are we not talking about the biggest attack on London’s security in recent memory?
The BBC ran a documentary on the “conspiracy” behind 7/7 trying to discredit the many theories that are being advocated that the British government may have been involved in the attacks, that Mossad was aware and therefore was able to move Netanyahu and other dignitaries away to safe areas at the time in London.
What is being forgotten here is the crux of the entire build up to the terrorist attacks and the aftermath.
Firstly why did 4 British born Muslims believe it justified to carry bombs on trains, buses and the underground and attack the very citizens of the country they were born in?
Why did the intelligence apparatus of this country not monitor, as we have been made aware, known individuals with the potential and knowledge to carry out these attacks? The argument that no one and no system can ever stop someone who is determined to cause murder is valid, but the collating of the right knowledge and training for these types of attacks had been monitored.
The aftermath? We have a muzzled response to the 7/7 attacks, the conspiracy is the way in which London is either afraid or knows too well the consequences of speaking out on these attacks.…Continue reading
“War on Terror” advocates want civilians to die to justify “War on Terror”
The Corbett Report
6 July, 2009
CIA analyst Michael Scheuer’s recent call for bin Laden to kill more Americans would be shocking if we hadn’t already heard it dozens of times before from other “War on Terror” advocates. “It’s an absurd situation,” Scheuer told FOX News personality Glenn Beck on his program last week. “Only Osama can execute an attack that will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.”
The comments have provoked much shock and outrage among pundits and websites like Jon Stewart and NewsHounds who may have considered him to be on their side. After all, he seemed to be a vociferous and effective critic of the neocons, having authored books like Imperial Hubris and having supported Ron Paul during the 2008 Presidential debates by asserting that 9/11 was merely blowback for American interventionism in the Middle East. With his latest comments, Scheuer is now relegated to the ignoble company of neocon shills like Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who dreamed of another terrorist attack back in 2007 to rally people around the flag (and, presumably, George W. Bush) once again; Donald Rumsfeld, who complained in 2006 that the Bush regime was a victim of its own success in the “War on Terror” and that another terrorist attack was needed to remind people that the war was still necessary; and… Continue reading
Court won’t hear Sept. 11 claims vs. Saudi Arabia
June 29, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to allow victims of the Sept.
11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over
charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.
The court, in an order Monday, is leaving in place the ruling of a federal
appeals court that the country and the princes are protected by sovereign immunity,
which generally means that foreign countries can’t be sued in American courts.
The Obama administration had angered some victims and families by urging the
justices to pass up the case.
In their appeal, the more than 6,000 plaintiffs said the government’s court
brief filed in early June was an “apparent effort to appease a sometime
ally” just before President Barack Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia.
At issue were obstacles in American law to suing foreign governments and their
officials as well as the extent to which people can be held financially responsible
for acts of terrorism committed by others.
The appeal was filed by relatives of victims killed in the attacks and thousands
of people who were injured, as well as businesses and governments that sustained
property damage and other losses.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York previously upheld a federal
judge’s ruling throwing out the lawsuits. The appeals court said the defendants
were protected by sovereign immunity and the plaintiffs would need to prove
that the princes engaged in intentional actions aimed at U.S.…
‘If I didn’t confess to 7/7 bombings MI5 officers would rape my wife,’
claims torture victim
By Matthew Hickley
Last updated at 10:25 PM on 25th June 2009
A British man spoke publicly for the first time yesterday to accuse MI5 officers
of forcing him to confess to masterminding the July 7 bombings.
Jamil Rahman claims UK security officers were behind his arrest in 2005 in
He says he was beaten repeatedly by local officials who also threatened to
rape him and his wife.
Mr Rahman, who is suing the Home Office, said a pair of MI5 officers who attended
his torture and interrogation would leave the room while he was beaten.
He claims when he told the pair he had been tortured they merely answered:
‘They haven’t done a very good job on you.’
Mr Rahman told the BBC: ‘They were questioning me on the July 7 bombings, showing
me pictures of the bombers.
‘They showed me maps, terrains … they asked me to draw things out and write
names next to pictures.
‘They threatened my family. They go to me, “In the UK, gas leaks happen,
if your family house had a gas leak and everyone got burnt, there’s no problems,
we can do that easily”.’
He says he eventually made a false confession of involvement in the July 7
Jamil Rahman claims security officers in Bangladesh, under the direction of
MI5, made threats to rape his wife if he did not confess to… Continue reading
by Jon Gold
On 1/8/2008, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that “a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia and key members of its royal family was put to a crucial test today as lawyers for victims of the 9/11 attacks urged a federal appeals court to reinstate the government of Saudi Arabia as a defendant.” The Cozen O’Connor law firm in Philadelphia “was the first to file suit against the government of Saudi Arabia in 2003, charging that the desert kingdom bears responsibility for the attacks because it permitted Islamic charities under its control to bankroll Osama bin Laden and his global terror movement.” The lawsuit “suffered a setback in 2005 when New York federal district court judge Richard Conway Casey ruled that the federal foreign sovereign immunity act barred lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and members of the royal family.”
On… Continue reading
We as members of the 9/11 Truth community deplore all forms of hatred and violence, including the unprovoked murderous attack by James von Brunn on June 10, 2009, in the Washington Holocaust museum. We also deplore peddlers of hatred who use such events for their own purposes, such as Glenn Beck, who recently said that von Brunn, because of his attack, was now “a hero in the 9/11 Truther community,” which “would like to destroy the country” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQnfJeUzzKk).
There is no foundation whatsoever for these flagrant lies. Beck intentionally overlooks the fact that he shares Von Brunn’s views on the Federal Reserve (stating “it’s totally fine to speak out against the Fed”), views that von Brunn acted upon when he tried to arrest the Fed’s Board with a bag of weapons in tow. Beck essentially overlooks the fact that von Brunn took action on his White Supremacist views, leading him to murder a Black guard in a Jewish museum. Yet Beck cautions viewers that 9/11 Truth advocates pose a graver threat, and are bent on working with al Qaeda to destroy the nation. (“… people like white supremacists or 9/11 truthers that would also like to destroy the country. They’ll work with anybody they can.”)
Beck ostensibly encourages thinking for oneself, questioning authority and holding people to account when it comes to the Fed, yet when it comes to the crimes of 9/11, the mere act of questioning is treasonous, fraught with potential dangers on a scale that threatens the nation itself.…Continue reading
By James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Founder, 911 Truth of Central Iowa
When I was living in Brazil as an academic two decades ago, the country’s
powerful military, after years of running the show, cut a deal with the ascendant
progressive civilian politicians giving them full latitude unimpeded within
a certain sphere, but leaving other aspects of the country’s affairs strictly
and permanently under military control. The result was Brazil’s new Constitution
of 1988, which made voting a compulsory duty of citizenship. As a result, no
non-progressive candidate for the presidency has gotten anywhere since. But
elective civilian power is strictly limited.
It strikes me that the relationship between the constitutional government
of the U.S. and its para-military security services, the tools of shadow dictators
of multinational mega-business, has gotten to be strikingly similar. If my observation
is correct, it would largely explain the seeming cowardice and complicit status
of the whole Congress, vis-à-vis the rogue executive branch and its repeated
trampling of the Constitution in recent years: Congress, including its progressives,
simply knows where the line is. And Congress knows, even in advance, that the
Executive, brought to heel by the shadow government’s board of directors,
will disdain the Constitution and public opinion in carrying out its ruthlessly
enforceable “agreement” with the true sovereigns of the United States.
I am as dismayed as anyone that our new, more progressive President has not
so far turned out to be a change agent in the vital sphere of civil liberties
and restoring accountability… Continue reading
By Rory O’Connor, MediaChannel.org
Posted June 12, 2009.
Powerful prosecutor and public figure Patrick Fitzgerald has been waging
a chilling private jihad aimed at "killing" a book critical of him.
Okay, so he’s one of the "sexiest
men alive" — but what does Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney in
Chicago and Special Counsel in the CIA leak case, have against us poor, unsexy
journalists? It’s bad enough that Fitzie won’t answer my questions: ("Rory.
I just wanted to get back to you and let you know that I am going to decline
to be interviewed. Thank you. Pat") It’s worse that he was responsible
for the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent
85 days behind bars. Now comes word that Fitzgerald, who must have too much
time on his hands now that Scooter Libby has been freed and Rod Blagojevich
indicted, spent much of the last year and a half going after another journalist,
Peter Lance, in an attempt to kill a new edition of Lance’s investigative book
Triple Cross by threatening to sue both the author and his publisher
published in November 2006 by Regan Books, a division of Harper_Collins,
Triple Cross uncovers the story of how Al Qaeda master spy Ali Mohamed
infiltrated U.S. intelligence in the years leading up to 9/11 – "and how
the FBI’s elite bin Laden squad failed to stop him." Among the radicals
trained by Ali Mohamed –and photographed by the FBI in 1989… Continue reading
Submitted to 911blogger.com by Shumonik
On May 20, 2009, General Richard Myers was at the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California to give a talk and a book signing. Bruno Bruhwiler and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel of WeAreChangeLA were there to call into question the ‘General’s’ credibility when it came to talking about 9/11 and threats to the nation.
Watch the following 3 videos, created by Paul Wittenberger, to see what happened.
Part 1 of 3:
Part 2 of 3:
Part 3 of 3:
WeAreChangeLA questions CFR President and Bush/Obama man Richard Haas on “Wars of Agenda,” Building 7 and the CFR’s ‘big ideas’ CFR
Submitted to 911blogger.com by Shumonik on June 8, 2009
On May 18, 2009, Richard Haas… Continue reading
Cheney said in an interview on Fox News:
“On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9-11, there was never any evidence to prove that,” he told the Fox host. “There was “some reporting early on … but that was never borne out… [President] George [Bush] … did say and did testify that there was an ongoing relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but no proof that Iraq was involved in 9-11.”
How important is Cheney’s admission?
Well, 5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld said “my interest is to hit Saddam” .
And at 2:40 p.m. on September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top administration officials, several lines below the statement “judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same time”, is the statement “Hard to get a good case.” In other words, top officials knew that there wasn’t a good case that Hussein was behind 9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify war with Iraq anyway.
Moreover, “Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the [9/11] attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative… Continue reading
Waterboarding was ‘well done,’ Cheney says
BY JOHN BYRNE
Published: June 1, 2009
On Iraq and 9/11: ‘That’s not something I made up’
Former Vice President Dick Cheney is usually very careful at choosing his words.
Perhaps not so today. In a speech Monday at the National Press Club, continuing along familiar themes of terrorism, Guantánamo and his hatred for The New York Times, Cheney spoke defensively of the administration’s practice of water-boarding detainees.
“I don’t believe we tortured,” Cheney remarked, noting that the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration were vetted by White House lawyers. They didn’t cross a “red line,” he said.
And then he delivered the whopper: “There were three people who were water-boarded…. It was well-done.”
The former vice president also made an odd comment about detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay.
He framed their detention as a choice between two options: either we imprison them, or we kill them.
“We need Guantánamo… If we didn’t have it, we’d need to (invent) it,” Cheney remarked. “If you don’t have a place to hold these people, the only other option is to kill them.”
“We don’t operate that way,” he added.
Cheney’s comments were transcribed by The Swamp, the blog of the Chicago Tribune.
“If I had it to do all over again, I would do exactly the same thing,” he continued. “I don’t have much tolerance or patience for those who have the benefit of hindsight eight years later and have forgotten what happened on 9/11….…Continue reading
May 29, 2009
Statement On Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism
In Response to the Solicitor General’s Refusal to Support The 9/11 Families’
Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court
(In Re: Thomas E. Burnett, Sr., et al. v. Al Baraka Investment & Development
Corp., et al., Case No. 03-CV-9849 (RCC) In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September
11, 2001, MDL 1570)
WASHINGTON, May 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The following is a statement
of 9/11 Family Members: Mike Low, Father of Sara Elizabeth Low, AA Flight 11;
Bill Doyle, Father of Joseph M. Doyle, WTC North Tower; Tom & Beverly Burnett,
Sr., Parents of Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., UA Flight 93; and Terry Strada, Wife
of Thomas Strada, WTC North Tower on Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt
Terrorism in Response to the Solicitor General’s Refusal to Support The 9/11
Families’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court:
Today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed
the Administration’s decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against
the right of American citizens — 9/11 family members — to have our day in
court. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands
as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11,
We are deeply dismayed by this decision, filed by the solicitor general of
the United States in response to the Supreme Court’s February 23, 2009 invitation
for the government to express its views in the 9/11 families’ request to appeal
a portion of the case to the Court.…
Four Things You Need to Know About Barack Obama and U.S. Torture & Detention
May 27, 2009
by the writing team at World Can’t Wait.org
1. Barack Obama did NOT end torture.
Many people think that, upon taking office, Barack Obama ended torture. This is just not true. Under Obama, the U.S has continued to torture prisoners at Guantánamo, where more than 200 detainees are still being held without charge or trial.
According to a February 2009 report by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Guantánamo guards routinely subject detainees to vicious beatings, solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, suffocation, repeated use of tear gas, and the force-feeding of tubes through the nasal passages of hunger strikers. Much of this torture is committed by Guantánamo’s Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) teams, which CCR president Michael Ratner has described as the “black shirts of Guantánamo.”
Quoting from the CCR report: “Detainees are subjected to brutal physical assaults by the Immediate Reaction Force (IRF), a team of military guards comparable to a riot squad, who are trained to respond to alleged ‘disciplinary infractions’ with overwhelming force.” And later in the report: “In Camps 5, 6 and Echo, detainees live in constant fear of physical violence. Frequent attacks by IRF teams heighten this anxiety and reinforce that violence can be inflicted by the guards at any moment for any perceived infraction, or sometimes without provocation or explanation.”
In fact, conditions at Guantánamo have gotten even worse since Obama became president. “Certainly in my experience there have been many, many more reported incidents of abuse since the inauguration,” Ahmed Ghappour, a lawyer representing several Guantánamo detainees, told Reuters in February.1
And, contrary to popular belief and to his own statements, Obama’s executive orders do not ban torture either; they contain several loopholes that allow it to continue. For instance, the order states that interrogation techniques must conform to the Army Field Manual, but Annex M of that manual allows for prolonged solitary confinement and sleep deprivation.The order also established a task force that includes Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Attorney General Eric Holder that is charged with determining whether to implement techniques that go beyond the Army Field Manual. Finally, the order states that prisoners shall be treated humanely, “whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.”
This raises the obvious question: What about the many instances when the U.S. hands detainees over to other countries–or to prisons run by its puppet governments in Afghanistan and Iraq?
By the now, it’s maddeningly familiar. A scary terrorist plot is announced. Then it’s revealed that the suspects are a hapless bunch of ne’er-do-wells or run-of-the-mill thugs without the slightest connection to any terrorists at all, never mind to Al Qaeda. Finally, the last piece of the puzzle: the entire plot is revealed to have been cooked up by a scummy government agent-provocateur.
I’ve seen this movie before.
In this case, the alleged perps — Onta Williams, James Cromitie, David Williams, and Laguerre Payen — were losers, ex-cons, drug addicts. Al Qaeda they’re not. Without the assistance of the agent who entrapped them, they would never have dreamed of committing political violence, nor would they have had the slightest idea about where to acquire plastic explosives or a Stinger missile. That didn’t stop prosecutors from acting as if they’d captured Osama bin Laden himself. Noted the Los Angeles Times:
Prosecutors called it the latest in a string of homegrown terrorism plots hatched after Sept. 11.
“It’s hard to envision a more chilling plot,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Eric Snyder said in court Thursday. He described all four suspects as “eager to bring death to Jews.”
Actually, it’s hard to imagine a stupider, less competent, and less important plot. The four losers were ensnared by a creepy FBI agent who hung around the mosque in upstate New York until he found what he was looking for. Here’s the New York Times account:… Continue reading
By Thomas C. Fletcher
Review of new book by David Ray Griffin, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?
OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States under its new president is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the “hunt for bin Laden” is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the “AfPak” border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.
In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls “the long… Continue reading
May 20, 2009
INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION: Islamist dies in Tripoli shortly after human
rights group visit from Fred Bridgland in Libya
THE ISLAMIST terrorist who was the key source of the false intelligence used
to trigger the US and UK 2003 military invasion of Iraq has been found dead
in a Libyan prison cell.t
Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi allegedly committed suicide by hanging in the prison where
he was being held in the Libyan capital, Tripoli. His death followed a visit
by a team from Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s leading independent organisations
dedicated to defending and protecting human rights.
The al-Libi affair opens a window on an extraordinarily close espionage link
that existed between the government of the former US president, George Bush,
and the authoritarian Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi.
Al-Libi was the unnamed source that Bush, his former secretary of state, Colin
Powell, and other administration officials relied upon prior to the Iraq invasion
to assert that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was helping a terrorist organisation
run by al-Qaeda. Al-Libi was known to Powell and Bush by the codename “Curveball”.
Powell’s speech to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003
was largely based on al-Libi’s coerced testimony – which was extracted from
him in Egyptian torture chambers – even though many US intelligence officials
questioned it at the time and later dismissed it completely. In his address,
aimed at drumming up support for the invasion, Powell said he could “trace
the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training
in these chemical and biological weapons to al-Qaeda”.…