Imagine yourself within the mind of Barack Obama, the first African American president of the United States of America. You are a man who knows how “the system” works.
This knowledge has been accrued at hard struggle, and by a remarkable and unique ability to adapt to any environment because you spent a lifetime as an exotic specimen in every environment, from Kansas to Kenya–both African and American, Muslim and Christian, black and white. But you always displayed your native nobility–tribal nobility on your father’s side; nobility of spirit on your mother’s–and you were, with rare exceptions, accepted on your own terms. You were born under the sign of Leo, the lion, the natural leader; and your intelligence was honed with great discipline, under the influence of strong women.
Because your upbringing instilled in you a generosity of spirit that is natural to liberalism, and firsthand understanding from your grandfather of what motivates a man to risk his life for his country and an African father’s sense of freedom, unencumbered by Jim Crow oppression, you are a natural idealist who believes in the promise of America.
But you are also–with laser-focused intensity–a realist. A “pragmatist,” as they say. And no one knows better than you how much danger you are in.
It’s not just the racist crazies, one of whom could always, unexpectedly pop up through some weird quirk in the security system. But that’s only a… Continue reading
The idea of such an attack was well known [and] had been
wargamed as a possibility in exercises before September 11.
- Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, California
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, senior U.S. government and military officials repeatedly claimed that what happened that day was unexpected. In May 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said, “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.”  Two years later, President Bush stated, “Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.”  General Ralph Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on September 11, said, “Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised.” 
Yet these claims were untrue. Not only had the U.S. military and other government agencies discussed the possibility of such attacks, they also conducted numerous training exercises in the year or two before September 11 based around scenarios remarkably similar to what occurred on 9/11. As John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, said, “No one knew specifically that 20 people would hijack four airliners and use them for suicide attacks… Continue reading
by Michael Hasty Sunday
Although I was as happy as most Americans that Barack Obama took the oath of office last week, rather than his Republican alternative, there is a major reason that he did not get my vote in November, which went instead to Cynthia McKinney: Obama is unlikely to re-open an investigation into what really happened on September 11, 2001–an investigation that needs to happen.
According to polls, about four in ten Americans are suspicious that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks–either by deliberately ignoring intelligence that warned an attack was coming and allowing the terrorists to strike, to gain public support for the neoconservative foreign policy agenda of increasing American military power in the Middle East; or by actively coordinating the attacks themselves, for the same reason. As Time magazine, in a rare acknowledgement of the 9/11 truth movement, said: “This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.”
It’s easy to understand, however, why a majority of Americans have such a hard time getting their minds around the idea that their government may have some involvement in such a horrendous crime. Americans are conditioned from an early age to think of themselves as “the good guys,” living in a “democracy”–which, however imperfect, has always been primarily motivated by the desire to advance the core national principle of “freedom,” both at home and abroad. And the actions of the government are closely monitored by a diligent “free press.”
It’s a… Continue reading
October 6, 2008
by Tom Burghardt
Ten months before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved an updated version of the U.S. Army’s secret operational Continuity of Government (COG) plans.
A draft document published by the whistleblowing website Wikileaks entitled, “Army Regulation 500-3, Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources. Army Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program,” dated 19 January 2001, spells out changes in Army doctrine.
Issued by Headquarters, Department of the Army and signed off by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Secretary of the Army, the document is affixed with a warning: “Destruction Notice: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.” The restricted document as published by Wikileaks states:
History. This regulation is a revision of the original regulation that was effective on 10 July 1989. Since that time, no changes have been published to amend the original.
Summary. This regulation on the Army Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program has been revised to update Army COOP policy and extend the requirement for all-hazards COOP planning to all Army organizations. Classified information contained in the 1989 version of this AR has been removed and placed in a classified HQDA Operations Plan (OPLAN).
Applicability. This regulation applies to the Active Army, the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), and when federalized to the Army National Guard (ARNG). In the event of conflict between this regulation and approved OSD or JCS publications, the provisions of the latter will… Continue reading
via Electronic Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
WTC Technical Information Repository
Attention: Mr. Stephen Cauffman
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
September 15, 2008
Re: Public Comments on WTC 7 Draft Reports
Dear Mr. Cauffman,
I am writing on behalf of a group of scientists, scholars, engineers and building professionals who are dedicated to scientific research regarding the destruction of all three high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001. We have examined the draft reports recently released by NIST purporting to explain the demise of WTC Building 7 (collectively referred to herein as the “Report”). We have found many areas that need to be revised and re-examined by NIST personnel before they release a final report on this matter. We have provided our names and affiliations at the end of this document, in accordance with the guidelines for submittal of comments promulgated by NIST at (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/comments2008.html).
At the outset, we would like to call attention to the fact that we requested a reasonable extension of time for the public to submit comments. Given the rate at which we were finding incorrect or contradictory statements in the Report, we would likely have found many more areas NIST needs to re-examine before issuing a final report. As we pointed out in our original correspondence with you requesting the extension, the original three week deadline was completely unreasonable. First, it took NIST more than three years to compile this 1000+ page Report. Why, then,… Continue reading
by Kevin R. Ryan
In a famous book by Antoine de Saint Exupery, a little prince from another planet asks the narrator to draw a sheep. After several unsatisfactory attempts, the narrator simply draws a box and tells the little prince that the sheep is in the box. The little prince then exclaims — “That is exactly the way I wanted it!” 1
Just so, the Bush Administration asked its scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for an explanation as to what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. In response to this request, NIST drew up a series of fanciful stories over a period of years, each story differing from the previous one. Finally, after seven long years, NIST published its last story for WTC 7 by simply saying, in effect: “The explanation is in our computer.” 2
As expected, however, this explanation in a box leaves much to be desired for those of us who prefer to live in reality, instead of in a fictional world. On the other hand, we are learning something from NIST with this new report, and that is that when government scientists begin working for a political agenda above all else, there is no limit to the extent of deception that they will engage in. We also know that those who have produced the NIST WTC reports must now assume personal responsibility for the ongoing 9/11 Wars, and the millions of deaths that will result from those wars.…Continue reading
Debunking NIST’s conclusions about WTC 7 is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel
By George Washington
NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically (sic) collapse as follows:
WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
NIST can’t have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or – at the very least – we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall. See also this .
In real life, the thick structural beams and “stiff [and strong]” exterior frame used in the building… Continue reading
Today, Friday, May 16th, 2008, Richard Gage, AIA, will conduct a forum that
is open to the public, at MIT, in Room 54-100, starting at 7pm.
(Check www.ae911truth.org for any room change)
Following is Richard Gage’s invitation:
ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
May 12, 2008
Dear Honored Citizen(s):
You are invited to attend a forum at MIT concerning the Collapse of the 3 World
Trade Center high-rises on 9/11.
I am the founder of the organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
which is a fast-growing collaboration of more than 350 architectural and engineering
professionals. The last few years have witnessed the emergence of mounting scientific
evidence that the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were not adequately
explained by the official theories outlined in the 2002 FEMA and 2005 NIST reports.
The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth call for a new, fully funded unimpeachable
Congressional investigation with subpoena power.
We are dedicated to presenting the evidence that supports our call in this
What the Evidence Shows
Sounds of explosions coming from each of the WTC Twin Towers were heard well
before the collapses began. These were reported by over 118 first responders
in the FDNY recorded “oral histories” (the release of which was
resisted by the City of NY until forced by a New York Times FOIA filing).Numerous
accounts of “flashes of light” which commonly accompany the detonation
of demolition charges were also reported. Video footage… Continue reading
We deserve the full truth about 9/11
Tale of Building 7’s collapse suggests official complicity, persistent obstruction
Regarding “Drinking the 9/11 Kool-Aid” (Editorial, April 24):
After three government investigations and more than six years, we still don’t have answers on 9/11.
Why, for example, did Building 7 collapse? It wasn’t hit by a plane, as the towers were. The 9/11 Commission Report completely ignores Building 7. The Federal Emergency Management Agency report discounts fire as a cause and concludes that the reasons for the collapse of Building 7 are unknown and require further research. But when FEMA issued this report, it already cleared the site and disposed of the dust and steel (evidence from a crime scene), thus possibly committing a felony and complicating any “further research.”
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal agency, which evaluated the collapse of the towers, has yet to issue its report on Building 7. “We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building 7,” said the acting director of their Building and Fire Research Lab.
Yet a number of private-sector engineers, architects, and demolition experts have not had that problem. They think Building 7 came down by controlled demolition. The building collapsed suddenly, straight down, at nearly free-fall speed. People heard the explosions, and saw the squibs and the characteristic billowing clouds of pulverized concrete so unique to demolitions. There is no reason to think that Building 7 came down for any other reason than explosive demolition.
And speaking of pulverized concrete,… Continue reading
By Tad Walch
Published: May 3, 2008
Sixteen months ago, Brigham Young University and Steven Jones parted ways, but he said this week he isn’t bitter about the academic divorce.
He certainly hasn’t curtailed his volatile research on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
(Yes, three towers fell, not just two. If you didn’t know that, Jones is particularly interested in reaching you with his message that some other group, in addition to al-Qaida, likely contributed to the collapses.)
In fact, Jones is the lead author of a paper on the collapses published April 18 in a civil engineering journal. (Ed.: Full paper can be read here at www.Bentham-open.org.)
The journal article does not list his past tie to BYU, and that’s a big Mission Accomplished for university leaders, who felt they acted to protect BYU’s reputation when they worked out a retirement package with Jones and he left at the end of 2006.
But Jones is sharing a cramped BYU office with some professors. He also does research in a BYU lab as an outside user with a student who works with him.
Most importantly, he is preparing several more papers that, if they pass peer review and are published, will give him the peace of mind that his case reached the public.
Jones was energized in November when he and others received a response from the national lab charged by Congress… Continue reading
For decades the federal government has been developing a highly classified plan that would override the Constitution in the event of a terrorist attack. Is it also compiling a secret enemies list of citizens who could face detention under martial law?
By Christopher Ketcham
In the spring of 2007, a retired senior official in the U.S. Justice Department sat before Congress and told a story so odd and ominous, it could have sprung from the pages of a pulp political thriller. It was about a principled bureaucrat struggling to protect his country from a highly classified program with sinister implications. Rife with high drama, it included a car chase through the streets of Washington, D.C., and a tense meeting at the White House, where the president’s henchmen made the bureaucrat so nervous that he demanded a neutral witness be present.
The bureaucrat was James Comey, John Ashcroft’s second-in-command at the Department of Justice during Bush’s first term. Comey had been a loyal political foot soldier of the Republican Party for many years. Yet in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he described how he had grown increasingly uneasy reviewing the Bush administration’s various… Continue reading
Steven E. Jones
April 18, 2008
Letter published at 911blogger.com
Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.
And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )
The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)
Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an “open e-journal.” TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may download the paper and make copies to give to local professors and engineers (hint, hint). That’s one reason this particular journal was chosen — open access, free to download and make copies. What do Profs/Engineers say about it — let us know would you?
In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses.…Continue reading
By Cain Burdeau, Associated Press Writer
March 25, 2008
The professional organization for engineers who build the nation’s roads, dams
and bridges has been accused by fellow engineers of covering up catastrophic
design flaws while investigating national disasters.
After the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the levee failures caused
by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the federal government paid the American Society
of Civil Engineers to investigate what went wrong.
Critics now accuse the group of covering up engineering mistakes, downplaying
the need to alter building standards, and using the investigations to protect
engineers and government agencies from lawsuits.
Similar accusations arose after both disasters, but the most recent allegations
have pressured the organization to convene an independent panel to investigate.
“They want to make sure that they do things the right way and that they
learn lessons from the studies they do,” said Sherwood Boelhert, a retired
Republican congressman from New York who heads the panel. He led the House Science
Committee for six years.
The panel is expected to issue a report by the end of April and may recommend
that the society stop taking money from government agencies for disaster investigations.
The engineering group says it takes the allegations seriously, but it has declined
to comment until completion of the panel’s report and an internal ethics review.
In the World Trade Center case, critics contend the engineering society wrongly
concluded skyscrapers cannot withstand getting hit by airplanes. In the hurricane
investigation, it was accused of… Continue reading
by David Ray Griffin
“The Commission” by Philip Shenon has performed a great public service, letting the world know that there are good reasons to be suspicious of “The 9/11 Commission Report.” The main problem is the fact that the Commission was almost entirely under the control of Philip Zelikow, who was closely connected to the Bush White House. Although my book “Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11″ revealed some of the facts about Zelikow that showed him to be one of the worst possible choices for the Commission’s executive director, Shenon has revealed even more facts.
It was already known that Zelikow had been on the National Security Council (NSC) with Condoleezza Rice during the administration of the first President Bush; that he wrote a book with her while the Republicans were out of power; that he helped her make the transition from the Clinton to the Bush NSC; and that he wrote at her request the 2002 version of “National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (NSS 2002), which enunciated a new doctrine of preemptive war that was used, in Shenon’s words, to “justify a preemptive strike on Iraq.”
But now Shenon reveals more: that in applying to Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, for the position of executive director, Zelikow failed to reveal some of his conflicts of interest, especially his authorship of NSS 2002 and his role on the transition team; that he continued, contrary to his promise,… Continue reading
Thursday March 6, 2008
Steve Alten, author of “The Shell Game”, delivers 9/11 Truth to Jim
Bohanon’s CBS National Radio audience
9/11 Truth (& False Flag Terror) FINALLY on CBS NATIONAL Radio
– Jim Bohannan Show !!
by William Douglas
March 6, 2008
(See Bill’s suggested action item at end of this article, to get involved.)
STUNNING National CBS Radio Interview!
Bohannan is a right wing pro-military radio voice, who’s audience has probably
NEVER been exposed to 9/11 truth issues. “The Shell Game” author,
Steve Alten, came on after an Oil Executive’s interview, at about 39:50 in the
1.5 hour show. At about 54:56 it gets REALLY interesting when a caller calls
in to discuss 9/11 as a false flag attack. Which unleashes Alten into a deep
discussion of 9/11 truth issues.
All hell brakes loose in the next few minutes, as Alten enters the realms
of 9/11 truth, explaining to the stunned Bohanan and and his virgin (9/11 truth
issue) audience that there is a mass 9/11 truth movement in America that involves
engineers, police, private investigators, and many other experts challenging
the official 9/11 story.
Alten gives Bohannan some rope at the beginning, before he yanks it to give
Bohannan’s virgin audience some powerful new issues to chew on. Alten takes
on the BIG OIL guest (and big energy’s lies) that preceded him on the show,
as well as the rational for war in Iraq, BUT spends most of his time TAKING
ON THE 9/11 COVER UP, War… Continue reading
BRUSSELS, European Parliament, 26th February 2008.
Mark Dermul (www.911belgium) reporting.
On Tuesday 26th February, Europarliamentarian Guilietto Chiesa invited his colleagues and the press to attend the screening and debate of the Italian-produced documentary named ‘ZERO, an investigation into the events of 9/11′. Object of the screening was to create political awareness of the faulty official investigation into the events by the 9/11 Commission.
Besides Mr Chiesa, the panel consisted of Japanese parliamentarian Fujita, Dr David Ray Griffin, film distributor Tim Sparke & the director and producers of the film.
After his opening statements, Mr Chiesa welcomed his guest speakers. Then he pointed out that he was unable to find any distributor in his native country of Italy and was happy to find a company in the UK, led by Mr Tim Sparke, to handle worldwide distribution of this important film. ‘It is important to realize,’ he emphasized ‘that the movie was made thanks to contribution and donations of hundreds of citizens who feel a new investigation is more than warranted.’ No less than 450 people worked on this documentary on a voluntary basis. They never received any kind of payment. Their reward is the movie itself, which they feel is an instrument to create awareness and a means to provoke a political debate in Europe.
Since the movie projector didn’t work, Mr Chiesa invited the public to ask questions until the technical problems were solved and we could start watching the movie.
“Those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous
official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough and impartial
investigation be undertaken.” ~ Dr. Lynn Margulis (Distinguished
University of Massachusetts professor, National Medal of Science recipient,
National Academy of Science’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology
and Chemical Evolution, former chairperson.
“I think in simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a
joke… Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason
they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions.”
~ Ray McGovern 27-year CIA veteran in charge of President’s Daily Brief.
Founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
The 234th Anniversary of the Boston
Tea Party: 9/11 Truth Comes to the “Hub”
In 1858, Oliver Wendell Holmes coined the phrase, “The Hub of the Solar
System,” when referring to the Massachusetts State House in an Atlantic
Monthly article, “The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table,” in which he
boastfully implied that Boston at that time was the center of everything intellectual.
One hundred and forty nine years after Holmes penned the affectionate metaphor
and two hundred and thirty four years after the infamous Boston Tea Party, Bostonians
are again attempting to appeal to the “Hub’s” intellectual prowess,
this time with regard to the academic and scientific challenges taking place
around the world concerning the government’s official explanations of the September
11, 2001 attacks.
“Those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official
account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough and impartial investigation
be undertaken” -LYNN MARGULIS (Distinguished University of Massachusetts
professor, member of the National Academy of Sciences, National Medal of Science